Construing oppositions,demarcating a we-ness: The dramaturgy of a live TV debate on the refugee crisis

Abstract

This study concerns the dramaturgy of a 2-hour-long live televised debate by the Finnish public service broadcasting company YLE regarding how the country was to answer to increased numbers of asylum seekers in 2015. It provides insight into generic features of live TV discussions for articulating the refugee crisis as a national political concern. It unfolds a media construction ‘in the making’ identifying: (1) the positions that participants are given and taken in the TV discussion context and (2) the dramaturgical execution that served to create oppositions and tensions. The study points out how dramatic compositions of scenes utilized participants’ assumed speakers’ positions and so created action and tensions. Despite efforts of a bold and fresh grasp, the programme channelled a classic polarization construct between ‘us’ (Finnish people) and ‘them’ (refugees) in its mere point of departure. The analysis shows the wrong and undeserving ways in which the otherhood of the immigrants is performed in a Finnish context. During the live broadcast, refugees were put to the test to demonstrate their compliance with right sorts of otherhood; they were asked to eat Finnish food and show their skills in the Finnish language. The analysis shows how journalistic and editorial decisions surrounding the dramaturgy of a live TV show actively contribute to the reproduction of certain political setups and elements of blame and shame. It points out a great need for awareness and sensitivity of the imaginary material that orders and underpins journalistic narratives regarding the European refugee situation.

Keywords

Dramaturgy Finland media European refugee crisis TV debate TV discussion YLE

Introduction

Some of the most salient media headlines in 2015 and 2016 concerned the increased number of refugees fleeing under dangerous circumstances with hopes of gaining asylum in Europe. The situation, which from early on was dubbed ‘the refugee crisis’, was framed slightly differently in different countries. However, two intertwined questions have come to dominate throughout: the first pertains to the number of residence permits to be granted, and the second concerns the integration of the arrivals in their new country of residence. In both, the core question concerns the extent of responsibility to be taken by the receiving country (Berry et al., 2016).

European citizens’ perceptions of their responsibility towards refugees rely a great deal on information from the media: most have no first-hand experience of the crisis and live far from geographical crossing-points (Bruno, 2016; Loren and Straub, 2016; Szczepanik, 2016). This is certainly the case in Finland, a country known for granting only a trifling number of annual migrants’ residence permits compared to other European welfare states (see BBC.com, 2015; Eurostat, 2016; Kankkonen, 2016; Vasantola, 2016). In 2015, the number of asylum seekers increased in Finland tenfold to a record high of 32,476 (Migri.fi, 2016; Ministry of the Interior, 2016), a development that raised a great deal of public attention.

This study concerns a 2-hour-long live televised discussion by the Finnish public service broadcasting company YLE in October 2015 regarding how the country was to tackle the increased numbers of refugees and integrate them into Finnish society. The studio discussion, called the A2 Refugee Night (A2-Pakolaisilta), was marketed on the YLE website: ‘What worries the refugees in Finland? What worries the Finns? Two hours of hard-hitting talk about the integration of refugees in Finland’ (Yle Areena, 2017). According to the website, its objective was to make TV- and online-streaming audiences part of, aware of and enlightened about the main dilemmas surrounding the integration of the new arrivals. The core question of the debate came to concern an ambivalence in the ‘we’ construct (of the existing inhabitants’ aims of protecting their existing life standards and security), on the one hand, and aspirations of solidarity, hospitality and ‘common-sense humanity’, on the other (cf. King and Wood, 2013).

The study’s objective is to interpret a media construction of the refugee crisis ‘in the making’. The A2 discussion involved certain institutionalized dramaturgical techniques for providing space for different parties and outlooks on the topic dealt with. Generic and journalistic praxis become intertwined with the ideological work of construing the arrival and reception of refugees as a national concern (Alsultany, 2012). The analysis points out ways in which dramaturgical techniques of journalistic storytelling in the live studio discussion genre underpin the construction of both ‘we’ and ‘other’ in this context.

Refugees in the media

Research on how the media portrays refugees and migrants suggests long-standing binary images of victims or threats (Banks, 2012; Hightower, 2015; Horsti, 2009a, 2013; Innes, 2010; Van Gorp, 2005). Both types of constructs contain certain line-ups of interests between an ‘us’ of the citizens of the receiving country and a ‘them’ of the new arrivals. Some studies have pointed out straightforward othering techniques in the media coverage of refugees playing into fear of cultural, religious and ethnic difference, or, for example, fear of immigrants’ health problems (Horsti, 2013; Kaye, 2013; Reitmanova et al., 2015). In recent years, the European Romas have received increased media attention and have been subjected to classic techniques of othering, framed as an internal and joint European concern (Kroon et al., 2016; Leudar and Nekvapil, 2000).

The ways in which different perspectives embed different levels of sympathy for asylum seekers have been demonstrated in a study by Cooper et al. (2017). Examining Australian regional newspapers, they found that a positive tone was mostly employed in engaging future-oriented local news which focused on integration through work and training through refugees’ personal stories. In contrast, the reporting that concerned overall national perspectives tended to reflect a broader negative national discourse (Cooper et al., 2017). A national outlook on migration seems more likely to channel us–them oppositions and migration critique. This may be traced to the well-known unifying function of cultural intimacy within nation-state constructs that has been shown to inherently carry practices of defensive nostalgia and certain stereotypes of a ‘them’ (Herzfeld, 2014). News coverage can also employ practices of cultural proximity to present the asylum seekers as suitable and ‘good’ victims (Szczepanik, 2016), unmarking their difference through de-ethnicizing and de-muslimizing techniques (Horsti, 2013). Culture-specific media storytelling characteristics as well as geographical and practical distance can influence the tone: Zhang and Hellmueller (2017) showed that the American news covering the European refugee crisis tended to involve more humanitarian views than their German counterparts.

There are not that many media analyses of the European refugee situation, but the literature is growing. A feature that has received attention is the fast spreading situational images of the tragic destinies of lone children that have become overall symbols of the refugees’ desperation and suffering (Mortensen, 2016; Szczepanik, 2016). The United Nations (UN) has produced a content analysis of press materials showing major differences between the reporting in different countries (Berry et al., 2016). Themes of threat (to the welfare system or cultural ones) were the most prevalent in Italy, Spain and Britain. The Swedish press was the most positive towards refugees and migrants, while Britain’s right-wing media turned out to be uniquely aggressive in its campaigns against refugees and migrants. Tazzioli and De Genova (2016) studied the use of words and language describing the situation in public speech. They demonstrate that ‘the migrant crisis’, or ‘the refugee crisis’, or the ‘crisis of the borders of Europe’ is construed as strictly ‘external’ to the presumed safety and stability of ‘Europe’, erupting always ‘elsewhere’ (Tazzioli and De Genova, 2016). The reporting has also shown to actively demarcate the ‘deserving’ refugee from the ‘undeserving’, separating the ones who have earned help and sympathy and those who are not to the same degree entitled to it (Holmes and Castañeda, 2016; Szczepanik, 2016).

Televised discussions offer a large-scale and institutionally managed forum for public debate (Livingstone and Lunt, 1994). The underpinning meaning-making in the live TV show such as the A2 will inevitably draw on an overall mythology of what the refugee situation is all about from an entrance country’s perspective (cf. Cole, 2016; Hightower, 2015).

The A2 discussion programme’s first screening had an audience of 467,000 TV and online viewers, which is around 10 percent of the total adult population. The show has since been watched online over 30,000 times (Yle Areena, 2017). In the Act on Yleisradio OY (22.12.1993/1380) (Discussion on the ratings of A2 Refugee Night TV debate with T. Arffman [22 April 2016, personal communication]), YLE’s core duties are laid out as to serve all citizens and advance democracy. Its ethical standards are based upon the national journalistic guidelines, self-regulated by the Council for Mass Media (Rasila, 2015a, 2015b). YLE’s aims of multiculturality can be seen as actualizing an inherent ambivalence within its mandate: while the company seeks to embrace a broad audience, it also seeks to avoid annoying this audience (Horsti, 2009b).

Dramaturgy

Televised live studio discussions are an important, institutionalized part of Western public discussion cultures aimed to engage audiences in current events. In live TV studio discussions where many social institutions are represented as the subject of the discussion, the structure of the programme and the positions taken and given by the participants are formed by generic pre-expectations, through editorial planning, and also in the live-aired situation through ad hoc choices pertaining to journalistic tasks and craftsmanship.

The A2 show is a so-called multiparty television discussion, which focuses on a topical political question with the aim of presenting various views on and tensions surrounding a subject (Rautajoki, 2014; cf. television audience discussions, Livingstone and Lunt, 1994). In this genre, the extent to which the execution of the programme, and particularly how creators and studio hosts steer the representation of perspectives and guests, tends to colour the main messages mediated during the show (Rautajoki, 2014).

Within the A2 format, connotations surrounding the refugee crisis as a political matter heavily rely on editorial work and live-aired journalistic craftsmanship in the making. The notion of dramaturgy provides a useful logical foundation for discerning the generic room for manoeuvre for mediatized politics within live TV shows. The meaning of ‘dramaturgy’ is based on the Greek words ‘drame’ (action and doing) and ‘urgy’ (process or working) (Cardullo, 2000), signifying the study of dramatic composition and the representation of the main elements of drama on a stage. A common element in all dramaturgies is the use of theatrical metaphors to understand human behaviour (Krause and Goering, 1995). The most essential elements of dramaturgy are the action and tension created from the conflicts of agendas between different actors. These tensions are highlighted in order to engage the audience (Barba, 1985; Kantola, 1998; Ödeen, 1998). The notion of dramaturgy encompasses both the performative dimensions of the TV discussion genre and the significations it brings about.

The main task in a dramaturgical analysis is to draw out the ways in which scenes are scripted and staged as well as how the multifold players subsequently act within and upon those scripts and stagings (Hajer, 2005). This type of analysis thus involves the contextualization of the world of a play, establishing connections among the text, actors and audience (Cardullo, 2000; Chemers, 2010). According to Kantola (1998), dramaturgical analysis emphasizes the question of how the narrative/story wakes the interest and feelings of the audience.

Research has shown that TV talk show hosts’ intervention in guests’ personal narratives concerns not only the dramatization of the story, but that the participants’ stories also become evaluated and problematized through hosts’ interventions (Thornborrow, 2001). The hosts’ power and control can be directly visually conveyed by their mobility: ‘they are the only persons other than the technical crew who are entitled to rise and walk in the studio, selecting speakers, proffering the microphone to members of the studio audience, withdrawing it at their discretion’ (Haarman, 2001: 32). Control is also exerted through linguistic patterns by the hosts who frame the talk, selecting topics, allocating turns, soliciting and guiding intervention through, for example, questions, interruption and formulations (Haarman, 2001). Wood (2001) has analysed the construction of the interaction in the British audience discussion programme Kilroy, showing how it sets up a conflict of expert versus lay discourses. Such clashes of views and interests can be further strengthened through the theme that is being discussed, which for example in the case of the Kilroy programme was an ‘us and them’ confrontation between citizens and the police force (Wood, 2001).

Material and proceeding

The A2 shows are built around volatile value-based discussions regarding perceived rights and wrongs by different constituencies, often involving identity-political themes. In 1996 and 2010, the format featured a ‘Gay Night’ on the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry and form families. According to the YLE live archive, the 2010 Gay Night raised a massive debate in social media, and 20,000 people left the Lutheran or the Orthodox Church within a week’s time, in the immediate aftermath of the programme (Kemppi, 2013). Critics find the stark confrontational style of the A2 nights as an end and an entertainment agenda in itself (Lehmusvesi, 2015).

On the programme, the studio guests sit in mixed groups on opposite sides of an open space. The seventeen invited studio guests of the A2 Refugee Night were to discuss the increased numbers of refugees in Finland in 2015. The programme was broadcast live on channel YLE Two on 6 October 2015. Journalists Kati Leskinen and Wali Hashi served as studio hosts, the latter having a migrant background.

In the analysis, the programme was mapped in terms of the main setup of scenes and clips (cf. Krause and Goering, 1995). The show consisted of two halves, with a news broadcast in between. The two halves can be viewed as two separate acts of the programme. Scenes and the grounds of transitions/shifts are displayed in Table 1. A shift between scenes was interpreted from the material when the hosts clearly changed the subject of the discussion. For example, after interviewing the project worker and a family from Myanmar now living in Punkalaidun in sequence 7, the host Kati Leskinen leads the discussion from the interview to the whole discussion group starting the sequence 8 which we named as ‘Solutions’: ‘Excellent, now we can continue this discussion together and think about the solutions after hearing about the Punkalaidun model, thank you for being here, you can go to sit on your own seats now’. Then, the second host Wali Hashi continues, ‘We continue from this topic. Anyway, quite many people have arrived here lately. I must ask next that should we close the borders? Would that be a solution?’

Table 1.

The 19 scenes of the Refugee Night TV debate.

I. ACT, sequences 1–9	Content
1. Fear experienced by refugees	Some refugees talk about their fears; inserts of photographs and accompanying music.
2. You came here from Somalia	Wali Hashi interviews Abdirashiid, who has arrived to Finland as a refugee from Somalia.
3. Fear: refugees versus ‘majority Finns’	Studio discussion.
4. What asylum seekers make of the discussion	Ville Vaarne interviews asylum seekers in the Ylöjärvi emergency shelter.
5. Price tag	Studio discussion.
6. How to make the filth stop	Wali Hashi reads hate mail printed on the screen & studio discussion about hate speech.
7. The Punkalaidun model & a survival story	Kati Leskinen interviews Maarit Tiittanen and a family from Myanmar now living in Punkalaidun.
8. Solutions	Studio discussion.
9. Porridge	Syrian refugee family on stage with an interpreter; porridge being served by studio host Wali Hashi.
II. ACT, sequences 10–19	Content
10. Different concepts of time	Studio discussion.
11. Welcome to Tampere	Video: first days of a Syrian refugee family in Tampere.
12. Interview of the Chawa family	Kati Leskinen interviews a Syrian family.
13. Acculturation & integration	Studio discussion.
14. Support for integration in Finland	Kati Leskinen interviews Ansku and the Himanens in the audience.
15. Refugees and employment	Wali Hashi interviews Abdin Osman and Merja Mikkonen.
16. Work, social security system & gratitude	Studio discussion.
17. What use are you to Finland?	Ville Vaarne interviews asylum seekers in the Ylöjärvi emergency shelter.
18. Conclusion & ‘We must stick together’	Studio discussion.
19. I’m a Finn	Singing together.

Other shifts were comprised of pre-recorded inserts, or the camera shifting from the studio setup to another interview site with scripted performances (e.g. sequences 6. and 9.), or video clips (sequences 1. and 11.). The mapping of programme structure gave a total of 19 sequences, all displayed in Table 1.

The analysis continued with a deeper reading (visual and written material) of each scene of the Refugee Night, with the overall aim to arrive at an appreciation of the ‘refugee crisis’ as painted by the programme’s execution. The show was transcribed verbatim in order for researchers to be able to analyze the programme in the recreation of the written reconstructed script. The analyses proceeded through several alternating readings of both the audio-visual and written material. Two researchers analyzed the show independently, looking for meaning-producing characteristics in the programme’s dramaturgical execution. Through a subsequent negotiation, two main bundles of techniques were established: (1) participant categories and representative narratives that the programme constructed when representing the situation of increased asylum seekers, and (2) dramaturgy of the programme execution utilizing these roles and narratives for constructing oppositions.

The above-mentioned dimensions were studied more closely by discerning the positions and narratives that the participants were given within the TV discussion context and in view of the discussion subject. The basic division of speaker positions can be presumed to have been to some extent calculated by programme makers in advance to fit the aims and scope of the programme. Each position is secured through the role that they are to represent in the political question referred to as the ‘refugee situation’ (the term used within the programme). The participants represent backgrounds, interests and narratives such as (for instance) those of a refugee, a politician critical of immigration, a civil servant working for the Ministry of the Interior, and so on. The participants therefore constitute imaginary model representatives of these societal roles in this particular political question. The positions serve as discursive resources for the dramaturgical execution of the programme (Taylor, 2006). They can be emphasized or ignored, enhanced or downplayed through participants’ and journalists’ choices throughout the show.

All speakers were ordered into a table according to presumed pre-given roles and representation narratives as construed during the TV show. These are displayed in Appendix 1.

The second key dramaturgical dimension appreciated from the material concerns the ways in which the programme construed oppositions between the participating subjects and their interests. Dramaturgy concerns both the aesthetic architecture of a piece –including its structure, goals and conventions, as well as the practical philosophy of the practice employed to create a complete performance (Chemers, 2010). The TV show script guarantees a certain anticipated constellation of elements of the live programme (Nuolijärvi and Tiittula, 2000), but the hosts control the order of exchange of opinions between the discussion participants. The hosts can anticipate certain types of answers but can never know in advance the ultimate contribution of the studio guests (Rautajoki, 2012). In the second analytical task, we proceeded by discerning the meaning-making of the many dramaturgical elements (selection of speakers to be allowed to put forward their viewpoints, ad hoc thematic perspectives, inserts, etc.), all of which would underline some conflicting interests between the participant categories (cf. Kantola, 1998).

Results

A total of 67 persons spoke within inserts and discussions during the programme, and 44 of these participated in the studio discussion (see Appendix 1). Several participants presented a similar position or political viewpoint on the subjects. Based on how these emerged from the material, they were grouped into six main speaker positions: the negative position, the challenging of the negative position, critical of the system, the ‘neutral’ expert, the experiential expert and the solidarity position. The first three groups position themselves as highly critical of something. The fourth and fifth categories draw on experience, either institutionally or professionally acquired, or a personal narrative relating to the topic of the discussion. The last category is a group of participants who envision a change for a more welcoming Finland by means of solidarity and cooperation. Each position category can be seen as representing a certain bundle of views on a good society and how it is to be achieved by personal, collective, ideological and political action.

Five main dramaturgical techniques for creating tensions and oppositions between interests during the programme were identified: casting, distinctions between refugees as a ‘them’ and majority Finns as an ‘us’; differentiation between the good and the bad migrant; performative acts in programme inserts; and speech of the studio hosts. These techniques could overlap as they work on different levels throughout the programme. In the next, we unfold these positions and the opposition techniques in view of the overall dramaturgy.

Participant positions

The representatives of the negative position were united in their negative sentiments regarding people seeking asylum in Finland. This negative position was articulated by an entrepreneur and local independent social-democratic politician from the west of central Finland (No. 1 in Appendix 1), two Finns Party parliamentarians (3. and 40.) and an un-identified person in the studio audience (43.). These participants represent a narrative in which ‘majority Finns’ will face problems due to the increased migration.¹ They express a worry over the Finnish economy, relating to the perception of expenses caused by the refugees and for their integration in society. In this participant position, the asylum seekers are seen as an expense and a threat (Hightower, 2015; Innes, 2010; Van Gorp, 2005). This group used metaphors such as ‘floods of refugees’ (3.), a nature metaphor known from the literature on how masses of ‘others’ and ‘foreign people’ are bundled together, signifying the unknown (Horsti, 2005; Lehtonen and Löytty, 2003).

The group of participants who represent the challenging of the negative position was represented by a social researcher from the University of Helsinki (2.), a project coordinator who has originally arrived in Finland as a refugee (9.), a radio journalist of a refugee background (11.) and a politician of the right-wing National Coalition party (23.). These participants are united in their articulation of a concern about racism. ‘This [public] discussion has gone in the direction of disguising racism by fear and in such a way normalising it and I find this extremely oppressive’, says the radio journalist (11.). The social scientist expresses a need to deal with structural racism, also at the level of discourse: ‘I would be careful with repeating mantras [when speaking of refugees] of [refugees] being lazy and needing social welfare, so that they do not become self-fulfilling [epithets], especially when considering what the current societal discussion looks like’ (2.). The participants of this group draw on humanitarian arguments in particular and refer to international agreements that Finland should follow in order to honour human rights.

The group that represents a position critical of the system expresses a general critique against Finnish society and the system facing the migrants. Representatives of this group criticize the Finnish public sector for preventing integration through, for example, unnecessary bureaucracy and some cultural structures. The radio journalist (11.), a pastor and founding member of the Refugees Welcome movement (10.) and an entrepreneur originally from Iran (5.) all point out the difficulties and circumstances working against a meaningful integration of foreigners in Finnish society. All participants in these groups question the Finnish integration policy. For example, the entrepreneur with an Iranian background (5.) rather surprisingly asks the Head of Migration at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (16.) whether there has been any follow-up regarding the quality of the integration policy:

how successful has the integration or language learning been for a person who cannot even write in their own language? Who has never gone to school or is illiterate. How is it in such cases … sometimes I feel that there is some sort of self-deception going on [regarding the results of the integration].

The representatives of this group express the view that minor reductions of bureaucracy and more realistic integration initiatives would facilitate employment and better integration by the newly arrived.

The ‘neutral’ expert position was represented by participants who did not directly express any personal attitudes or views on asylum seekers or the asylum seeker situation as such during the debate. It could, however, be assumed that their viewpoint is rather affirmative as they work in areas aiding the integration of migrants and refugees. This position is taken by and given to the Head of Development of the Finnish Red Cross (6.), the Director of the Asylum Unit of the Finnish Migration Service (7.), the Social Service Coordinator of the City of Tampere (15.), the Head of Migration at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (16.), the Regional Division Officer of the Finnish Red Cross (14.) and the Manager of a family group home for refugees (41.). A typical role and contribution of this group is an experiential perspective from the viewpoint of an institution, a non-governmental organization (NGO) or some sort of public organization. For example, the studio hosts ask the Head of the Finnish Migration Service how many asylum seekers have arrived thus far, and how many are likely to be given a leave to stay in Finland. The level of neutrality of their utterances can at times be questioned: for example, what the migrant-critical politician (1.) describes as a fear in his hometown is assessed by the Head of Development for Migration Issues of the Finnish Red Cross as a direct outcome of how the city itself has fed the fear of the foreign.

The experiential expert participants construe their position through narratives of their own personal experience (cf. Thornborrow, 2001). The gathering theme is the experience of arriving in Finland as a refugee and, later on, finding employment. An entrepreneur (8.), a project leader (9.) and a radio journalist (11.) represent integration success stories. The experiential experts tell their own life stories, as in the case of the journalist who tells the story of his parents who learned the Finnish language through their jobs. The entrepreneur tells the audience how he arrived in Finland in the 1990s and how his industriousness helped him to find a job and how he has advanced in his career. The experiential experts give examples of the difficulties of integration in Finnish society.

The sixth category of participants represents a position of solidarity, highlighting the idea that Finns need to get used to people who differ from the majority. Through the right kind of joint action and cooperation, Finland can achieve a society where everybody enjoys freedom, security and well-being. This position involves a standpoint against racism and holds a positive outlook on asylum seekers. For example, a Greens politician (4.) and the pastor (10.) represent this position. States the pastor (10.),

I think we should talk about the kind of society we’re building. And you know, racism, I don’t have any motivation to point out that here’s a racist and here’s not, but you know, we all participate in sustaining or changing these structures, we can do it together.

These participants confirm and affirm utterances of the group that challenge the negative position.

The six groups presented above represent the construction of positions regarding the questions discussed during the TV studio discussion programme (cf. Krause and Goering, 1995). This constitutes programme makers and YLE’s, envisioned mini-representation of the political arena in the matter of how Finland is to tackle increased asylum seekers and their integration.

Creating oppositions

Casting

While editorial decisions cannot be read off a text, the choice of participants’ setup can, ontologically speaking, be assumed to be part of editorial planning with possible tensions and conflicts in mind. The heterogeneity of studio guests is an important generic characteristic: the whole point is to let political views clash during the discussion, creating entertainment and thought-provoking content. The participants’ expected viewpoints are based on different kinds of rationales (personal background, representative of authorities, etc.) that may sometimes produce a false sense of ‘balance’. Within such a journalistic design, the utterances of professionals, researchers or experiential experts are portrayed as of the same worth as those of lay people whose personal opinions are based on beliefs or feelings (e.g. Väliverronen, 2015a, 2015b).

In this TV studio format, the mix of knowledge and feelings can be steered by studio hosts’ orientation of the discussion, by their selections of questions and the choice of parties to provide answers. One-off cases may be portrayed as having the same validity as larger sets of knowledge and longer experience. Facts and opinions mix in ways that may cause a great deal of stress for the parties concerned (in this particular case, the refugees, whose situation is being discussed). Involving singular, descriptive cases can be seen as emphasizing subjectivity and personal storytelling, which have been shown to sometimes produce advantageous empathic views on the refugees’ situation (Cooper et al., 2017). The casting of the studio guests is no doubt a dramaturgic strategy for creating tensions and oppositions, which is realized through YLE’s editorial team’s decisions. Based on this material, the evidence of such decisions will inevitably be speculative to its character. Nevertheless, the mapping of participants’ positions gives a hint of the logic underpinning the planning.

Us and them

The opening scene of Act 1 (Table 1) addresses the fears of the asylum seekers. The scene features quiet guitar music, while asylum seekers introduce themselves to the camera, talking about their fears repeating the same sentiment: ‘If I’m not granted asylum in Finland, I have no future’. In the second scene, the camera moves to a dark studio. The studio host Wali Hashi is interviewing an asylum seeker from Somalia while the text heading ‘A2 Refugee Night’ is beamed across the studio in large-sized letters, and the stream is filled with photos of crying babies and mothers, all apparently people fleeing their home countries. The short interview raises the question of homesickness and the worst things about being a refugee. The studio lights are lit for the third scene, with the opening of the debate under the lead of the studio hosts: Wali Hashi: [T]oday we will talk about whether we’re still us and them, refugees versus ‘original Finns’ , or whether we could work together more [emphasis by authors].

The myth of ‘us’ and ‘them’ is here construed in a metalanguage, or a secondary speech in that Hashi speaks of the existence of an ‘us’ and a ‘them’, and while doing so, he reproduces them (see Barthes, 2000 [1972]). The utterance does not remove the opposition between the actual meaning-based categories of ‘refugees’ and ‘original Finns’, but repeats connotations of ‘being an original Finn’ posited against the concept of ‘refugees’. The ‘we’ of the majority population and TV viewers will not be acquainted with different kinds of refugee background circumstances to the same degree as the everyday meaning-making of ‘being’ of a Finn. The opening lines of the programme can thus be viewed as introducing the very main dramaturgical tension of the whole TV discussion narrative. The division is sustained throughout the discussion both by the studio hosts and the representatives of the various narratives. While the rhetoric of the ‘us’ creates a relationship of understanding with the potential TV audience at home (cf. Rautajoki, 2014; Wood, 2001), the distinction between us and them makes the refugees and asylum seekers appear as ‘others’. A good example is from scene 5, where the costs incurred by asylum seekers in Finland are discussed. Studio host Kati Leskinen asks the politicians among the studio guests how on earth ‘we’ are going to deal with such numbers of asylum seekers and what the price tag is. This is an articulation of a power position in view of ‘them’, who, on their part, produce dilemmas for the ‘us’ who are to properly govern the situation with ‘them’.

The good and the bad migrant

During the programme, some notions are repeated as to how proper and good refugees should and should not behave in order to be accepted by, and made agreeable in the eyes of the ‘us’ category. The representation of the good immigrant category involves, to begin with, being grateful for any help that they receive (cf. Szczepanik, 2016). In scene 13, a right-wing Member of Parliament (12.) explains that, according to the basic idea of acculturation and integration, someone who has fled for their lives and is given asylum should be so grateful that they will bear their own responsibility for their integration. This is because they will never want to end up in the same hopeless position again. The idea is thus that the worry over a retreat to the former life situation motivates the newcomer in internalizing the new homeland’s culture. The accepted refugee category consists of victims who have a ‘real need’ of protection (Horsti, 2009a).

Among the representatives of the negative narrative, representatives of the populist Finns Party (3. and 40.) keep repeating the view of grateful and ‘good’ immigrants. One of them (3.) notes that it is great to see among the studio crowd such ‘… good immigrants who have found a job and who employ Finns’, referring to an entrepreneur with Somali background (8.). Another representative of The Finns Party (40.) underscores that asylum seekers should be grateful and appreciate the amounts of (national) economic resources used to help the asylum seekers (by the helping ‘us’). The logic is that when the ‘real victims’ who need help have been granted residence in Finland, they are expected to show gratitude and it is their duty to be active and good citizens.

A questioning of this dichotomy appears as a deviant position in the setup of the programme. The social science researcher (2.) comments on the parliamentarian’s (40.) statement on gratitude by introducing the aspect of ethics. The researcher points out that legal protection is a human right and people should not be made to feel gratitude for that.

The discourse of the good immigrant is also actively reproduced in scene 7 during an interview with three refugees (24., 25., 26.) from a family from Myanmar, which channels a successful survival story as the family members have made themselves at home and found employment in Finland. In addition to becoming integrated in Finnish occupational life, speaking the Finnish language or just having a positive outlook on learning Finnish are construed as a characteristic of the good refugee. In scene 12, in an interview with a Syrian refugee family, studio host Leskinen asks what the family plans to do in order to learn Finnish and find employment. The father (31.) says that they intend to do everything they can and is commended for this by Leskinen. The studio host similarly praises the family because they are all able to say something in Finnish, which they have come to master through watching Finnish TV. The members of the family are presented as examples of immigrants who are positive towards the Finnish culture and Finland as a country and thus deserve their residence permission. In an insert in scene 17, YLE-journalist Ville Vaarne interviews asylum seekers at the Ylöjärvi emergency shelter, asking them of what use they see that they could be to Finland [‘mitä hyötyä’]. Almost all interviewees mention their schooling backgrounds and hopes of future employment.

In scene 5, studio host Hashi asks a Somali entrepreneur (8.) whether the Somalis in Finland create more costs than gains – a statement that has earlier been claimed by a Finn’s party politician (3.). The entrepreneur declares calmly that he is an employer and a taxpayer; he also says that there are plenty of working Somalis in Finland: ‘We’re a part of the Finnish people, we’re proud, we work and pay taxes’. In scene 16, co-host Leskinen makes a comment about one of the refugees in attendance (39.) that he had not received state benefits for any lengthier period, to which the refugee counters by saying that he has not received any benefits whatsoever and clarifies that he had to wait for a work permit for 3 months. Leskinen smiles and says, ‘Right, I was worried there that you had been working illegally. Good job’. She then turns to ask the people in the studio whether the Finnish social security system encourages laziness. Such talk about laziness, relying on social benefits and working illegally, construes an image of the contemptible migrant who is not only costly but also a threat to morale and security (cf. Horsti, 2009a). The host’s comment can be understood through a dramatization that is also highly evaluative and problematizing for the subject (cf. Thornborrow, 2001).

Acts of performance

The A2 Refugee Night show involved inserts with different types of performative acts outside the discussion and interview formats – all of which actively contributed to creating oppositions. For example, in scene 6, one of the studio hosts reads racist hate speech comments from the YLE News Facebook page. This sequence is followed by a discussion on the phenomenon of ‘hate speech’, the core question being ‘when can we see an end to it all’? (‘all’ signifying an ongoing public hate rhetoric).

A performative insert during the live TV show that came to be greatly criticized afterwards was situated at the end of the first act, when studio host Leskinen called in a Syrian family with a translator. The discussion with the family, who had just arrived in Finland, was interrupted by the entry of the second studio host who started serving the family porridge from a serving carriage. The serving of porridge was a reference to a news story that had spread the same autumn about asylum seekers at a reception centre in the city of Oulu who had expressed dissatisfaction with the food at the premises. The porridge scene can be seen as a humiliating and othering act of offering food to people in an untypical place (TV studio), and filming them while they eat, while in ‘real life’, the very same people are dependent on aid and support to survive. The studio host then turns to ask who else in the audience would like some porridge and points out, laughing, that the asylum seekers from Mänttä-Vilppula who had been interviewed previously did not raise their hands. Others in the audience were served porridge, and after a few minutes of discussion about the news story on refugees complaining about food, the programme was cut to make room for the evening news. The porridge eating scene strongly channels the criteria of the good migrant and bad migrant dichotomy – do you like our food or will you complain? Studio host Hashi asks the father of the Syrian family to send his regards to the reception centre where the inhabitants were dissatisfied with the food.

Towards the end of scene 18, co-host Wali Hashi says that the only way ‘we can do this’ (supposedly tackle the refugee situation in Finland) is by sticking together. He then invites the studio guests to join in a song. The participants and the audience come together in the centre of the studio and start singing (the originally Italian) tune of ‘I’m a Finn’ to the piano accompaniment of co-host Kati Leskinen. The performance kicks off by short video clips of asylum seekers singing the first verses in Finnish outdoors, summery sceneries, followed by the studio guests and the audience joining in.

What lies behind the performance is probably an idea that singing this particular song will gel the sentiments of the night, encapsulated by Hashi’s concluding remarks. In the context of the Refugee Night, this translates into working together: ‘this is how we will be able to make it’. Nevertheless, singing together yet again creates ambivalence: the song is about everybody being Finns, even if some of the participants are asylum seekers and not Finnish at all. The choice of song leaves the question of what it means to be Finnish pending, and yet invested in the cultural content of this particular song is the idea that being Finnish would be an added value in itself.

Speech by studio hosts

When the discussion deals with the theme of fear in scene 3, Hashi asks who in the audience feels that refugees will bring along enhanced criminality. The floor is given to an entrepreneur and local councillor from Kauhava (1.), who describes the fear of asylum seekers after which Hashi asks the researcher (2.) whether such fears are justified. The researcher comments that many people undoubtedly have real fears but also that many do not, and these two views have to be kept separate. After this reply, the floor is given to a True Finn party representative (3.), who expresses that the fear is justified, citing as evidence statistics according to which immigrants from certain countries commit more crime in comparison to ‘original Finns’ or immigrants from other countries. Yet again, Hashi asks the researcher whether this is true, and the researcher chooses to focus on certain factors underpinning the likelihood of committing crime, such as failure of integration. The praxis of giving experts the floor only after the agenda has been set could be seen as a way of inviting an expert judge who will enlighten how things really are. However, according to rules of interaction, the praxis has quite the opposite effect and the expert is put in a defensive position which debilitates their contribution (Simon-Vandenbergen, 2007).

The researcher, questioning the negative position, typically presents a counter-argument to the representatives of the negative narrative. This opposition is manifested and reproduced in the way that hosts alternate between the speakers. At the same time, the studio guests themselves also uphold the adversarial structure by reproducing the constellation. Some attempts are made by the above-mentioned researcher to break the polarization of good and bad. Others play more along the expectations of the setup: the project manager (9.) confronts the representatives of the negative narrative, targeting especially one of the Finns Party members (3.).

The studio hosts encourage further confrontation, especially between guests with different political partisan backgrounds. When this happens, the discussion appears as a reproduction of the party political field in the studio. For example, in scene 13, the National Coalition Party Member of Parliament (MP) (12.) argues that the whole question of Finnish integration policies will have to be totally rethought in the future. Studio host Leskinen intervenes and interrupts: ‘Hey, why don’t you tell us now what the government strategy is to integrate these people, when some of these asylum seekers will stay. Then the opposition will stand against this and let us have a better plan!’

Host Hashi continues to draw on partisan political divisions by turning to the Finns Party MP (3.), laughing: ‘Let’s bring the Finns Party into the combat!’ Hashi is about to follow this MP’s contribution with another comment by a representative of the negative position, but Leskinen firmly sticks to the party political setup: ‘No way, I want the opposition to air their opposition!’ This is when the Green Party MP and a representative of the solidarity narrative (4.) gets to have her say. The acts of the studio hosts thus make the main and governing political narrative the one where both the solidarity narrative and the stances sceptical of migration need to be justified. They are opinions that seem to be equally important to understand the subject of the TV discussion.

The ways in which the presenters call on speakers are also commented upon during the discussion. In scene 16, when the discussion turns to addressing questions of employment, social security system and gratitude, the researcher (2.) points out to the hosts: ‘You should perhaps call on the speakers in a more equal manner seen from a political perspective’.

Conclusion

The study of the dramaturgical realization of the A2 programme offers a rare opportunity to demonstrate the ways in which generic, editorial and journalistic praxis contribute to the media construction of the refugee situation ‘in the making’. The analysis identified and mapped two bundles of techniques that actively contributed to a political construction of a Finnish national viewpoint on the refugee situation. Through these techniques in the execution of the A2 show, the Finnish Public Broadcasting Company YLE came to actively (re)produce representations of certain standpoints of the parties concerned.

The first techniques concerned how certain speakers’ positions were given and taken, and how they created a mediatized mini-representation of the political stakeholders in ‘the refugee situation’. Furthermore, we analyzed how the programme execution utilized these and other roles for construing oppositions. Five partly overlapping ways in which this was achieved in the programme were identified.

The participant categories and the opposition dramaturgy translate into a main story that can be summarized in the following conclusions.

To begin with, the programme’s point of departure and basic raison d’être is the construction of a Finnish ‘us’. The assumed problem is the arrival of the ‘other’ and all the wrong ways that this ‘otherhood’ sometimes manifests (not working, being a financial burden on Finnish society, not liking porridge or not making the effort to learn Finnish). The people in the programme who represent this otherhood are even put to test with their compliance with the right sort of ‘otherhood’ and/or ‘samehood’ on live television. They are asked for example to say something in Finnish, to eat porridge and reveal the extent to which they have lived on public support. The result is a setup in which the weaker party is demanded to display signs of ‘real misery’ and great gratitude for help. The approval from the majority ‘us’ is at the outset formulated as conditional according to these codes of being. This is actively reproduced in the dramaturgy of the programme.

Second, the ways in which alternative, critically questioning positions were provided discursive space during the programme pushed them to the margins of the main polarized narrative. Critical, reflective and questioning utterances were not followed up by the hosts, and hence were not allowed to problematize the main construction constellations during the live broadcasted show. Such viewpoints seemed to be viewed as beside the political setup that was informing the main storyline setup.

Third, the ways in which the execution of the programme was realized construed a false balance between opinions and expertise. Some studio guests had long experience of different concrete and structural questions of integration, while others had opinions based on observations of private experience or information from the media. The utterances by experts were not given any added weight, but were treated as either equally important as the opinions, or just as complicating notions that were peripheral to the main story of the programme. Furthermore, they were given space in moments in which their perceptions needed to be defended or justified.

The television programme analysed in this study serves as an example of how the generic demands of this format and a national worry-perspective colour the dramaturgy in which we tell media stories about the refugee crisis. The relevance of this study applies not only to this particular television programme, but is in line with previous research on how migrants are presented in the European mass media at large. Based on the analysis of this study, however, we see that further ethical assessments of the journalistic work surrounding the refugee crisis are needed, both generally speaking and more specifically concerning the A2 Refugee Night programme. A greater awareness of and sensitivity towards the imaginary material that orders and underpins journalistic narratives on the European refugee situation must be actively integrated into journalistic praxis.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1

	Person	Role	Attitude to asylum seekers	Function	Position
1.	MIKA KANKAANSYRJÄ	Entrepreneur and local councillor from Kauhava, independent representative of the Social Democratic Party	Critical	Fear and concern; People are afraid, ‘the voice of the people of Kauhava’; Shared responsibility; there should be less bureaucracy	Negative and critical of the system
2.	KARIN CREUTZ	Researcher, University of Helsinki	Not immediately evident	Academic researcher’s approach; introduces structural aspects	Challenges the negative position and critical of the system
3.	JUHO EEROLA	Member of Parliament (MP), Finns Party	Critical	Justified fears of ‘original Finns’; doubts whether Finland is able to integrate immigrants; development aid should be scaled down more	Negative narrative
4.	EMMA KARI	MP, Greens	Positive	Has lived close to a reception centre; we need to get used to difference and diversity and need to be more receptive	Solidarity narrative
5.	FARZAD MOGHADDAM POUR	Entrepreneur; came to Finland from Iran in 1999	Critical	All nations are afraid of strangers. Refugees are prone to crime under heavy mental stress; those who complain about food have not witnessed war	Critical of the system
6.	JOHANNA MATIKAINEN	Head of Development for Immigration Programmes, Finnish Red Cross	Not immediately evident	Sees the large number of volunteers as a statement; will to help. Scaremongering in Kauhava. Practice will hopefully prove fears unfounded.	Neutral expert
7.	ESKO REPO	Director, Asylum Unit, Finnish Immigration Service	Not evident		Neutral expert
8.	ABDI OSMAN	Entrepreneur, came to Finland as a refugee from Somalia in the 1990s	Positive	Represents Somalis; We are part of the Finnish people and want to work and pay taxes; willing to help asylum seekers through employment; Finland needs refugees	Experiential expert
9.	MARYAN ASKAR	Project manager	Positive	Challenges Eerola; encourages Finns to get to know immigrants and asylum seekers	Experiential expert and challenging the negative position
10.	MARJAANATOIVIAINEN	Pastor of Evangelical Lutheran Church, founder of Refugees Welcome	Positive	We can do better; talks about housing immigrants in homes	Solidarity narrative
11.	RENAZ EBRAHIMI	Journalist, Radio Helsinki, came to Finland as a refugee child	Not evident	Fear is used to cover up and normalize racism; need for more discussion	Critical of the system, challenging the negative position,experiential expert
12.	SUSANNA KOSKI	MP, National Coalition Party	Not evident	Need to rethink integration policy in the future; refugees should be grateful; integration guided by this idea
13.	MAARIT TIITTANEN	Project worker in Punkalaidun	Positive	Talks about the Punkalaidun
14.	ARI SAARINEN	Chief of Preparedness in Häme, Finnish Red Cross	Not evident	Reception centres have a great impact in terms of job creation	Neutral expert
15.	MERITA SAAJOS	Social service coordinator, City of Tampere	Not evident	Works within integration services at the City of Tampere; integration is well-being for the whole family	Neutral expert
16.	KRISTINA STENMAN	Migration Director, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment	Not evident	Talks about integration work in Finland	Neutral expert
17.	RAJKUMAR SABANADESAN	Consultant, came to Finland as an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka in 1994	Not evident	Underlines gratitude
18.	WALI HASHI	Studio host, journalist, came to Finland from Somalia	Not evident	Presents the programme, interviews guests
19.	KATI LESKINEN	Studio host, journalist	Not evident	Presents the programme, interviews guests
20.	STUDENT OF KALLIO UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL OF PERFORMING ARTS	Audience member	Positive	Shares own experience; adults are scaremongering
21.	ASYLUM SEEKING MAN	Audience member;Asylum seeker, Mänttä-Vilppula reception centre	–	Interviewed by Leskinen on the point of anti-asylum seeker demonstrations. Misunderstanding
22.	SAMI KOIVISTO	Social media journalist, YLE News; audience member	Not evident	Moderates Facebook page of YLE News
23.	MUHIS AZIZI	Local councillor in Turku, National Coalition Party; audience member	Positive	Need to consider decision makers’ views; criticizes pigeonholing by Kankaansyrjä	Challenging the negative position and critical of the system
24.	TAW NYING	Came to Finland from Myanmar as a refugee; family father	–	Survival story from Punkalaidun; successful integration	Refugee narrative
25.	EH LER BLEH	Came to Finland from Myanmar as a refugee; family daughter	–	Survival story from Punkalaidun; successful integration	Refugee narrative
26.	‘TITIKA’	Came to Finland from Myanmar as a refugee; family mother	–	Survival story from Punkalaidun; successful integration	Refugee narrative
27.	UNKNOWN MAN IN THE AUDIENCE	Audience member	Reserved	Wonders if Finland can afford to help, expenses	Negative narrative
28.	UNKNOWN WOMAN IN THE AUDIENCE	Audience member	Not evident	A Kurd and a Finn; Finnishness stems from upbringing
29.	AHMED HASSAN	Interpreter	Not evident	Interpreter of the Syrian family
30.	FATEMH YOUSED ALMSRE	Mother of Syrian family, asylum seeker	–	Shares experiences of family integration in Tampere; video and studio interview	Refugee narrative
31.	ZAKWAN M. DIEB CHAWA	Father of Syrian family, asylum seeker	–	Shares experiences of family integration in Tampere; video and studio interview	Refugee narrative
32.	ZAHER	Daughter of Syrian family, asylum seeker	–	Shares experiences of family integration in Tampere; video and studio interview	Refugee narrative
33.	ELDER SON	Elder son of Syrian family, asylum seeker	–	Shares experiences of family integration in Tampere; video and studio interview	Refugee narrative
34.	YOUNGER SON	Younger son of Syrian family, asylum seeker	–	Shares experiences of family integration in Tampere; video and studio interview	Refugee narrative
35.	ANSKU	Audience member; came to Finland from Congo as an asylum seeker	–	Integration has been helped by Finnish Red Cross, volunteer friend visitor scheme with the Himanens	Refugee narrative
36.	LEENA HIMANEN	Audience member, volunteer friend visitor with the Finnish Red Cross	Positive	Support person for Ansku, integration possible by living ordinary lives together
37.	PETRI HIMANEN	Audience member, volunteer friend visitor with the Finnish Red Cross	Positive	Support person for Ansku, integration possible by living ordinary lives together
38.	MERJA MIKKONEN	Entrepreneur, Punkalaidun	Positive	Talks about the Punkalaidun model; successful integration	Experiential expert
39.	ALI OSMAN	Abdi Osman’s nephew, came to Finland three months ago	–	An example of ‘a good and working immigrant’	Refugee narrative
40.	LAURA HUHTASAARI	Audience member, MP, Finns Party	Critical	Asylum seekers should be grateful	Negative narrative
41.	MIKKO VÄLISALO	Audience member, Manager, Espoo Family Group Home	Not evident	Successful integration is not impossible; integration (‘making yourself a home’) is the right term	Neutral expert
42.	IISAKKI PETRONEN	Audience member with many skills and competences	Not evident	Industrious immigrant with many skills and competences; hard to find a job	Experiential expert
43.	UNKNOWN PERSON FROM KAUHAVA	Audience member	Not evident	Pressing need to find swift employment for immigrants, but there are no jobs	Critical of the system
44.	PASI MÄKINEN	Audience member, managing director of Pirkanmaa Entrepreneurs	Positive	Finland needs immigrants as future labour force	Critical of the system

Acknowledgements

The authors are listed in alphabetical order, reflecting an equal share of work in realizing this article. The empirical part and the structure of the analyses build heavily on original work in Lerkkanen’s candidate’s thesis, supervised by Hellman. Hellman has, on her part, held the lead in translating, developing and completing the inquiries into a scientific article with a broader communication, theoretical and sociological scope.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Biographical notes

Matilda Hellman is a sociologist of policies of lifestyles and health with a background in literature and media studies. She leads a research group at the University of Helsinki. Hellman has published extensively and successfully managed and coordinated several international studies concerned with idea world setups in media, cultures, policy and governance. Hellman holds many academic positions of trust and has developed methodiological and theoretical tools for cross-country comparisons. The work of this study was conducted as part of her appointment as university lecturer of sociology at the University of Tampere.

Tuulia Lerkkanen is a master’s student of sociology at the University of Tampere. At the moment, she is completing her thesis work as part of a gambling policy research cooperation project between the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the University of Helsinki, where she works as a research assistant. This article is based on Lerkkanen’s candidate’s thesis, which was finalized in the spring of 2016.

References

Alsultany

(2012) Arabs and Muslims in the Media: Race and Representation after 9/11. New York: New York University Press.

Banks

(2012) Unmasking deviance: The visual construction of asylum seekers and refugees in English national newspapers. Critical Criminology 20(3): 293–310.

Barba

(1985) The nature of dramaturgy. New Theatre Quarterly 1(1): 75–78.

Barthes

(2000 [1972]) Mythologies. London: Vintage Classics.

BBC.com (2015) Migrant crisis: Finland’s case against immigration, 9 September. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34185297 (accessed 17 October 2016).

Berry

Garcia-Blanco

Moore

(2016) Press coverage of the refugee and migrant crisis in the EU: A content analysis of five European countries. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/protection/operations/56bb369c9/press-coverage-refugee-migrant-crisis-eu-content-analysis-five-european.html (accessed 13 September 2016).

Bruno

(2016) Media representations of immigrants in Italy: Framing real and symbolic borders. Revista Interdisciplinar da Mobilidade Humana (REMHU) 24(46): 45–58.

Cardullo

(ed.) (2000) What Is Dramaturgy? New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Chemers

(2010) Ghost Light: An Introductory Handbook for Dramaturgy (Theatre in the Americas series). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

10.

Cole

(2016) Negotiating durable solutions for refugees: A critical space for semiotic analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law: Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 29(1): 9–27.

11.

Cooper

Olenjniczak

Lenette

et al . (2017) Media coverage of refugees and asylum seekers in regional Australia: A critical discourse analysis. Media International Australia 162(1): 78–89.

12.

Eurostat (2016) Asylum and first time asylum applicants by citizenship, age and sex monthly data. Available at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyappctzm&lang=en (accessed 17 October 2016).

13.

Haarman

(2001) Performing talk. In: Tolson

(ed.) Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.31–64.

14.

Hajer

(2005) Setting the stage: A dramaturgy of policy deliberation. Administration & Society 36(6): 624–647.

15.

Herzfeld

(2014) Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-State. New York; London: Routledge.

16.

Hightower

(2015) Refugees, limbo and the Australian media. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law: Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 28(2): 335–358.

17.

Holmes

Castañeda

(2016) Representing the ‘European refugee crisis’ in Germany and beyond. American Ethnologist 43(1): 12–24.

18.

Horsti

(2005) Vierauden rajat: Monikulttuurisuus ja turvapaikanhakijat journalismissa [The borders of strangeness: Multiculturalism and asylum seekers in journalism] (Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis). Available at: http://urn.fi/urn:isbn:951-44-6423-0 (accessed 25 February 2016).

19.

Horsti

(2009a) Kyllä Suomeen yksi nainen mahtuu! Turvapaikanhakijat uhreina ja uhkana suomalaisessa julkisuudessa [Asylum seekers as victims and a threat in Finnish publicity]. In: Keskinen

Rastas

Tuori

(eds) En ole rasisti, mutta … Maahanmuutosta, monikulttuurisuudesta ja kritiikistä [I Am Not a Racist, but … about Immigration, Multiculturalism and Criticism]. Tampere: Vastapaino, pp.77–85.

20.

Horsti

(2009b) Markkinat ja missiot. Monikulttuurisuus ja tapaus Basaari julkisen palvelun televisiopolitiikassa [Markets and missions. Multiculturalism and the case Basaari in the public service broadcasting policy]. Media & viestintä 32(4–5): 5–23. Available at: http://www.mediaviestinta.fi (accessed 5 April 2016).

21.

Horsti

(2013) De-ethnicized victims: Mediatized advocacy for asylum seekers. Journalism 14(1): 78–95.

22.

Innes

(2010) When the threatened become the threat: The construction of asylum seekers in British media narratives. International Relations 24(4): 456–477.

23.

Kankkonen

(2016) Pohjoismaat tiukentavat kilvan turvapaikkasääntöjä: Tulijat telttoihin, perheenyhdistäminen vaikeaksi [Nordic countries tighten up their asylum regulations: Arrivals are offered tents, family reunions are made difficult]. Yle Uutiset/Yle.fi, 20 June. Available at: http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-8970418 (accessed 17 October 2016).

24.

Kantola

(1998) Tärkeintä on olla aito. Poliittisten uutisten dramaturgia [The most important thing is being real. The dramaturgy of political news]. In: Kantola

Moring

Väliverronen

(eds) Media-analyysi. Tekstistä tulkintaan. Tampere: Helsingin yliopiston Lahden tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskus, pp. 122–148.

25.

Kaye

(2013) Blaming the victim: An analysis of press representation of refugees and asylum-seekers in the UK in the 1990s. In: King

Wood

(eds) Media and Migration: Constructions of Mobility and Difference. London: Routledge, pp.53–70.

26.

Kemppi

(2013) Ajankohtaisen kakkosen homo-illat [The A2 gay nights]. Available at: http://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2010/10/19/ajankohtaisen-kakkosen-homoillat (accessed 5 April 2016).

27.

King

Wood

(eds) (2013) Media and Migration: Constructions of Mobility and Difference. London: Routledge, pp.71–82.

28.

Krause

Goering

(1995) Local talk in the global village: An intercultural comparison of American and German talk shows. Journal of Popular Culture 29(2): 189–207.

29.

Kroon

Kluknavská

Vliegenthart

et al . (2016) Victims or perpetrators? Explaining media framing of Roma across Europe. European Journal of Communication 31(4): 375–392.

30.

Lehmusvesi

(2015) Yle lopettaa Ajankohtaisen Kakkosen ja Silminnäkijän tilalle A2-teemailtoja [YLE will end the show Ajankohtainen Kakkonen and arrange instead A2 theme nights]. Helsingin Sanomat, 16 February. Available at: http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/a1305928579131 (accessed 5 April 2016).

31.

Lehtonen

Löytty

(2003) Miksi Erilaisuus? [Why difference?]. In: Lehtonen

Löytty

(eds) Erilaisuus [Difference]. Tampere: Vastapaino, pp.7–17.

32.

Leudar

Nekvapil

(2000) Presentations of Romanies in the Czech media: On category work in television debates. Discourse & Society 11(4): 487–513.

33.

Livingstone

Lunt

(1994) Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. London: Routledge (eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 10 April 2017.

34.

Loren

Straub

(2016) National melodramas: Mass media, the Syrian exodus and Mother Merkel. In: SHSS – School of Humanities and Social Sciences, American Comparative Literature Association, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 19 March.

35.

Migri.fi (2016) Statistics on asylum seekers and refugees. Available at: http://www.migri.fi/tietoa_virastosta/tilastot/turvapaikka-_ja_pakolaistilastot (accessed 17 October 2016).

36.

Ministry of the Interior (2016) Turvapaikanhakijoita saapui viime vuonna ennätysmäärä [Record number of asylum seekers arrived in Finland last year]. Available at: http://intermin.fi/maahanmuutto/turvapaikanhakijat-ja-pakolaiset (accessed 23 June 2016).

37.

Mortensen

(2016) ‘The image speaks for itself’ – Or does it? Instant news icons, impromptu publics, and the 2015 European ‘refugee crisis’. Communication and the Public 1(4): 409–422.

38.

Nuolijärvi

Tiittula

(2000) Televisiokeskustelun näyttämöllä. Televisioinstitutionaalisuus suomalaisessa ja saksalaisessa keskustelukulttuurissa [On the Stage of a Televised Discussion. Television Institutionalism in Finnish and German Discussion Cultures]. Helsinki: SKS.

39.

Ödeen

(1998) Dramatisk berättande. Om konsten att strukturera ett drama. Stockholm: Carlsson.

40.

Rasila

(2015a) Yle yhtiönä. Mitä julkinen palvelu tarkoittaa? [Yle as a company. What does public service mean?]. Available at: http://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2015/01/05/mita-julkinen-palvelu-tarkoittaa (accessed 23 June 2016).

41.

Rasila

(2015b) Ylen ohjelmatoiminnan ja sisältöjen eettiset ohjeet [The ethical instructions of programmes]. Available at: http://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2015/01/11/ylen-ohjelmatoiminnan-ja-sisaltojen-eettiset-ohjeet (accessed 23 June 2016).

42.

Rautajoki

(2012) Membership categorization as a tool for moral casting in TV discussion: The dramaturgical consequentiality of guest introductions. Discourse Studies 14(2): 243–260.

43.

Rautajoki

(2014) Hyvät ‘kanssalaiset’! Yhteiskunnallistamisen strategiat televisiokeskustelun vuorovaikutuksessa [Dear ‘Citizens’/Untranslatable Pun/! The Strategies of Societatization in an Interaction of a TV Discussion]. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

44.

Reitmanova

Gustafson

Ahmed

(2015) ‘Immigrants can be deadly’: Critical discourse analysis of racialization of immigrant health in the Canadian press and public health policies. Canadian Journal of Communication 40(3): 471–487.

45.

Simon-Vandenbergen

(2007) Lay and expert voices in public participation programmes: A case of generic heterogeneity. Journal of Pragmatics 39(8): 1420–1435.

46.

Szczepanik

(2016) The ‘good’ and ‘bad’ refugees? Imagined refugeehood(s) in the media coverage of the migration crisis. Journal of Identity and Migration Studies 10(2): 23–33.

47.

Taylor

(2006) Narrative as construction and discursive resource. Narrative Inquiry 16(1): 94–102.

48.

Tazzioli

De Genova

(2016) Europe/crisis: New keywords of ‘the crisis’ in and of ‘Europe’. Near Futures Online, pp.1–45. Available at: http://nearfuturesonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/New-Keywords-Collective_11-1.pdf (accessed 13 September 2016).

49.

Thornborrow

(2001) ‘Has it ever happened to you?’: Talk show stories as mediated performance. In: Tolson

(ed.) Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.117–137.

50.

Väliverronen

(2015a) False balance – näennäistä tasapuolisuutta [False balance – Apparent neutrality]. Presentation at the Nordic welfare –seminar, 15 January. Available at: http://www.nordicwelfare.org/PageFiles/23452/Esa%20V%C3%A4liverronen.pdf?epslanguage=sv (accessed 22 April 2016).

51.

Väliverronen

(2015b) Median näennäinen tasapuolisuus hämmentää käsityksiä riskeistä [The apparent neutrality of the media confuses the conceptions of risks]. In: Wordpress.com Mediayhteiskunta (blog), 4 February. Available at: https://medykblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/median-naennainen-tasapuolisuus-hammentaa-kasityksia-riskeista-2/ (accessed 22 April 2016).

52.

Van Gorp

(2005) Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage of the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication 20(4): 484–507.

53.

Vasantola

(2016) Suomen ja Ruotsin välillä isot erot turvapaikan myöntämisessä – Suomi kiristämässä somalialaisten oleskeluluvan saantia. Helsingin Sanomat, 13 April. Available at: http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1460512614025

54.

Wood

(2001) ‘No, you rioted!’: The pursuit of conflict in the management of ‘Lay’ and ‘Expert’ discourses on Kilroy. In: Tolson

(ed.) Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.65–87.

55.

Yle Areena (2017) A2 Pakolais-ilta [A2 refugee night programme]. Available at: http://areena.yle.fi/1-2449147 (accessed 9 March 2017).

56.

Zhang

Hellmueller

(2017) Visual framing of the European refugee crisis in Der Spiegel and CNN Internation-al: Global journalism in news photographs. International Communication Gazette 1–28. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048516688134 (accessed 9 March 2017).