Media Significantly Influences Public Opinion on Issues of Immigration, Says New Book Coauthored by University of New Haven Professor

The book, "Framing Immigrants," is by Chris Haynes, assistant professor and coordinator of political science at the University of New Haven, and Jennifer Merolla, and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan, of the School of Public Policy at the University of California at Riverside, where Haynes earned his Ph.D. in political science. 

The authors conducted a comprehensive content analysis of five major media outlets to examine the various ways in which the media "frames" or influences opinion on immigrants. 

Their research uncovered a stark divide in the media coverage of undocumented immigration. On one end, they found that liberal and mainstream outlets tended to frame immigrants lacking legal status as "undocumented" and approached the topic of legalization through human-interest stories, often mentioning children. 

Conservative outlets, on the other hand, were more likely to discuss legalization of "illegal aliens" using impersonal statistics and invoking the rule of law. 

"Public opinion on this topic is malleable," Haynes said. "Our work shows that the public knows little about what the policies and laws are and that media reports had a significant effect on voter opinion." 

The authors analyzed media coverage of several key immigration policy issues, including mass deportations, comprehensive immigration reform and measures focused on immigrant children, such as the DREAM Act. 

In terms of the impact of those media frames, the authors found that what mattered in terms of the public's support for immigration policies like legalization was not how these immigrants were referred to (i.e. undocumented, illegal), but how the policies were framed or described and what words were used, for example, "amnesty" versus "path to citizenship." 

"For instance, support for the deportation and legalization were virtually identical regardless of whether immigrants were referred to as 'illegal' or 'undocumented,' Haynes said. "That said, support for legalization was significantly higher from those survey participants asked about their support for a 'pathway to citizenship' compared to 'amnesty,'" Haynes said. 

Moreover, the inclusion of particular frames or words mattered as well. "Participants exposed to language portraying immigrants as law-breakers tended to oppose legalization measures," he said. "At the same time, support for legalization was higher when participants were exposed to language referring to immigrants as having lived in the United States for a decade or more."