Refugee & Migrant Reporting Standards (UK)

1. The Regulatory and Ethical Framework

IPSO Editors’ Code Clause 1 (Accuracy) requires the press to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information, and to correct significant errors promptly and with due prominence. In migration coverage the most common accuracy failures involve immigration statistics and the misuse of category terms — for example describing an asylum seeker as an “illegal immigrant,” or presenting gross arrival figures without the context that gives them meaning. Clause 12 (Discrimination) separately prohibits irrelevant or pejorative reference to a person’s race, religion, or nationality.

The NUJ Code of Conduct and its guidelines on reporting migration and asylum ask members to use accurate terminology, to avoid language that dehumanises, and to reflect the reality that people who move are individuals rather than an undifferentiated flow. For broadcasters, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code applies comparable duties through its due accuracy and due impartiality requirements in Section 5. IMPRESS-regulated titles are bound by equivalent accuracy and discrimination articles.

This guide describes professional standards, not a position on immigration policy. Where data context is needed, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford is a widely cited, non-partisan academic source, and headline figures should be traced to Home Office immigration statistics on GOV.UK. See also: Diversity Reporting by Community.

2. Terminology That Must Be Precise

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, maintains clear distinctions between these terms. They are not interchangeable, and using one for another is an accuracy matter, not a stylistic choice.

3. Accuracy With Immigration Statistics

Numbers in migration stories carry disproportionate weight, so Clause 1 care applies with particular force. Attribute every figure to a named source, distinguish gross arrivals from net migration, asylum claims from grants, and one route from another. A large raw number presented without a denominator, timeframe, or comparison can mislead readers even when the figure itself is correct.

Trace headline figures to the primary release — usually Home Office immigration statistics on GOV.UK — rather than repeating a secondary characterisation. For interpretation and historical context, the Migration Observatory publishes non-partisan briefings. Where a claim about trends cannot be supported by a cited source, it should not be stated as fact.

4. Humanising, Not Dehumanising, Framing

NUJ guidance cautions against metaphors that describe people as a mass or a threat — “flood,” “swarm,” “invasion” — because they strip individuals of agency and identity. This is a matter of accuracy as well as tone: such language misrepresents a varied group of people as an undifferentiated force. Humanising framing does not mean advocacy; it means reporting people as individuals with specific, verifiable circumstances.

The same discipline applies to imagery. A photograph chosen to imply threat or chaos, or a caption that generalises from one person to a category, can distort the story. Neutral, accurate description of what is shown is the professional standard.

5. Consent and Safety for People With Insecure Status

People with pending claims, or with family still in danger, can face serious consequences from identification — risk to relatives abroad, retaliation, or effects on a live asylum decision. Consent must therefore be genuinely informed, specific, and revocable. A person may agree to a local interview without understanding that the resulting article will be indexed by search engines, translated, and read internationally, potentially by the authorities or actors they fled.

Good practice includes explaining reach and permanence before publication, offering anonymisation, avoiding identifying detail that could enable later tracing, and allowing withdrawal of consent up to the point of publication. Where an interpreter is used, ensure the person genuinely understands what is being agreed. These steps reflect the NUJ duty to avoid causing avoidable harm and IPSO Clause 12 provisions on vulnerable individuals.

6. Identifying Individuals: Special Care

Names, images, ages, home regions, and details of a journey can combine to identify a person even when no single element does — so-called jigsaw identification. Assess the cumulative effect, not each detail in isolation. Be alert to court reporting restrictions and to circumstances where identification could endanger a person or their relatives. Where identification is not necessary to the public interest of the story, the safer and more proportionate course is to withhold it.

7. Red Flags

• ⚠Using "illegal immigrant" or "illegal refugee" for a person whose asylum claim is lawful or pending
• ⚠Treating "asylum seeker", "refugee", and "migrant" as interchangeable terms
• ⚠Presenting arrival or claim figures without a named source and the context to understand them
• ⚠Dehumanising metaphors (flood, swarm, invasion) that describe people as a mass or threat
• ⚠Identifying an individual with insecure status without assessing risk to them or to family abroad
• ⚠Using a person's image, age, or location in a way that enables jigsaw identification
• ⚠Citing nationality, religion, or ethnicity where it is not relevant to the story (Clause 12)

8. Reporting Checklist

10. Common Mistakes

• ›
  Treating "migrant" and "asylum seeker" as synonyms: Migrant is a broad, non-legal term; asylum seeker describes a specific status with a claim in progress. Substituting one for the other misstates a person's legal situation and can breach Clause 1.
• ›
  Reporting a gross figure as if it were net: Arrivals, claims, grants, and net migration are distinct measures. Presenting one as another, or without a timeframe, misleads readers even when the underlying number is accurate.
• ›
  Assuming a claim is settled: A person whose claim is pending is not yet a refugee, and not established to lack a valid claim. Report the current stage accurately rather than pre-empting the decision.
• ›
  Underestimating the reach of publication: A person may consent to a local interview without grasping that the article will be indexed, translated, and read abroad. Explain reach and permanence before securing consent.

Primary Sources

• IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice — Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination)
• NUJ — Code of Conduct and guidelines on reporting migration and asylum
• UNHCR — terminology on refugees and asylum seekers
• Migration Observatory, University of Oxford — non-partisan data briefings

Frequently Asked Questions