No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
Media reporting of small boat crossings appears to be reducing support for all forms of immigration – even for those groups who arrived in the UK through regular approved routes, new research suggests.
Migrants arriving by small boats make up just 2% of all immigration to the UK, but have become dominant in the coverage of migration issues over recent years.
However, a new working paper for the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE) at the University of Warwick, seen by Byline Times, finds that even small increases in the coverage of small boat crossings reduces overall support for immigration – helping to drive hardline anti-migrant policies affecting all migrant groups.
Highly-visible migration stories can drive major shifts in public opinion and policy through media amplification – with effects varying dramatically based on people’s media consumption preferences, the authors find.
The paper, led by University of Birmingham assistant professor Dr Apurav Bhatiya, uses the British Election Study’s mass polling of Brits alongside data on irregular (often dubbed illegal) small boat crossings across the Channel, to trace the impact of media coverage on Brits’ views on immigration.
Resignations, Cancelled Meetings and Culture Wars: How Reform UK Councils Are Descending Into Chaos
Nigel Farage’s band of newly-elected councillors are already starting to struggle, reports Josiah Mortimer
Until now, researchers have lacked evidence on how the visibility of “irregular entries” to Britain shapes the public’s response.
But the analysis finds that “unauthorized entry, even from genuine asylum seekers, can trigger sharper backlash than legal migration and may generate broader spillovers, including declining support for legal migration pathways.” And media reporting plays a major role in that.
The research focuses on small boat crossings in the English Channel—a “politically charged and visually prominent form of entry into the UK” often given front-page treatment by UK newspapers.
“Although these crossings account for a small share of overall immigration [around 2%], they receive disproportionate media and political attention. Daily arrival figures are regularly reported in major news outlets both online and offline, and even small fluctuations often feature in headlines, allowing for high-frequency public exposure,” the authors note.
The decline in support for immigrants following a rise in small boat crossings is largest against foreign students, followed by non-EU workers, family migrants, and EU workers. The decline in support for types of immigration is actually smallest for asylum seekers following a surge in small boat crossings.
Don’t miss a story
18-35 year-olds show the strongest negative response of all age groups to reporting about small boat crossings. It suggests the effects of negative coverage spread widely through Britain’s broader media ecosystem – particularly on social media.
Of all social classes, the strongest declines in immigration support in the days following high numbers of small boat crossings are seen among economically vulnerable groups, especially those who are not in work or who are on low incomes.
The decline in immigration support is most pronounced among readers of right-leaning newspapers. But consumers of left-leaning outlets show a mild increase in support in the days after small boat surges.
Left-leaning news sources are more likely to focus on the human and individual stories behind the crossings, whereas right-leaning ones focus on alleged security risks, or frame the migration as some kind of invasion.
BBC Bosses Draw Up Plans to Win Over Reform Voters by Changing News and Drama Output
The Director General Tim Davie and other executives discussed altering BBC “story selection” in order to secure the “trust” of supporters of Nigel Farage’s party
The University of Warwick paper notes previous studies showing that public perceptions of immigration levels are often exaggerated and “only weakly correlated” with actual migration statistics. “These misperceptions are shaped more by media framing, political discourse, and symbolic cues than by local migration levels or hard facts,” they write.
“Media coverage influences public attitudes not only by shaping what issues people think about, but also how they think about them, through framing, selective emphasis, and narrative cues,” the authors add.
In other words, the language used in the media reports, the imagery chosen, the fact that it is treated as a ‘front page issue’, all have a role in shaping the public’s perceptions – and fears.
“Although they account for a small fraction of total migration—fewer than 37,000 individuals were detected in 2024, compared to over three million legal entrants—their visibility and symbolic weight give them disproportionate influence over public perception.”
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Small boat crossings are often framed as a loss of control over borders, triggering policy responses from Governments that do not necessarily match the scale of the problem.
“Media plays a central role in shaping how these events are interpreted…We treat media not as passive filters but as active amplifiers that link discrete incidents to wider debates about immigration and control.”
Looking at data from 2018-2024, the paper finds that “highly visible irregular migration events” may have contributed to a more restrictive immigration climate affecting not just so-called illegal migration but other routes.
Keir Starmer’s Government has, like its Conservative predecessors, responded to the public backlash against groups like foreign students and family migrants, with policies that restrict these flows.
In April 2024, the minimum income threshold for sponsoring a partner on a family visa was raised from £18,600 to £29,000, significantly reducing people’s eligibility.
And since January 2024, most international students have also been restricted from bringing family members to the UK, unless they are enrolled in postgraduate research or funded programs.
The data suggests that right-leaning outlets amplify negative responses to migrants, while left-leaning media can “buffer” them – but only among those not already concerned about immigration.
It highlights the risk of “ideological polarisation”, where different groups interpret the same events through “incompatible” lenses — and end up seeing different things.
“When public debates are shaped by divergent framings rather than shared facts, consensus becomes harder to reach” the research notes.
The research has been released as a CAGE working paper and is currently being submitted to academic journals.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
