Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this social semiotic analysis, we examined visuals of Rohingya refugees in two U.S. newspapers: The New York Times and The Washington Post. We identified prominent tropes and themes exemplifying those tropes. Visuals connoted refugee vulnerability and subscribed to gender stereotypes. Media also leaned on familiar themes to translate “distant suffering.” Our study has addressed the urgent need to bridge academic/critical work on journalism and journalistic practice in the field. Our hope is that media practitioners will take steps to delink refugees from negative connotations.

Keywords

refugee representations Rohingya refugees visual social semiotics humanitarian visuality newspaper analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

(2012, January 30). The Rohingya: Myanmar’s outcasts. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212710543198527.html

Allsop

(2022, March, 15). The biases in coverage of the war in Ukraine. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/media_bias_ukraine_war.php

Bauman

(2002). In the lowly nowherevilles of liquid modernity. Ethnography, 3(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/146613802401092788

Benoit

Stein

K. A.

Hansen

G. J.

(2005). New York Times coverage of presidential campaigns. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200208

Berger

A. A.

(1994). Signs in contemporary culture: An introduction to semiotics. Longman.

Blakemore

(2019, February 8). Who are the Rohingya people? National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/rohingya-people/

Bleiker

Campbell

Hutchison

(2014). Visual cultures of inhospitality. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 26, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2014.906884

Bleiker

Campbell

Hutchison

Nicholson

(2013). The visual dehumanization of refugees. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2013.840769

Boltanski

(2000). The legitimacy of humanitarian actions and their media representations: The case of France. Ethical Perspectives, 7, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2013.840769

10.

Brooten

Irfan Ashraf

Agwaziam Akinro

(2015). Traumatized victims and mutilated bodies: Human rights and the “politics of immediation” in the Rohingya crisis of Burma/Myanmar. The International Communication Gazette, 77(8), 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048515611022

11.

Calhoun

(2004). A world of emergencies: Fear, intervention, and the limits of cosmopolitan order. Canadian Review of Sociology, 41(4), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618x.2004.tb00783.x

12.

Calhoun

(2008). Cosmopolitanism and nationalism. Nations and Nationalism, 14(3), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2008.00359.x

13.

Calhoun

(2010). The idea of emergency: Humanitarian action and global (dis)order. In Fassin

Pandolfi

(Eds.), Contemporary states of emergency: The politics of military and humanitarian interventions (pp. 29–58). Zone Books.

14.

Catalani

(2021). Refugee artists and memories of displacement: A visual semiotics analysis. Visual Communication, 20(2), 184–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357219859042

15.

Chandler

(2017). Semiotics: The basics. Routledge.

16.

Cole

(2017). The role of semiotics in connecting the spaces, words and embodied experiences of refugee politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 42(2), 303–316.

17.

Cole

(2018). Beyond labelling: Rethinking the role and value of the refugee “label” through semiotics. Journal of Refugee Studies, 31(1), 1–21.

18.

Cottle

Nolan

(2007). Global humanitarianism and the changing aid-media field, “Everyone was dying for footage.” Journalism Studies, 8(6), 862–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700701556104

19.

D’Angelo

Lule

Neuman

W. R.

Rodriguez

Dimitrova

D. V.

Carragee

K. M.

(2019). Beyond framing: A forum for framing researchers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018825004

20.

Dilmaç

J. A.

Kocadal

. (2018). Syrian refugees in Turkish cartoons: A social semiotic analysis. Studii de Lingvistica, 8, 211–229.

21.

Dogra

(2011). The mixed metaphor of ‘Third World Woman’: Gendered representations by international development NGOs. Third World Quarterly, 32(2), 333–348.

22.

Dogra

(2012). Representations of global poverty: Aid, development and international NGOs. Bloomsbury.

23.

Eco

(1976). A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press.

24.

Ferrie

(2013). Why Myanmar’s Rohingya are forced to say they are Bengali. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0602/Why-Myanmar-s-Rohingya-are-forced-to-say-they-are-Bengali

25.

Fortify Rights. (2014, February 25). Policies of persecution: Ending abusive state policies against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. Fortify Rights. https://www.fortifyrights.org/mya-inv-rep-2014-02-25/

26.

Hansen

K. A.

Martin

S. E.

(1998). Newspapers of record in a digital age: From hot type to hot link. Praeger.

27.

Harrison

(2003). Visual social semiotics: Understanding how still images make meaning. Technical Communication, 50(1), 46–60.

28.

Hellyer

H. A.

(2022, February 28). Coverage of Ukraine has exposed long-standing racist biases in Western media. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/28/ukraine-coverage-media-racist-biases/

29.

Human Rights Council. (2017, December 5). Human Rights Council opens special session on the situation of human rights of the Rohingya and other minorities in Rakhine State in Myanmar. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22491&LangID=E

30.

Hunt

(2017). Rohingya crisis: How we got here. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/12/asia/rohingya-crisis-timeline/index.html

31.

Iedema

(2011). A social semiotic account of Hospital: An unhealthy business. In Van Leeuwen

Jewitt

(Eds.), The handbook of visual analysis (pp. 183–206). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020062

32.

Irom

(2019). Mediating Syria’s strangers through Levinas: Communication ethics and the visuals of children. Communication Theory, 29(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz013

33.

Jenni

K. E.

Loewenstein

(1997). Explaining the identiﬁable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235–257.

34.

Johnson

H. L.

(2011). Click to donate: Visual images, constructing victims and imagining the female refugee. Third World Quarterly, 32(6), 1015–1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2011.586235

35.

Kogut

Ritov

(2005). Identiﬁed victim’ effect: An identiﬁed group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioural Decision-Making, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492

36.

Kress

Leeuwen

T. V.

(2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Routledge.

37.

Kurasawa

(2010). Humanitarianism and the representation of alterity: The aporias and prospects of cosmopolitan visuality. In Gaon

(Ed.), Democracy in crisis: Violence, alterity, community (pp. 133–153). Manchester University Press.

38.

Kurasawa

(2013). The sentimentalist paradox: On the normative and visual foundations of humanitarianism. Journal of Global Ethics, 9(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2013.818461

39.

Kurasawa

(2015). How does humanitarian visuality work? A conceptual toolkit for a sociology of iconic suffering. Sociologica, 9(1).

40.

Lenette

(2017). Visual depictions of refugee camps: (De)constructing notions of refugee-ness? In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_47-1

41.

Lowrey

(1999). Routine news: The power of the organization in visual journalism. Visual Communication Quarterly, 6(2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15551399909363404

42.

Malkki

L. H.

(1995). Refugees and exile: From “refugee studies” to the national order of things. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 495–523. www.jstor.org/stable/2155947

43.

Malkki

L. H.

(1996). Speechless emissaries: Refugees, humanitarianism, and dehistoricization. Cultural Anthropology, 11(3), 377–404.

44.

Meeks

(2013). All the gender that’s fit to print: How The New York Times covered Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin in 2008. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(3), 520–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013493791

45.

Mutua

(2002). Human rights: A political and cultural critique. University of Pennsylvania Press.

46.

Rajaram

P. K.

(2002). Humanitarianism and representations of the refugee. Journal of Refugee Studies, 15(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/15.3.247

47.

Reese

S. D.

Shoemaker

P. J.

(2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere: The hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1174268

48.

Rohingya emergency . (n.d.). UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/rohingya-emergency.html

49.

Šarić

(2019). Visual presentation of refugees during the “refugee crisis” of 2015-2016 on the online portal of the Croatian public broadcaster. International Journal of Communication, 13, 991–1015.

50.

Slovic

(2007). ‘If I look at the mass I will never act’: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79–95.

51.

Small

D. A.

Loewenstein

(2003). Helping. A Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identiﬁability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219

52.

Stecula

D. A.

Merkley

(2019). Framing climate change: Economics, ideology, and uncertainty in American news media content from 1988-2014. Frontiers in Communication, 4(5), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00006

53.

Tester

(2010). Humanitarianism and Modern Culture. Pennsylvania State University Press.

54.

UNHCR. (2018). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2018. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/statistics/unhcrstats/5d08d7ee7/unhcr-global-trends-2018.html

55.

U.S. Department of State. (n.d). Policy issues: Refugee and humanitarian assistance. https://www.state.gov/policy-issues/refugee-and-humanitarian-assistance/

56.

Van Leeuwen

Jewitt

. (2011). The handbook of visual analysis. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020062

57.

Wilmott

A. C.

(2017). The politics of photography: Visual depictions of Syrian refugees in UK online media. Visual Communication Quarterly, 24, 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2017.1307113

58.

Wright

(2002). Moving images: The media representation of refugees. Visual Studies, 17(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586022000005053

59.

Wright

(2004). Collateral coverage: Media images of Afghan refugees, 2001. Visual Studies, 19(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586042000204870

60.

Yeung

Lenette

(2018). Stranded at sea: Photographic representations of the Rohingya in the 2015 Bay of Bengal Crisis. The Qualitative Report, 23(6), 1301–1313. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss6/3

The Rohingya Refugee Crisis: A Social Semiotic Study of Visuals in The New York Times and The Washington Post

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References