While I agree there is a fair amount of indifference when it comes to consuming media. However stating it as zero effect is far from true. There are several examples of powerful journalism having profound effects on the general public. And repeated coverage has been demonstrated to be capable of changing opinions.

In the case of the refugee boat—but not so much the submarine—it occured because of a policy choice of the leaders of many news observers. These leaders have the power to prevents disasters like these. And media coverage has been shown in the past to be able to influence leaders in making some policy changes.

Refugees die in the Mediteranian in large numbers for more than 30 years [0]. With ample media coverage for decades and no policy changes.

So I stand with my previous argument of

"People don't change their life or opinion because of either of them."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_migrant_vessel_inciden...

But why do you think, nobody changed their opinion because of it?

On the one hand we have people who fear they will come and increasingly vote right wing and succesfully pressured sea rescue organisations in not operating in the mediterran sea anymore and on the other hand we have people donating lots of money to private sea rescue organisations that do operate there and also rescue refugees.

"But why do you think, nobody changed their opinion because of it?"

Not in the direction the poster thought they would/should change.

There have been policy changes, and it's now more difficult to get into Europe. It seems like these policies are also making the crossing more dangerous, leading to more deaths.

I would argue voters are aware of what's going on, and approve of the situation. In at least some of the countries directly involved (UK, France, Italy), the majority is calling for more restrictive immigration policies.

A lot of the media coverage around refugees is actually negative. This includes overblown threats of terrorism, strain on the social system, crime, effects on the job market, etc. (See one of my earlier post’s sibling as an example of what general population believes about refugees as a result of the biased media coverage https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36443172).

Note that most (almost all) of this negative media coverage has no basis in reality. The only connection between refugees and terrorism is the fact that many of them are fleeing real terrorist threats, there is no correlation between crime and refugees which cannot be explained better by poverty, increased immigration has been shown to have positive effects on the job market, etc.

Despite this, the media keeps churning out the negative coverage, and the policy choices by European leaders reflect that. The lack of media coverage of the human tragedy of the Andriana is therefor pretty consistent. In the media refugees are a burden, not humans lives which deserve empathy. The coverage reflects this, so does public opinion, and ultimately, so does policy.

This is overall a really sad situation in Europe.

Yes but the argument of the poster was that the media coverage would bring pressure and exactly the opposite changes

"These leaders have the power to prevents disasters like these"

I think you might be misunderstanding. The complaint is that the media isn’t covering this like they should, and my realization is that it is precisely this lack of coverage which our policy reflects.

Like if the media coverage was empathetic to the lives lost in this tragedy, and if it had been so in the past, the public opinion towards refugees and the policy made by our leaders would perhaps be different, and this whole disaster would have been avoided. But that’s not the world we live in. European border and refugee policy reflects the media’s attitude of billionaires dying in a submarine disaster is worth the coverage, but not potentially the top 50 worst maritime disaster in history.

How do you propose that those certain leaders would prevent any refugees from ever dying in the Mediterranean? By opening all borders and flying in anyone who’s interested in immigrating to Europe for free, no questions asked? Remember that if you even exclude convicted criminals and human traffickers and trafficees from eligibility, they would still attempt unsafe crossings so it needs to be indiscriminate.

Anyhow, I seriously don’t mean to build a straw man, I just cannot see some simple pushbutton policy fix for “nations that are a bad place to live will generate a flow of refugees to better places exceeding the capacity those nations will have to absorb them.” Good luck though, if you come up with a grand solution that provably works, which you can convince a democratic majority to support, I’ll be happy for you.

There are people who study immigration policy which are probably more qualified in creating such policy than your parent. And also one does not need to be such an expert to deduce there is something wrong with the current policy. However I’ll attempt a simple change which would at the very least strip human trafficers of their most numerous customer base.

Create a legal avenue for applying for asylum.

Yes, I believe this simple policy change would have prevented this disaster, and so many more tragedies. It could be as simple as having a request form present at the border crossing, where asylum seekers are than directed to a temporary facility.

I believe we are in this mess because refugees are literally forced to illegally cross into a potential host country before applying for asylum. This policy is nuts. And as we know thousands of people still do this. Seeking asylum is not illegal, but there are no legal ways to do it, which results in thousands of people attempting illegal border crossing and a blooming business for human smugglers.

I don’t even think you’re wrong, but I suspect though that the burden of having to show up first is a very imperfect solution to a very real problem. Namely: pretty much the whole population of some countries would very much like to apply for asylum in any Western country that would have them. I suspect most regular people in the bottom-third of countries (whether ranked by lack of wealth, by violence, or overall human rights abuses) would claim, rightly, that they are at risk of starvation or violence and as such, need asylum. So, you can hand out forms at the border all you want. The West doesn’t have enough decent “temporary facilities” to warehouse the whole population of Somalia, El Salvador, etc. And what’s worse is, we know they have a valid point! Most of these asylum-seekers would pass their court hearings in a just system. but so far, no democracy has yet proven willing to just open their borders, which would need to be the endgame of a system which would drastically increase the total number of asylum seekers.

My only point: It’s a complex problem with zero happy outcomes, and people shouldn’t act like a quick, cheap fix will solve it. It just moves the problem somewhere else. Actually solving it would take trillions of dollars that most taxpayers don’t want to spend.

I think you are wrong. The way we handle asylum seeking currently is the worst possible way short of wars and murders. We are actively deferring the problem to criminals. And not just any criminals, but the worst of the worst, human traffickers. This is like the war on drugs, but instead of drugs, the product is human beings.

Criminalizing border crossing does not stop border crossing, it only stops legal border crossing, and as we see, people attempt illegal border crossings all the time. This leads to a deadly industry of human trafficking which is causing more deaths in Europe than terrorism (excluding Russian state terrorism in a war zone).

As of now there is nothing stopping the whole country of Somalia, El Salvador, etc. from arriving legally at a border crossing in Europe, Mexico, etc. If border crossings were legalized this wouldn’t change. Sure more people might attempt to seek asylum, but the consequences of failing would be far less severe as currently. And I think any prediction that western systems would fall apart at the prospects are fear mongering. There are no evidence any of that would happen. And any arguments in favor of such failures are ultimately based on vibes.

> The West doesn’t have enough decent “temporary facilities” to warehouse the whole population of Somalia, El Salvador, etc.

> Actually solving it would take trillions of dollars that most taxpayers don’t want to spend.

So spend the trillions, build those facilities. But I doubt this is the issue. We certainly had the facilities when the covid pandemic stopped the tourism industry, yet we didn’t use them. And I don’t think this will cost trillions of dollars.

Europe actually has experience with open borders, and the experience is a resounding success. There are no negatives, and there are a bunch of positives. And no, the whole country of Romania does not migrate to Norway as a result. But I’m not even calling for open borders here (even though I want them open). The humanitarian disaster at the European borders calls for immediate action and we don’t have time for a complicated policy change.

If temporary facilities for asylum seekers are too expensive for your liking, than don’t offer them. Mandate that asylum seekers provide their own accommodation (effectively offload it to charities) during the asylum application process. If you do that than just expect the homeless population to skyrocket. Personally I would favor the state offering temporary facilities (added benefit is you create a bunch of new jobs for your now bigger labor pool).

It's hard to imagine anything more vain than thinking immigration politics don't affect societies or media consumers. Immigration politics are among the most important issues to voters in certain western countries for very good reasons. These issues are extremely economically impactful, massively violent, and extremely exploitative to all working class people across the globe.

"immigration politics don't affect societies"

If you think that, I'd disagree with you.

Why would you think he or she thinks that, if the full quote is this:

"It's hard to imagine anything more vain than thinking immigration politics don't affect societies "

Why would the poster think that I think that?

Because you wrote it?

I wrote the articles are vanity.

"Apples are vain."

The poster wrote thinking that immigration politics doesn't affect societies is vain.

"Oranges are vain."

"Because you wrote it?"

You (?) "Apples and Oranges are the same"

i'm not in mediterranian, nor in italy, nor greece, nor any other part of europe or north africa. this situation is a tragedy, but outside of online virtue signaling my opinion is meaningless since i have no connection to those going through it and no ability to impact the greek or italian governments.

The fates of poor migrants anywhere in the world are far more determined by the US and the northern EU countries than any of the southern EU countries.

I think people focus too much on media reporting in this thread. The resources allocated for this rescue operation vs for the refugee boat is much more poignant.