A rather wild imagination: who is and who is not a migrant in the Czech media and society?

Migration, though a natural human phenomenon, often becomes emotionally charged and politically divisive, as seen in Europe after 2015. In the Czech Republic, migration rapidly became a salient topic and an effective political mobilization tool, with anti-immigration rhetoric entering mainstream politics. This paper investigates the relationship between Czech media representations of migration (2015–2018) and public perceptions. It asks: How intense was Czech media coverage of migration? In what contexts were migrants discussed? What frames prevailed? How do Czech citizens perceive migration and media coverage? Grounded in framing theory and cultivation analysis, the study examines media frames (problem definitions, causal interpretations, moral evaluations, and treatment recommendations) and their longer-term effects on public attitudes. By combining quantitative media content analysis with focus groups, the paper seeks to link media discourse dynamics with audience perceptions beyond the immediate peak of 2015.

The study builds on Czech and CEE scholarship on migration, including labor migration patterns, intermediary actors (e.g., recruitment agencies, visa traders), second-generation integration, remittances, and policy evaluations. Prior research in CEE highlights securitization and politicization of migration post-2015, and shows that media framing influences public attitudes and voting intentions for anti-immigrant parties. Comparative studies indicate European coverage in 2015 was dominated by domestic concerns, and Czech media often framed migrants/refugees as a burden. The paper situates its contribution within this literature by integrating media content analysis with focus groups to assess how media frames map onto citizens’ mental images of migrants and perceived media credibility.

Media content analysis: Quantitative, computer-assisted content analysis was conducted on Czech media from 2015 to 2018 using the Anopress database. Outlets included TV (ČT1/ČT24, TV Nova, Prima), print (MF DNES, Lidové noviny, Hospodářské noviny, Právo, Blesk), and online (idnes.cz, novinky.cz, lidovky.cz, aktualne.cz, ihned.cz, blesk.cz). Relevant items were identified via primary keywords around “migrant” and synonyms (with Czech declensions), and non-relevant texts (e.g., animal migration) were filtered using secondary/auxiliary keywords. Frames were derived through an abductive approach: initially humanitarian and securitization frames, then (after a 300-article pilot) EU policies, migration process, and integration frames were added. Concordance and co-occurrence of keywords with frame-related terms identified frame presence. Each article was a unit of analysis; each keyword was counted once per article to control for length. Analyses were broken down annually and then aggregated. Focus groups: Four semi-heterogeneous focus groups (6–8 participants each; held Feb 3 and 14, 2020) examined media diet, perceptions of migrants (moral, security, economic, cultural dimensions), and views of media coverage and political responses. Recruitment controlled for age (younger <25 vs. older 26+), residence (Brno vs. outside Brno), and education (secondary or higher). Sessions (~90 minutes) were moderated with a script and recorded. Analysis involved developing mind maps per group, identifying categories, and extracting illustrative quotes (coded B1–B4). As a qualitative study, findings are not statistically representative; descriptors like “majority” are indicative.

Media coverage intensity: Coverage peaked in September 2015 with 4,684 total appearances (2,894 online; 1,301 print; 489 TV). Patterns were similar across media types, with online producing the most items and TV the fewest. Frames over time: The migration process frame dominated and remained elevated; integration was the next most salient and near-constant from 2017 onward with periodic lows. Cultural framing (often tied to religion) peaked in Sept 2015, then declined with intermittent resurgences. EU policy discussions declined as relocation quotas receded as a political issue. Security/crime/terrorism framing was consistently negative and peaked later than other frames. Quantitative specifics: In Sept 2015, migration process coverage alone included 1,916 online articles, 823 print, and 368 TV items. Media tone and mixing of frames: Media frequently blended securitization with cultural and integration frames, stressing difference, crime, and failed integration, leading to a predominantly negative portrayal aligned with broader public debate. Focus groups—media consumption and credibility: Respondents preferred online news for convenience and speed; print was seen as more detailed but less used. Brand reputation signaled credibility; public TV was viewed more favorably than commercial channels. Participants recognized selective exposure, confirmation bias, sensationalism, and agenda-setting; many reported ad-hoc fact-checking. Older respondents reported information overload and confusion more often than younger ones. Focus groups—perceptions of migrants: By 2020, migration was no longer a top-priority news topic, but residual frames persisted. The “migrant” was imagined primarily as a person/family from the Middle East or young men from Africa, often seen as security, cultural, and economic threats. Common beliefs included poor integration, closed communities, dependence on social benefits, and potential for crime/radicalization. A minority expressed compassion (e.g., vulnerable families), yet typically favored only temporary asylum. Crucially, people coming to work and perceived as culturally/ethnically close (e.g., from Ukraine, Slovakia, Vietnam, Russia, Germany, Poland) were often not labeled “migrants.”

Findings align with literature that media frames shape public perceptions of migration. In the Czech case, media emphasized practicalities (how migrants arrive, integration prospects) and repeatedly applied securitization and cultural difference frames, contributing to negative sentiment. Focus groups revealed a socially constructed boundary: “migrant” status is often denied to those who work and contribute, regardless of nationality or legal status, while those perceived as culturally distant and non-integrating are labeled migrants. This categorization has implications for policy debates, resource competition narratives, and public support for restrictive measures. The persistence of negative frames, even as salience waned, suggests lasting cultivation effects and residual perceptions. Differences in media literacy and processing (younger vs. older respondents) further shape how frames are internalized.

The study demonstrates that Czech media coverage of migration (2015–2018) was intense and predominantly negative, frequently using securitization, cultural difference, and integration frames. Despite limited direct migration pressures domestically, the issue became central to political mobilization. Focus groups showed audiences were aware of media exaggeration and sensationalism, yet negative perceptions remained salient. A key contribution is identifying a notable social categorization: individuals who come to work and are seen as culturally proximate are excluded from the lay category of “migrants,” while those perceived as different and non-integrating are included. This insight helps explain public attitudes and policy preferences in the Czech context and underscores the power of media framing in shaping social categories and perceived threats.

- The focus group component is qualitative and not statistically representative; descriptors (e.g., “majority”) are indicative only. - Limited control variables in recruitment (age, residence, education controlled; gender, income, political preferences, prior attitudes/experiences not controlled). - Time gap between media content (2015–2018) and focus groups (Feb 2020), though intended to assess residual effects, may affect contemporaneous salience perceptions. - Media sampling, while broad, excluded newer influential outlets launched after 2015 and non-news formats (e.g., blogs), and relied on keyword-based frame identification which may miss nuance.