18:00 - 19:30
There is a striking and well-documented gap between what people believe about migration, what people want from migration policy, what politicians think people want, and what the evidence shows. People consistently overestimate the number of migrants and associate migration with insecurity - yet polling also shows that most people are not against safe, orderly and regular migration. They want it managed well, not stopped. This is not simply a failure of individual understanding: it reflects disinformation, and how migration has been covered, framed, and debated in public life.
Portrayals of migration in the media - including in public service broadcasting - are often negative, narrow, and unrepresentative. Global research documents how coverage systematically overrepresents the most contested forms of migration - asylum, irregular arrivals, crime - while underreporting the work, study, and family migration that accounts for the vast majority of flows.
A large persuadable middle - often 40–60% of the public across multiple countries - does not hold firm views on migration and is open to evidence-based framing. This majority is largely absent from public debate, drowned out by the most polarised voices on both sides.
This dialogue will explore what journalists, public service broadcasters, researchers, and migrants themselves can do - drawing on evidence-based examples of what works and generating practical recommendations to bring these to scale.