Last week in Strasbourg, the Council of Europe convened a roundtable on the vexed question of migration communication.
The event may seem dry on the face of it, yet in the current climate of polarisation, rigid narratives and counter‑narratives, it carries real bearing on how Europe’s publics, politicians and media frame one of the continent’s defining issues.
At the heart of the discussion was a simple but crucial observation: migration debates across Europe too often feed on what the organisation described as an “information vacuum”.
In plain terms, where durable facts are lacking, emotive narratives take root — and with them, the risk of distortion, stereotyping or worse. As the Council’s Head of the Division on Migration and Refugees, Nikolaos Sitaropoulos, put it, “disinformation or misinformation about migration exploits an information vacuum in our societies which needs to be filled by reliable, fact‑based information…”
That admission matters precisely because migration is rarely solely about numbers and legal classifications. It is deeply political, emotionally charged, and subject to exploitation. The roundtable’s three thematic sessions — credible data, communication in media and social networks, and balancing freedom of expression with the need to combat hate speech — reflect the complex interplay between fact, rhetoric and governance.
Evidence meets emotion
It is tempting, in policy circles, to declare: “Let us be purely evidence‑based.” But the Council’s own agenda note acknowledges that facts alone will not always persuade. The draft agenda states: “While evidence‑based communication drawing on reliable sources is a powerful tool, its effectiveness depends on context, messengers and audiences, and may not always be the most impactful approach.”
This is an essential insight. In the age of podcasts, influencers, algorithm‑fuelled polarisation and tribal media consumption, the messenger may indeed count as much as the message. Thus the roundtable urged that fact‑based communication must be complemented by narratives appealing to shared values, empathy and inclusivity.
In other words: the cold statistics of migration — arrivals, asylum decisions, integration outcomes — do matter. But they are insufficient on their own to shape public opinion or counter disinformation. Good communication must also tell stories, offer context, humanise matters — and avoid the twin failings of technocratic abstraction and emotive panic.
The media’s heavy lift
One of the more sobering parts of the discussion concerned the role of mainstream and social media. Session II of the roundtable probed how migration stories are framed across different platforms, emphasising the challenge of sensationalism, viral distortion and the ‘echo‑chamber’ effect.
For journalists and media‑organisations, the implication is unambiguous. It is not enough to report numbers or political statements: the framing, language and selection of case‑studies matter. A story about migration may be factually correct and still misleading if it lacks proportionality or broader context. Equally, social‑media narratives can amplify the extreme, the shocking or the oversimplified, creating feedback loops that policymakers then struggle to control.
The Council of Europe, in this context, is banking on its standards — such as the “Migration key facts” sheet and the “Frequently asked questions” on migration and the European Convention on Human Rights — to serve as publicly‑accessible reference points.
The democratic cost of mis‑communication
Beyond the mechanics of communication lies a deeper concern: the erosion of public trust, cohesion and tolerance. When migration is framed in reductive terms — as “invasion”, “flood” or “threat” — the risk is not simply flawed policy but the hardening of attitudes, the rise of xenophobia and the weakening of democratic norms. The Council’s emphasis on hate speech and hate crime in the context of migration discourse underlines that connection.
In short, this is not a matter of bureaucratic communication tactics; it goes to the heart of how Europe manages diversity, protects fundamental rights and avoids the fragmentation of its societies. The roundtable’s work is part of the broader “New Democratic Pact for Europe” initiative that the Council is pursuing.
The timing is far from coincidental. Across Europe, debates over migration are intensifying. Some nations face growing flows; others grappling with the political consequences of past influxes. Social media has transformed the public sphere; populist parties, far‑right movements and reactionary media all tap migration narratives for their own ends. In such a context, fact‑based, responsible communication is not a luxury — it is almost a necessary infrastructure of democratic resilience.
But achieving it poses a substantial challenge. Because the obstacles are not purely informational; they are psychological, cultural and institutional. Audiences may mistrust experts. Media outlets may favour dramatic stories. Politicians may exploit fear. The roundtable recognised these structural tensions: the data may exist, but the task is how to translate it into compelling, inclusive messages that cut through the noise.
What next?
The Council of Europe signalled that its forthcoming report will summarise the reflections from the roundtable and outline potential actions. But reports alone will not suffice. The real work lies in implementation — in national governments, media houses, social‑platforms, civil‑society organisations and local communities working in concert. The Council’s agenda emphasises collaboration across stakeholders.
Looking ahead, three priorities emerge. First, improving the accessibility of migration data — plain language, transparent sources, accessible formats. Second, training and supporting media and digital‑platform actors in best practices for balanced communication and counter‑ing misinformation. Third, fostering inclusive narratives that move beyond statistics to emphasise agency, integration and shared interests.
If nothing else, the roundtable in Strasbourg serves as a reminder: migration is not simply a challenge to be managed — it is a story to be told, a perception to be shaped, a democratic test of how Europe handles difference. For all the emphasis on numbers and legal frameworks, the conversation now is about meaning, narrative and voice. And if Europe fails to shape that conversation, someone else will.
In an age of noise, distortion and mistrust, the call for fact‑based communication on migration is not a technocratic after‑thought. It is an essential pillar of civic debate, social cohesion and democratic legitimacy. The Council of Europe has sounded the alarm — and the question now is whether Europe will heed.
Uncontrolled Migration Is a Major Security Risk — Pretending Otherwise Won’t Help
