Jane Martinson’s call for the UK media to adopt a new approach to reporting debates over asylum and immigration is welcome (A desperate, opportunist press and vicious politicians: no wonder the debate on refugees is so awful, 30 August). As a longtime advocate of such changes, and a former BBC newsreader, I can point to one very significant lacuna: the massive hole where counter‑arguments should be coming from ministers.
If Keir Starmer and his colleagues a) spoke about the importance of immigration to Britain’s economic and social wellbeing; b) pointed out that we actually receive and resettle fewer asylum seekers than peer countries such as Germany and France; c) praised the efforts of communities that welcome and integrate newcomers; and d) highlighted some of the success stories of immigrants or asylum seekers, media outlets such as the BBC would be obliged to cover it.
Instead, they uphold a long and ignoble tradition of keeping stumm on the assumption that, if unaddressed, the issue will lose salience. This has the disadvantage of allowing toxic and fact-averse notions of “Britishness” to remain unchallenged, ready to be activated as sleeper frames by troublemakers such as Nigel Farage and his acolytes, who now have the story effectively to themselves. Moreover, it’s obvious that this quietism no longer works.
Jake Lynch
Associate professor, University of Sydney
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
