Does the media reflect or exacerbate public disquiet?

6 snips

Sep 4, 2025

Guest

Tim Stanley

Baroness Tina Stowell of Beeston

Join Tim Stanley, a historian and Daily Telegraph columnist, alongside Mona Siddiqui, a Professor of Religion and Society, and others as they unpack the media's role in shaping public discourse on immigration. Inaya Folarin Iman argues for more accurate reflection of public sentiment, while Matthew Taylor discusses the complexities of public engagement. Zoe Gardner highlights media influence on perceptions, and George Monbiot critiques the prioritization of sensationalism over critical issues. Baroness Stowell emphasizes the BBC's balance in coverage, revealing the intricate web between media narratives and public concern.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Media And Public Form A Feedback Loop

Zoe Gardner argues media and public concern form a circular feedback loop around immigration coverage.
Polls show immigration ranks high as a national issue but low as a personal impact for many people.

INSIGHT

Local Experience Shapes National Concern

Inaya Folarin Iman warns lived experience shapes why immigration matters to many communities.
Zoe concedes local impacts exist but questions whether national coverage is proportionate.

INSIGHT

Post-Brexit Overcorrection In Coverage

Zoe says post-Brexit the media overcorrected and amplified immigration stories.
She notes Nigel Farage receives outsized coverage compared with other parties.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

One story has been dominating the news for several weeks: immigration. Whether it’s debates about how to stop the small boats, protests outside asylum hotels, speeches pledging mass deportations or balaclavad ‘patriots’ painting red crosses on roundabouts, there’s been no shortage of reporting and impassioned opinions on the subject. It is no doubt an important issue for many people, but is it as big as our perception of it?

‘Media’ comes from the Latin word medius, meaning "middle". It is a form of communication which mediates between our perception of the world and reality. Print and broadcast media are governed by codes of practice which prohibit the distortion of truth through the publication of inaccurate or misleading information. But are there more subtle ways in which the media can influence public opinion, creating a feedback loop of ‘newsworthiness’?

Defenders of print journalism contend that it takes its news priorities and agenda from real public concern and real events of objective importance. Journalists and columnists may put a spin on them, but their concern is to report and dramatise, not to distort. Critics of the papers – particularly the right-wing press – believe they have their own political axes to grind, and they set the collective news agenda while having an interest in stirring public anger via commercial ‘clickbait’. Even the BBC has had its impartiality scrutinised by those who believe it has given undue prominence to Nigel Farage (who is currently experiencing a surge in the polls) in its political coverage for more than a decade. In that time, however, social media has completely changed how we consume the news. Mainstream media, for all its faults, has a process of accountability when its deemed to have made errors of editorial judgment. Whereas social media algorithms are designed to promote discontent above fact-checking.

On balance, does the media reflect or exacerbate public disquiet?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panellists: Inaya Folarin Iman, Tim Stanley, Mona Siddiqui and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses: Zoe Gardner, Paul Baldwin, George Monbiot and Baroness Tina Stowell MBE.

Producer: Dan Tierney.