Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this article we focus on one important event related to the Greek dimensions of the so called refugee crisis in Europe. This event took place during late February and March 2020 and is known as the Evros events that occurred when Turkey decided to open its European borders to the refugees. Greece responded by closing its land borders with Turkey, and by halting the asylum application process. The area surrounding the Evros River in Greece became heavily policed by the Greek police and the EU’s Frontex border police, further aided by various citizen militias consisting of Greek and other EU nationals. This research analyzes the newsmedia coverage of the specific incident through a qualitative frame analysis on news articles written by five Greek newspapers that have different political affiliations. The analysis then answers a two-fold research question: how did the Greek press frame the Evros events, and how did these frames contribute to the public debate around migration in the country.

Keywords

migrant crisis racism neoliberal authoritarianism EU public sphere

Introduction: the “refugee crisis” in Europe: Political and media-related aspects

The so-called refugee or migrant crisis in the European Union (EU) (2014–2016) is a polyvalent “crisis” that concerns various events, and includes different definitions over what constitutes it, the challenges it poses, and how it should be dealt with (Triandafyllidou, 2018: 200). The use of the term crisis in this context is problematic as it entails highly negative connotations towards the refugees and the migrants, which may legitimize exceptional, anti-migration measures (Krzyżanowski et al., 2018: 3; Sajjad, 2018; Serafis et al., 2021a). The process of entering the EU nowadays, can be very dangerous for non-Western citizens. In 2020, the year that this study focuses on, 1773 migrants died while trying to enter Europe (OCHA, 2020). Due to its geographical location, Greece has been a major entry point to the EU, however, a growing number of refugees have been stranded in Greece as a result of the Dublin regulations and the EU-Turkey deal that stipulates that ‘irregular’ migrants can be returned from the EU to Turkey in exchange for Syrian refugees (Rygiel et al. 2016). The “refugee crisis” has thus been a central issue for EU policy-makers, that have followed a “fortress Europe” (Webber, 2018: 99) policy framework, which is highly restrictive, criminalizes migration, breaks human rights conventions, torments the migrants (Webber, 2017), and criminalizes solidarity towards them (Fekete, 2018).

Scholars (Baker et al., 2013; Boukala, 2019; Wodak, 2015; Yilmaz, 2012) have noted a growing xenophobic, anti-migrant, and anti-Muslim in particular, sentiment to occur in the West from the 2000s onwards. This is associated with enduring orientalist legacies, recontextualized in an environment marked by high uncertainties. The global economic crisis that started in 2008, and the intensification of neoliberal austerity policies that followed the crisis (Davidson and Saull 2017: 708) has, among other things, also meant the rise of the far Right in Europe and elsewhere too. It is argued that neoliberal society allows an ideological opening to racism “grounded on a collective socio-economic insecurity that helps facilitate a revival of pre-existing racialized imaginaries of solidarity, as nationalist ideological tropes have been utilized by political parties committed to implementing neoliberal policies as a way of mobilizing a ‘democratic’ constituency for it” (Davidson and Saull 2017: 716). Anti-Muslim and xenophobic tendencies further fuel the rise of the far Right, articulated in public discourses that stress security, health, and cultural threats, while foregrounding essentialist nativist, religious, patriarchic, and middle-class identity constructions (Sajjad, 2018: 54; Bitschnau, Lichtenstein and Fahnrich, 2021). The liberal democratic establishment of Europe proved to be more attentive to regressive demands and discourses, stressing restrictive measures, as it could not concede to progressivist social demands (Mondon and Winter, 2020: 122). Popular discontent towards the grim realities of neoliberal society has been diverted by the far Right across the EU towards emerging scapegoats, such as leftist protesters, and migrants and refugees fleeing war and poverty (Koutouza 2019: 230). Greece reflects these tendencies, especially in the authoritative neoliberal policy framework of the current (2022) government of Nea Dimokratia, elected in July 2019 under nationalist and anti-immigrant agendas (Mylonas, 2020).

Migration has received extended publicity by media across the world (Berry et al., 2015; Musolff, 2017; Viola and Musolff, 2019 Serafis et al., 2021a; Serafis et al., 2021b). The mainstream publicity over migration in the EU has ranged between debates related to policies to address this issue as a “crisis”, and the allocation of responsibility among different states, to the culminating of moral panics over the threats that presumably the refugees pose to the EU (Serafis et al., 2021b; Avraamidou et al., 2021; Taylor, 2014). The causes of migration have been largely misrepresented, by the media and different institutional voices (Webber, 2018: 103). A largely negative coverage of this “crisis” has been noted by various scholars (Titley, 2019; Galantino, 2020; Krzyżanowski, 2020; Serafis et al., 2021b), silencing the migrants and representing them as a threat (Eberl et al., 2018), publicly normalizing racist discourses, and legitimizing discriminating policies against the refugees. The media generally approach the refugee/migration issue through a Europeanist lens, both from progressive/liberal and conservative dimensions (Avraamidou, 2020). At its best, Europeanism victimizes the refugee; in all its versions, Europeanist discourses cannot avoid racializing the refugees and reducing their humanity (Chouliaraki and Zaborowski, 2017; Sajjad, 2018).

Research questions, data, and method of analysis

In this article we focus on one important event related to the Greek dimension of the “refugee crisis”. The “Evros events” occurred when Turkey opened its European borders to the refugees on February 28, 2020, closing them again on March 18, 2020. At that time, refugees attempted to enter Greece, in order to reach the EU. Greece responded by closing its land borders with Turkey, and halting the asylum application process. The Evros border in Greece became heavily policed by the Greek police and Frontex, further aided by various citizen militias. The “Evros events” received great publicity, and were instrumentalized by nationalist and far-right politicians and citizen groups through social media, to mobilize anti-migrant public sentiments, as well as anti-Turkish ones (Avraamidou et al., 2021). Additionally, the “Evros events” reflected the lasting tensions between Greece and Turkey, connected with nationalist, and politico-economic antagonisms associated with the Greek-Turkish border sovereignty (Özkırımlı and Sofos, 2008).

This research discusses the “Evros events” as a major moment in the “refugee crisis”, understood as a media event politically used to advance Greek nationalism, boost Mitsotakis’ government that was under fire at the time for trying to establish closed migrant holding camps in Greece, and strengthen its position in the EU as Europe’s border guardian. Qualitative frame analysis allows us to provide in-depth insights to a purposive sample of data analyzed, associating the findings with relevant critical literature (De Vreese, 2005). Therefore, this paper addresses a two-fold research question: how did the Greek press frame the Evros events, and how did these frames contribute to the public debates around migration in the country?

Articles from five daily newspapers were analyzed. The selected newspapers cover a large segment of mainstream political opinion in Greece along the Left-Right spectrum, as they exhibit different forms of political parallelism to class, ideology, and/or political party. Kathimerini is the country’s largest conservative daily, it is owned by the Alafouzos group, and has traditionally supported liberal and conservative political standpoints (Kostopoulos, 2020a). Ta Nea is the highest selling newspaper in Greece. However, it faced significant hardship during the economic crisis and was acquired by Alter Ego Media owned by Evaggelos Marinakis in 2017 (Kostopoulos, 2020b). Ever since it has adopted a centrist and center-right wing editorial stance. Efimerida ton Sintakton (EFSYN) is a cooperatively owned newspaper of progressive political orientation, founded in 2012 by a group of journalists working for Eleftherotypia, which closed during the Greek economic crisis (Iosifidis and Boucas, 2015). Dimokratia is a daily tabloid founded in 2010; though it proclaims a center-right orientation, it is often seen as hosting far-right views and is owned by the Media Investment Center Company (Εστία Επενδυτική Μέσων Μαζικής Ενημέρωσης Α.Ε.), which publishes tabloid and religious newspapers. Finally, Rizospastis is the official newspaper of the Greek Communist Party (KKE). Rizospastis is the only newspaper included in this study that is officially associated with a party, however, it represents an alternative viewpoint to the case and concerns a party that has a significant parliamentary presence.

Articles published by these newspapers between January 01, 2020 and March 31, 2020 were collected from their websites by using the following keywords: “Έβρος” (Evros), “πρόσφυγες” (refugees), “προσφυγική κρίση” (refugee crisis), “μετανάστες” (migrants). The time frame includes the 2 months that the events lasted, as well as the previous month of rising tensions in the area. Beyond March 2020 the events exit the spotlight, due to the onset of the pandemic that led to a border shut-down. Kathimerini generated 132 related articles, Ta Nea 112, EFSYN 117, Dimokratia 30, and Rizospastis 70.

A qualitative frame analysis was conducted on the articles and Van Gorp’s (2007) approach that reconstructs frame packages was selected, as it allows the dissection of political and cultural meanings attached to the frames. Entman’s (1993) definition of frame functions was employed to identify reasoning devices. The reasoning devices located were ‘causal attribution’, which looks for the cause of a problem, ‘treatment recommendation’, which looks for solutions, ‘moral evaluation’ that assigns moral judgements, and ‘problem definition’, which identifies the central topic of the frame. Various framing devices were also uncovered that pointed to the same core idea, and each frame was bound together under the heading of a central organizing theme. Each framing package was represented in a matrix and the central idea of the frame package was used as a heading.

The reconstructed frame packages were then micro-analyzed, focusing on their constituting elements, in order to bring forward the cultural and political meanings of each frame. Furthermore, a macro-analysis, through a comparison of the frames of each newspaper, evaluated what kind of debate on migration was fostered by the Greek press. This analysis addresses the research question, as it sheds light on how the press framed the events and brings forward the range of opinions represented through the press and its contribution to public debates around migration.

Findings

News frames of Dimokratia

Dimokratia features three frames (Table 1). The ‘Immigration as a tool’ frame removes all agency from the migrants and instead portrays them as victims of Turkey. The cultural devices promote the narrative of the instrumentalization of migration, whereas metaphors depict the migrants as ‘weapons’ in the hands of Erdogan. The frame blames Erdogan for misleading the refugees purposefully, in order to blackmail the EU and achieve broader geopolitical goals in the area: ‘He (Erdogan) threatened to detonate the “bomb” for a while. After all he never dealt with the Refugee-Migration issue in humanitarian terms, rather than just another weapon in the quiver of his aims abroad, but mainly as another weapon in the asymmetrical war that he conducts’ (Andreas Koutras, ‘The “Sultan” declares an “asymmetrical war” on Greece’ February 29, 2020). The solutions proposed by the frame remove the agency of the migrants as they focus on repatriating them, or sending them back to Turkey.

Table 1.

Frames Found in Dimokratia.

Frames	Cultural devices	Problem definition	Causal attribution	Moral evaluation	Treatment recommendation
‘Immigration as a tool’ frame	‘Immigration as a tool’ narrative, weapon, pawns, trojan horse, bomb, metaphors	Erdogan is using migrants, Turkey wants to apply pressure to the EU to achieve geopolitical goals	Turkey, Erdogan	Turkey is barbaric and violates international treaties, Greece is showing humanity	EU assistance in migrant repatriations, tough stance towards Turkey, wall in Evros, migrant facilities in deserted islands, Turkey takes back the migrants
‘Turkey as a villain’ frame	‘Erdogan as a villain’ narrative, ‘Hybrid war’ narrative, Sultan, Land and Water metaphors	Turkey wants to cause a war, Turkey is sending ISIS militants, Turkey wants to destabilize Greece	Erdogan, Turkey, Germany, Europeans, NATO, Internationalists, SYRIZA	European stance is revolting, Erdogan is mad, Turkey is shameless, national solidarity	Support the armed forces, European sanctions on Turkey, Embargo Turkish products
‘War’ frame	Invasion, Battle, War, fortress, Hordes, Thermopylae metaphors	National security is threatened, Turkey is attacking Greece, Thousands of migrants are invading	Migrants, Turkey, Erdogan	Evros citizens valiantly protect the border, national unity, nationalism	Support the armed forces, strengthen the borders, push backs, immediate repatriations, vigilantism, shut down NGOs, stricter immigration laws, Frontex

The ‘Turkey as a villain’ frame shifts the focus to Turkey. The migrants disappear and the events are framed as a clash between Greece and Turkey: ‘There is, therefore, a danger that Ankara will “construct” an incident with the migrants and cause a heated incident, which will, with the tension that exists, evolve in a Greek-Turkish crisis’ (Dimokratia, ‘A wall of steel in the Aegean’, March 08, 2020). This frame focuses on Turkey and the stance of NATO and the EU. Turkey is represented as an aggressive power that is escalating tensions, in order to destabilize Greece and cause an incident or even a full-scale war. At the same time the frame takes aim at the stance of the allies of Greece for not adopting a harsher stance towards Turkey.

Finally, the ‘War’ frame places the migrants in the role of the intruder and frames the events as a battle in an undeclared war. The representation of immigration as an invasion, has been common for the Greek Right (Boukala, 2021: 334). The cultural devices of the frame describe the migrants as ‘invading hordes’, and Evros as the legendary ‘Thermopylae’ where 300 Spartans fought against a Persian army invading from the East. The connotations of such a simile are clear enough. Additionally, the frame is rife with sensationalist metaphors that represent the events as a national epic: ‘The same slogan we are calling now celebrating the – we are hoping – end of tolerance of the Greek authorities, against the threatened enslavement of our Homeland by the guided hordes of illegal migrants’ (Dimokratia, At last, end it!, March 03, 2020). The frame identifies Turkey and the migrants as the culprits that are threatening Greece’s national security, while calling for a stark reaction from the Greek armed forces, stricter immigration laws, illegal push backs and vigilante actions against the migrants.

News frames of Rizospastis

The analysis of Rizospastis generated three frames (Table 2). The ‘geopolitical bargaining’ frame is similar to frames found in other newspapers identifying Turkey as a culprit that is provoking Greece and NATO to achieve geopolitical goals: ‘Thousands of refugees and migrants were boxed in during the previous days in Kastanies, Evros and along other spots of the borderline of Turkey, victims of the geopolitical games that are set up on their backs, on the grounds of the bargains that are rising between the bourgeois class and the government of Turkey with NATO and the EU, which the Greek government is actively engaged in’ (Rizospastis, ‘Thousands of people prey of geopolitical games’, February 04, 2020). However, this frame differs because it assigns agency to the migrants and attributes blame to the EU, NATO, and the Greek government that are involved in a geopolitical bargain in order to keep Turkey within the Western bloc, as well as the bourgeois classes of both countries and the capitalist system, achieving a critical outlook. Although the cultural devices refer to the migrants as ‘pawns’ moved in the ‘chessboard’ of geopolitical bargains painting them closer to the victim stereotype, at the same time the treatment recommendation assigns them agency by pointing to common struggles of the working class regardless of nationality.

Table 2.

Frames Found in Rizospastis.

Frames	Cultural devices	Problem definition	Causal attribution	Moral evaluation	Treatment recommendation
‘Geopolitical bargaining’ frame	Card, vehicle, bargain, level, pawns, chessboard, game, tool metaphors	Turkey is provoking, NATO-EU is encouraging Turkey as part of a geopolitical bargain to keep them in the West, Greek borders are under threat, Antagonisms over markets are leading to the suffering of migrants and Greek people	Government, EU, NATO, Turkey, USA, Erdogan, Greek government, SYRIZA, imperialist antagonisms, Greek and Turkish bourgeois classes, capitalist exploitation, wars	The Greek government is hypocritical, the Turkish bourgeois class is aggressive	The government should condemn the EU-NATO support of Turkish attack in Syria, strengthen friendship and common struggle of the peoples of the area, political struggle against reactionary propaganda and cosmopolitan opportunism, Greece leaves EU-NATO, no changes in borders
‘Wolfpack’ frame	Wolfpack, prison, containment, EU-fortress metaphors	Greece is being turned into the EU’s prison, EU-NATO policies create migrants	EU policies, Greek governments, SYRIZA, prime minister, A. Tsipras	The measures of the government are a dead-end, EU is turning Greece into a prison	Struggle against the Dublin regulations and the EU-Turkey deal, pressure the EU to take refugees in, faster asylum process
‘Antifascist’ frame	‘Refugees are not the perpetrators’ narrative	Nationalist groups are scapegoating migrants in favor of imperialists, violence by extreme right-wing groups, the government and EU policies are encouraging extreme right-wing groups	Nationalists, SYRIZA, ND government, Nazis (Golden Dawn)	Ministers are promoting xenophobia, the slogans of these groups are revolting	Target the real culprits, isolate nationalism and cosmopolitanism, show no tolerance towards such groups

The ‘Wolfpack’ frame is taking aim specifically at the EU, NATO, the EU-Turkey deal, and the Dublin regulations. The migrants are represented within a victim frame as they are suffering the impacts of the actions of NATO in their home countries, and of the policies of ‘fortress Europe’: ‘These last developments, with the boxing in of thousands of refugees and migrants in the Aegean islands and the Greek-Turkish borders in Evros, confirm once more, that it’s the policies of the EU and of NATO, that the Greek governments have adopted loyally, that is to blame on the one hand for the destruction of countries and the uprooting of people and on the other hand for the boxing in of the uprooted ones on islands and borders’ (Rizospastis, ‘On the developments on the Refugee issue and the measures of the government, March 07, 2020’). Greece is framed as a ‘prison of souls’ due to EU policies and the complicity of the Greek governments. However, no agency is assigned to the migrants as the solutions revolve around the struggle of the Greek working class against the EU policies, and political actions that can resolve the issue by taking the refugees in the EU.

Finally, the ‘Antifascist frame’ focuses on the far Right-wing militias that gathered from European countries to take vigilante action against the migrants. This frame combats the stereotype of the migrant ‘intruder’, pointing instead towards far Right-wing violence as a scapegoating mechanism that conceals the failures of imperialist and capitalist policies. The frame calls upon the government to reign in these groups, and at the same time rallies working class people to unite with the migrants and struggle against nationalism: ‘This is what various nationalist groups are putting forward, by taking advantage of the situation that is taking place in Evros and in the islands. They are hitting “the saddle and not the donkey” (Greek colloquialism), meaning that they are taking aim at the refugees and migrants and are leaving outside of criticism the imperialist alliances of NATO and EU, that are causing imperialist interventions and wars. They are taking aim at the result and not at the cause’ (Rizospastis, ‘It’s about an illegal migrant invasion’, March 14, 2020). In that sense, this frame looks at the “crisis” as a symptom, rather than an issue in and of itself, and therefore manages to address the deeper systemic issues surrounding the incidents.

Main frames of Efsyn

Efsyn’s framing of the “refugee crisis” can be summarized in the following three frames (Table 3). The “democracy” frame concerns the principles that should guide the policies of the Greek government towards immigration. It forms a vantage point of opinions expressed while covering the ways that the Greek government and citizens, the EU, and Turkey respond towards the events: “The outdated spirit of nationalism prevails in Evros, which, like a snake's egg, paves the way for the abolition of democracy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism. I do not want (as a political philosopher) to live in gloomy times in my country (as Hannah Arendt did in her own)” (Theodoros Georgiou, “The ‘post-national’ solution to the refugee problem” 16.03.2020). The frame forms a critical discourse addressing the hegemonic representation of the migrants, as articulated by liberal intellectuals and mainstream media, the phenomena of censorship noted regarding the migrants’ mistreatment by the Greek authorities, and the hostility that the migrants face by the Greek state, politicians and citizen groups (Boukala and Dimitrakopoulou, 2018: 188). The frame draws on the democratic historical legacies of Greece to legitimize its claims towards the resolution. The militaristic, authoritarian and racist politics developing on the Greek borders are exposed and criticized, along with the far-Right discourses that advance in the Greek public sphere associated with the specific events. The migrant/refugee issue is thus understood in a systemic and international way, and the solution proposed by the frame is a progressive one, that may protect the rights of the migrants and refugees, recognizing them as precarious beings that require Greek and European solidarity.

Table 3.

Frames Found in Efsyn.

Frames	Cultural devices	Problem definition	Causal attribution	Moral evaluation	Treatment recommendation
‘Democracy’ frame	‘Secret detention center’, reports exposing authoritarian policies, censorship, nationalist propaganda, far-right and racist rhetoric	The migration “crisis” is dealt through authoritarian measures by the Greek state, the EU and other states, resulting to the mistreating of migrants, and to the censoring of reporting; mass media in Greece and elsewhere have developed a racist publicity over the “crisis”	The EU and Greek authorities, Greek media, Greek far-Right, far-Right supporters of Nea Dimokratia, far-right EU politicians, Irregular militias, an increasing hostility of the Greek population	Neofascist and racist practices advance under the border-security pretext, the Greek and European democratic and antifascist legacies should be mobilized to resolve the refugee problem	Expose the militaristic, authoritarian and racist practices developing at the Greek borders, advance a politically progressive solution across Europe that protects the human rights of the migrants and refugees, guard the Greek/EU borders
‘Humanitarianism’ frame	‘Innocent people’, ‘victims’, ‘trapped’, ‘modern slaves’, refugees in a state of imprisonment, ‘hostages’	The migrants are fleeing war and poverty, they are exploited by Turkey and mistreated by the Greek state and EU’s policies, they are misrepresented by the media and misunderstood by citizen groups in Greece and elsewhere	Erdogan, government of Greece, the EU authorities and migration policies; Frontex, Greek mainstream media, Greek and European far-rightists	The refugee “crisis” cannot be conceived as a war because the adversary is unarmed and vulnerable, the “Evros epic” is only a nationalist governmental and media hype	The human rights of the migrants should be respected, adequate information over the precariousness of the migrants is crucial to develop solidarity practices in Greece and in Europe
‘Turkish provocation’ frame	‘Migrants are hostages to Erdogan’s games in Evros’, ‘Erdogan is violating any sense of law’, ‘Erdogan does not care about the lives of innocent people’, ‘the blackmailing of Erdogan will not pass’	The refugee/migrant issue is instrumentalized by Erdogan in order to exercise pressure to the EU and Greece and to advance geopolitical interests	Erdogan, Turkish state, Turkish police and military, Turkish propaganda, NATO	Erdogan is isolated and seeks a way out through provocations, The Turkish government is blackmailing Greece and Europe, as a dictatorial state, Turkey has no right to speak about law and human rights, the West is challenged by the East	Adoption of a realistic but tough stance towards Turkey by the EU and USA, politico-economic and military support to Greece, national unity, EU aid for the protection of the Greek sovereignty and the Greek/EU borders, the EU should aid Greece by sharing the burdens of the migration “crisis” and border security

The “humanitarian” frame presents the migrants as tormented humans fleeing war and poverty. In that sense, the migrants become “toys” in Erdogan’s political games, are mistreated by the Greek state and EU’s policies, and are misunderstood and wronged by citizens: “Thousands of desperate people remain trapped in Evros. They are victims of Turkish propaganda, but also of the actions of the Greek government. Images of shame emerged in the port of Thermi with attacks on asylum seekers, journalists and politicians” (Editorial “Trapped in Evros - Persecuted in Mytilene” 01.03.2020). Specific attention is paid to the treatment of the migrants by the Greek and Turkish governments, the EU, and Greek and European citizens. The humanitarian frame falsifies the media and government-related discourses over an “Evros epic”, arguing that the “crisis” cannot be conceived as a war episode because the adversary is unarmed and vulnerable. The humanitarian frame foregrounds solidarity practices as central in resolving the “crisis”.

In the “Turkish provocation” frame a tension is escalating in the Greek border, mainly triggered by Turkey: “Erdogan is opening the borders and sends the victims of war and misery to Greece to put pressure on the war-weary Turkish public opinion, and to blackmail Europe… The elected dictator Erdogan has imposed a permanent state of ‘emergency’ in his country and is treating dissidents in the same way as he is treating the refugees'' (Costas Douzinas, “State of emergency” 16.03.2020). The migrant issue is instrumentalized by Erdogan in order to exert pressure to the EU and advance geopolitical agendas. The Turkish provocation frame is underlined by a national unity stance, also expressed by the major Greek political parties. Condemnation of Turkey is also expressed by EU officials in the European parliament, and during their visits in Evros. Here, along with a democratic and humanitarian stance, the solution to the “crisis” will also come from the adoption of a tough stance towards Turkey by the EU, which should aid Greece in securing the Greek/European borders, while sharing the burdens of the “crisis”.

Main frames of Kathimerini

The analysis reconstructed three frames in Kathimerini (Table 4). The “Turkish aggression” frame marks the fundamental reason behind the attempts of migrants to cross the borders, and the challenge that the events pose: “Erdogan escalates the tension, sets the scene for conflict, and plays with fire. Besides serenity and good handling, practical European solidarity is required. Mere wishes and expressions of sympathy from the EU partners are not enough” (Stavros Tzimas, “Analysis: The Turks are playing with fire in Evros” 05.03.2020). Turkey is using the migrants to provoke Greece and the EU, and advance its own geopolitical interests. Turkey is often presented to be aided by the EU’s and NATO’s inactivity and their lack of effective support to Greece. Hence, Turkey directs the migrants to infiltrate Greece and launches an anti-Greek propaganda. The specific frame legitimizes securitization and militarization policies by Greece and the EU and calls for Western measures against Turkey to resolve the “crisis”.

Table 4.

Frames Found in Kathimerini.

Frames	Cultural devices	Problem definition	Causal attribution	Moral evaluation	Treatment recommendation
‘Turkish aggression’ frame	‘Erdogan provokes’, ‘Turkish blackmail’, ‘Erdogan is using the refugees’, ‘Turkey is trafficking migrants’, ‘the Turkish forces are escalating belligerence’	The Turkish state under Erdogan, is using migrants in order to pressure Greece and the EU to advance its own geopolitical interests, and overcome its own internal problems	Erdogan, Turkish authorities, Turkish propaganda, migrants, EU, NATO	Turkey is escalating provocations against Greece through “dirty” means because it is driven by Neo-Ottoman imperial aspirations	Securitization and militarization policies in Greece and in the EU (through the aid of Frontex), political pressures on Turkey by the EU and the USA, restriction of migration
‘National defence’ frame	‘Evros under siege’, ‘at the trenches’, ‘Evros and Thrace are standing’, ‘the borders will not fall’, ‘Greece is defending itself”, ‘Greece has always been at the correct side of history’	Greece is under siege by the (Turkish-backed) migrant attempts to enter the EU through Evros, the migrants are causing social, economic, political and ecological problems	Turkey, Erdogan, migrants, Greek leftists	Greece is rightfully defending its sovereignty as she also did in the past, all Greeks are uniting to confront this national threat	National unity to overcome the threat through Mitsotakis’ government, and the politico-economic support of the EU and the USA to Greece
‘Asymmetrical threat’ frame	‘an asymmetrical threat, not a refugee problem’, ‘a hybrid war’, ‘invasion’, ‘destabilization’, ‘Syrian refugees are few or non-existent; at the borders gather people of Afghani, Pakistani and Somalian origin’, ‘a near destruction was avoided’, ‘from Marfin to Kara Tepe [arsons]’	The are under a polyvalent and abstruse threat, which resembles a diffused form of warfare	Turkey, migrants, foreign and Greek insurgents, agents of Turkey	The irregular attacks at Greek borders may escalate to a military clash with Turkey, which can even turn the Greeks themselves into refugees	Policing, militarization of the borders, national unity against the specific threat, EU aid

According to the “national defence” frame, Greece is under siege by the (Turkish-backed) migrants. Greece is therefore defending its borders, and Europe. For this reason, the EU must fully support Greece. Furthermore, as important politico-economic interests lay in Greece the US should also support the security of the Greek borders. More crucially, all Greeks are united against national threats: “‘Evros’ was a rare moment of solidarity and unity. We needed it after ten years of humiliation [the author here refers to the ‘Greek crisis’ years]. We brought out our good selves and positively surprised our friends and opponents, who thought that we were much softer” (Alexis Papachelas, “The virus of division” 11.03.2020). Greece is framed as peaceful and hospitable, but under threat due to its geostrategic position. The threat to Greek sovereignty unites all Greeks and is victoriously repelled by the heroic efforts of the military and border police, aided by patriotic local inhabitants of Evros. Additionally, the defence of Evros’ border from the migrants marks a success story for the government. Greece can use the opportunity to strengthen its own geopolitical position, in military, political, economic and symbolic terms. Thus the “national defence” frame establishes a national-based, unanimous approval of Mitsotakis’ government and its securitization policies towards the migrants, in stark contrast to the ways that the Syriza-led government dealt with the same “crisis” in the past (Boukala and Dimitrakopoulou, 2018: 192).

The “asymmetrical threat” frame presents the borders to be under a polyvalent threat, which resembles a diffused form of warfare: “… one realizes that the problem is no longer a refugee and immigrant problem. It is an asymmetric threat on the eastern borders of Greece, which are also the borders of Europe. This is a directed attempt of illegal invasion by thousands of people, which threatens our national territory by people who do not hesitate to use open violence to enter the Greek territory. It is an attempt by Turkey to use desperate people to advance its geopolitical plans and divert attention away from the horrific situation in Syria” (George S. Bourdaras, “K. Tasoulas: The issue has ceased to be a refugee, Greece faces an asymmetric threat” 05.03.2020). Organized by Turkey, the threat is expressed through constant attempts to cross the border illegally by masses of “individuals”. These people are, for the greatest part, not refugees fleeing the war of Syria, but a multitude of different backgrounds; they exercise various forms of violence, incite calls for insurgency, perform coordinated attacks to break the police blocks and intrude the Greek borders; moreover, they can destabilize Greece and Europe amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. These irregular attacks are also connected with the possibility of a military episode between Greece and Turkey, something that can turn the Greeks themselves into refugees. Therefore, the Greek government and citizens, with the help of the EU, are doing their utmost to secure the borders of Greece/Europe. The framing devices are terms and phrases like “an asymmetrical threat, not a refugee problem”, a “hybrid war”, or “invasion”. This frame portrays the events as an incident that could have escalated into a tragedy for Greece, but was contained by the sharp mobilization of the Greek authorities and develops a moral panic against the migrants by undermining their humanity. Militarization is legitimized as ‘the only solution’ towards this threat.

Main frames of Ta Nea

Three frames were reconstructed in Ta Nea (Table 5). The “Asymmetrical threat” frame identifies the problem as the organization of migrants by Turkey in an attempt to destabilize Greece: ‘The management of an asymmetrical threat (a threat that comes from organized unconventional groups) at the borders of the European Union, forces the Greek Republic and the EU to take measures to deal with the instrumentalization of the migration and refugee issue on the behalf of Turkey’ (Sotiris Ntalis, ‘European sovereignty is determined in Kastanies’ 05.03.2020). This frame is similar to the one in Kathimerini. However, Ta Nea is also taking aim at the German government for holding a stance that is encouraging Turkish provocations. Otherwise the frame stresses that those gathering at the border are migrants and not refugees, organized by Turkey, in order to attack Greece in a form of ‘hybrid’ warfare. Militarization is put forward as a solution to this problem, alongside stricter policing. At the same time the internationalization of the events, alongside a national unity behind the government suggest that the Greek government acts within the confines of international law and its resistance to this ‘asymmetrical threat’ requires popular support.

Table 5.

Frames Found in Ta Nea.

Frames	Framing devices	Problem definition	Causal attribution	Moral evaluation	Treatment recommendation
‘Asymmetrical Threat’ frame	Weapon, invasion, pawns, shield metaphors. Instrumentalization of migration narrative	Turkey is organizing the migrants and incites them via fake news, a hybrid war is taking place at the border	Turkey, Germany	Greece is respecting international and EU laws and is just, Turkey is engaging in a Nazi-style operation and is a terrorist state, Erdogan is a coward that avoids direct military confrontation	Freezing the asylum process, Securing the border through police and military action, National unity behind the government, EU-Frontex assistance to the border
‘Turkey Blackmails’ frame	Game, gates, Sultan, leverage, invasion metaphors Dirty game narrative	Turkey is blackmailing the West using the refugee “crisis” as a leverage, Turkey seeks to destabilize the EU through Greece	Erdogan, Turkey	The management of immigration of the EU is failed, the EU has made a deal with the devil in signing an agreement with Turkey, the EU is hypocritical towards Greece	Discourage immigration to the EU, change the EU-Turkey deal, Greece protects its borders that are European borders at the same time, repatriations of the migrants
‘War’ frame	Siege, war, invasion, frontline metaphors	Turkey is escalating tensions through paramilitary, military, and propaganda means, the migrants are invading under the instruction of Turkey, Turkey is threatening Greek sovereignty and sets the stage for war	Turkey	Erdogan wants direct confrontation with Greece, the Greek government is responsible for securing the integrity of the nation’s borders	Defend the border and national integrity, National unity to ensure the borders withstand

The ‘Turkey Blackmails’ frame places Greece as one cog in a wider geopolitical negotiation between Turkey and the West. The events are framed as Erdogan’s attempt to export the crisis he is facing at home with the casualties suffered by the Turkish army’s attack on Idlib. At the same time the opening of the border is viewed as an attempt to pressure EU into more money and support to Turkey: ‘The decision of his country is a direct violation of the agreement he made in 2016 with the European Union to curtail refugee flows. The goal seems to be to pressure the EU and NATO into supporting the new military operation of Turkey in Idlib’ (Michalis Mitsos, ‘Tayip Erdogan opens up the gates’, 29.02.2020). The frame also takes aim at the EU however, as its migration policies are understood as what gave Erdogan the opportunity to use immigration as leverage. Therefore, the frame stresses the importance of defending the border, but also suggests stricter migration policies in order to discourage mobility towards the EU.

The ‘War’ frame sidesteps the events and suggests that they are a small part of a larger escalation by Turkey that could potentially result in a direct military confrontation between the two countries: ‘Now, everyone has finally realized that Turkey wants a war. Nobody doubts that anymore… Turkey has gone off for a long time from the level of a possible “accident”, or that of a “local” event. Turkey wants war. And it will get it’ (Georgios Malouchos, ‘Greece is not afraid’, 14.03.2020). The migrants are framed as intruders that are under the instruction of Turkey as a ‘siege ram’ that would provide the opportunity to enact a full-scale invasion of Greece under the pretext of a humanitarian mission, in the same manner as Idlib. The frame uses war metaphors to stress the urgency of the events and presents them as a national defence against a foreign intervention. The government is responsible for the defence of national integrity, and a national unity that supersedes ideological divides is called for as a solution to this existential threat to the nation. However, it should be noted that some quotes that counter the frame as ‘exaggerations of the government’, mainly coming from opposition politicians are also carried by the newspaper.

Discussion

The high attention given by all investigated newspapers to the so-called migration issue confirms its socio-political importance, and the public construction of migration as a problem (Lecheler et al., 2019: 694). The ‘Turkish threat/provocation’ idea emerges as a prevalent frame in four out of the five newspapers studied, legitimizing nationalist and militaristic discourses and politics in Greece. The centrist and conservative newspapers (Dimokratia, Ta Nea, Kathimerini) reproduce the discourse of Turkey as an ontological threat to Greece, recontextualized in the refugee “crisis” context. The refugee/migrant attempts to enter Greece are seen to be orchestrated by Turkish geopolitical ambitions. The threatening non-European Other produced by the far right and the extreme centre in the EU (Mondon and Winter, 2020) thus combines both Turkey and Muslim migrants in the “Evros events” context. The rightist Dimokratia denies agency and even humanity to the migrants and disputes the structural issues of migration. The centrist Kathimerini and Ta Nea recognize some structural issues but stress the role of Turkey in the events, reducing the migrants to “Edogan's pawns”. The leftist Efsyn also stresses the role of Turkey under Erdogan, which is framed as a rogue state that does not comply with international law. Nevertheless, Efsyn maintains the structural characteristics of migration and emphasizes the humanitarian dimension of the “crisis”. It therefore too expresses a Eurocentric perspective, like other “centrist” and progressivist media on this issue (Avraamidou, 2020: 489). While also paying considerable attention to the “migration issue”, the communist Rizospastis follows a different analysis, where issues of class are stressed in the understanding of both the “crisis” and the geopolitical conflicts that occur over it. For Rizospastis, Turkey is indeed using the refugees but this is done within a global capitalist framework, where different bourgeois governments compete. Along with the Greek state, NATO and the European Union member states, Turkey also strives for its bourgeois interests.

The centrist and conservative press sees the possible coming of a war through the refugee “crisis” and Turkey’s use of the migrants, with migration framed as an orchestrated invasion. This war is asymmetrical and requires exceptional securitization measures and a prolonged state of emergency. The migrants appear as non-European others, following the hegemonic discourses on migration found in EU countries towards Muslims in particular (Boukala, 2019). Furthermore, the liberal and right-wing press amplify Mitsotakis’ government anti-migration stance and ND’s far-right turn, sustaining a moral panic towards migration, legitimizing far-right logics and agendas in the Greek public sphere (Mylonas, 2020). This ontological threat to the Greek nation, legitimizes nationalistic rhetoric, securitization policies, and the intensification of police and military practices (Boukala, 2021: 337).

Efsyn is critical towards exceptional measures and nationalistic and war rhetorics. Nevertheless, it focuses on European values to address the migrants’ plight and legitimize philanthropy, despite the fact that the legacies of Eurocentrism are central in enduring practices of racialization, and the destruction of other (e.g., “non-European”) worlds (Azoulay, 2019: 19). Through a Eurocentric stance, Efsyn stresses in essentialist terms the democratic foundations of Greece and Europe as the grounds to deal with both the “crisis” and Turkish aggression. Either way, the progressive Eurocentrism expressed by Efsyn legitimizes the publication of investigative reporting on the abuses perpetrated by the Greek state against migrants, and exposing the nationalistic practices occurring by Greek and European neo-fascists. Eurocentrist signifiers emerge as empty signifiers (Laclau, 1996) articulated to express some conditional pro-migrant positions stressing universal humanitarianism. To this regard, Efsyn advances a patriotic stance that requires a progressive understanding on how to deal with the specific issue.

Overall, the EU, the USA and NATO are emphasized by Dimokratia, Kathimerini, Ta Nea and Efsyn as important denominators for the refugee “crisis” resolution and the containment of Turkey. All four newspapers argue that the Greek borders are EU borders and that the refugee “crisis” is also an EU crisis that should be dealt with the help of the EU. Kathimerini maintains that Greece has shown hospitality to foreign victims but the current migrant influx is unsustainable. Additionally, the conservative press celebrates the leadership of the Mitsotakis administration for a supposedly effective overcoming of this “crisis” and emphasizes the necessity for national unity around the government. Efsyn stresses the democratic dimensions that should lead such interventions, respecting the human rights of the migrants. Rizospastis foregrounds a patriotic position as well, opposing NATO and EU-orientated imperialism, and the EU migration laws which transformed Greece into the EU’s migrant prison.

Conclusions

Frame analysis was employed to analyse the representation of the “Evros events” in Greek newspapers. The sets of frames reconstructed were compared in order to reveal the contribution of the press in democratic debate around migration. The centrist and conservative press represented these events as a “national epic”, where “all Greeks” united to defend Greece’s borders against the migrants and Turkey; EU, USA and NATO help is crucial in this regard; Greece should use the opportunity to strengthen its geopolitical position and it should also toughen its border policies further to prepare for the worse in the future; here the metaphors of ‘war’ and ‘asymmetric threat’ are central to legitimize such emergency policy pretexts. The framing of the conservative press is reflecting the “fortress Europe” (Webber, 2018:99) policy framework that consists of restrictive stances towards migration. At the same time such framing sets up migrants and refugees as a scapegoat that diverts attention from the failures of neoliberal policy in the country by focusing on a constructed external threat to the security of the Greek people that stems either from the migrants themselves, or from Turkey. This negative type of coverage is congruent with similar research conducted in different Western contexts (Titley, 2019; Galantino, 2020; Krzyżanowski, 2020).

The Left-wing press stresses the structural dimensions of migration and the humanitarian and class aspects of it. Τhe center-left Efsyn maintains a progressive Eurocentric perspective, emphasizing the “migration problem” as a European issue, while advocating for a humanistic treatment of migrants, based on European democratic traditions. Rizospastis maintains the impossibility of resolving the problems associated with the “crisis” through the Western liberal-capitalist political framework, highlighting working-class organization as the solution, and echoing discourses of solidarity between migrant and European workers as a condition for the emergence of agency from below.

As the current (2022) ND administration follows an increasingly neoliberal authoritarian course, the Right-wing media discourse is much more publicly influential than the Left-wing one, and therefore the frames circulated in the Left-wing press fail to have an important impact in public discourses around migration. In such a historical and socio-political setting, the migrants become a useful tool for liberal and conservative governments to divert public discontent over the economy and the mounting of social problems. In this specific case the ND government used the events to galvanize its constituents by presenting a “tough stance” on migration that is legitimized by nationalist imperatives, and by diverting critique over its repressive policies. The mainstream media’s role is thus propagandistic, allowing the conservative and neoliberal Greek government to effectively contain critique, protest, opposition, and solidarity.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflict interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Christos Kostopoulos

Yiannis Mylonas

Author biographies

Christos Kostopoulos is a Mass Communication Lecturer at Curtin University Malaysia. His research interests include media framing and journalistic production of content, changing journalistic practices in the face of increasing digitization processes, media systems research, political economy of the media, and disinformation.

Yiannis Mylonas is an Associate Professor in Media Sociology and Cultural Studies at the Media Department of the National Research University Higher School of Economics University, in Moscow, Russia. He has published various peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on politics, media, and culture. He is the author of the monograph “The Greek Crisis in Europe: Race, Class and Politics” (Brill, 2019).

References

Azoulay

(2019) Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism. London: Verso.

Avraamidou

(2020) The “Refugee crisis” as a Eurocentric media construct: an exploratory analysis of pro-migrant media representations in the Guardian and the New York Times. tripleC 18(1): 478–493.

Avraamidou

Ioannou

Eftychios

(2021) “Innocent” hashtags? A cautionary tale. The #IStandWithGreece as a network of intolerance on Twitter during a land border crisis. International Journal of Communication 15: 2849–2869.

Baker

Gabrielatos

McEnery

(2013) Discourse Analysis and Media Attitudes: The representation of Islam in the British Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berry

Inaki Garcia-Blanco

Moore

(2015) Press Coverage of the Refugee and Migrant Crisis in the EU: A Content Analysis of Five European Countries Report prepared for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (December 2015). https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/87078/1/UNHCR-/20FINAL/20REPORT.pdf

Boukala

Dimitrakopoulou

(2018) Absurdity and the “blame game” within the Schengen area: analyzing Greek (social) media discourses on the refugee crisis. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 16(1–2): 179–197.

Bitschnau

Lichtenstein

Fahnrich

(2021) The “refugee crisis” as an opportunity structure for right-wingpopulist social movements: The case of PEGIDA. Studies in Communication Sciences 21(2): 361–373.

Boukala

(2019) European Identity and the Representation of Islam in the Mainstream Press. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan.

Boukala

(2021) Far-right discourse as legitimacy? Analysing political rhetoric on the “migration issue” in Greece. Studies in Communication Sciences 21(2): 329–341.

10.

Chouliaraki

Zaborowski

(2017) Voice and community in the 2015 refugee crisis: a content analysis of news coverage in eight European countries. The International Communication Gazette 79(6–7): 613–635.

11.

Davidson

Richard

(2017) Neoliberalism and the far-right: a contradictory embrace. Critical Sociology 43(4–5): 707–724.

12.

De Vreese

(2005) News framing: theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design 13(1): 51–62.

13.

Eberl

Meltzer

Heidenreich

, et al. (2018) The European media discourse on immigration and its effects: a literature review. Annals of the International Communication Association 42(3): 207–223.

14.

Entman

(1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4), 51–58.

15.

Fekete

(2018) Migrants, borders and the criminalisation of solidarity in the EU. Race and Class 59(4): 65–83.

16.

Galantino

(2020) The migration–terrorism nexus: an analysis of German and Italian press coverage of the ‘refugee crisis’. European Journal of Criminology. 19, 259–281. DOI: 10.1177/1477370819896213.

17.

Iosifidis

Boucas

(2015) Media Policy and Independent Journalism in Greece. Program on independent journalism and open society, Initiative for European Society Foundations [online]. New York: Open Society Foundation. Available at: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/media-policy-independent-journalism-greece-20150511.pdf (accessed 29 April 2016).

18.

Kostopoulos

(2020a) Journalism and Austerity: Digitization and Crisis during the Greek Memoranda. London: Bingley Emerald.

19.

Kostopoulos

(2020b) Framing The Greek Memoranda (2010-2015): A Polarisedyet Hollow Debate. TripleC 181: 460–477.

20.

Koutouza

(2019) Surplus Citizens: Struggle and Nationalism in the Greek Crisis. London: Pluto.

21.

Krzyżanowski

(2020) Discursive shifts and the normalisation of racism: imaginaries of immigration, moral panics and the discourse of contemporary right-wing populism. Social Semiotics. 30, 503–527. DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2020.1766199.

22.

Krzyżanowski

Triandafyllidou

Wodak

(2018) The mediatization and the politicization of the “refugee crisis” in Europe. Journal Of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 16(1–2): 1–14.

23.

Laclau

(1996) Emancipation(s). London: Verso.

24.

Lecheler

Matthes

Boomgaarden

(2019) Setting the agenda for research on media and migration: state-of-the-art and directions for future research. Mass Communication and Society 22: 691–707.

25.

Mondon

Winter

(2020) Reactionary Democracy: How Racism and the Populist Far Right Became Mainstream. London: Verso.

26.

Musolff

(ed) (2017) Public debates on immigration [Special issue]. Journal of Language Agression and Conflict 5(2).

27.

Mylonas

(2020) Crisis, Authoritarian Neoliberalism, and the Return of “New Democracy” to power in Greece. Stasis 10(2): 181–208.

28.

OCHA (2020) Over 3,000 people die during migration journeys in 2020 despite COVID-19 pandemic. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/over-3000-people-die-during-migration-journeys-2020-despite-covid-19-pandemic.

29.

Özkırımlı

Sofos

(2008) Tormented by History: Nationalism in Greece and Turkey. London: Hurst.

30.

Rygiel

Baban

Ilcan

(2016) The Syrian refugee crisis: the EU-Turkey ‘deal’ and temporary protection. Global Social Policy, 16(3): 315–320.

31.

Sajjad

(2018) What’s in a name? ‘Refugees’, ‘migrants’ and the politics of labelling. Race and Class 60(2): 40–62.

32.

Serafis

Drzewiecka

Greco

(eds) (2021a) Critical perspectives on migration in discourse and communication, an introduction. Studies in Communication Sciences 21(2): 287–290.

33.

Serafis

Raimondo

Assimakopoulos

, et al. (2021b) Argumentative dynamics in representations of migrants and refugees: evidence from the Italian press during the ‘refugee crisis’. Discourse & Communication 15(5): 559–581.

34.

Taylor

(2014) Investigating the representation of migrants in the UK and Italian press: a cross-linguistic corpus-assisted discourse analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(3): 368–400.

35.

Titley

(2019) Racism and Media. London: Sage.

36.

Triandafyllidou

(2018) A “refugee crisis” unfolding: “real” events and their interpretation in media and political debates. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 16(1–2): 198–216.

37.

Van Gorp

(2007) The constructionist approach to framing: bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication 57(1): 60–78.

38.

Viola

Musolff

(eds) (2019) Migration and Media. Discourses about Identities in Crisis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

39.

Webber

(2017) Europe’s unknown war. Race and Class 59(1): 36–53.

40.

Webber

(2018) Refusing refugee. Race and Class 59(3): 98–105.

41.

Wodak

(2015) The Politics of Fear. London: Sage.

42.

Yilmaz

(2012) Right-wing hegemony and immigration: how the populist far-right achieved hegemony through the immigration debate in Europe. Current Sociology 60(3): 368–381.

Framing migration in the Greek press;An analysis of the ‘Evros events’ in left,liberal,and far-right newspapers

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction: the “refugee crisis” in Europe: Political and media-related aspects

Research questions, data, and method of analysis

Findings

News frames of Dimokratia

News frames of Rizospastis

Main frames of Efsyn

Main frames of Kathimerini

Main frames of Ta Nea

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of conflict interest

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References