Collaborative classroom experiences have allowed more varied responses to this issue and has deepened my understanding of the issue overall. In having the opportunity to hear different points of views, and indeed different issues within the areas that people are focusing on, we’re able to draw conclusions and data from collaborative brainstorming in order to uncover in-depth links between stakeholders in the issue, and the complex emotions that this draws from these stakeholders and the people/figures linked with them.
STAKEHOLDER MAPPING: ROUND 2
This mapping exercise encouraged us to revisit our initial stakeholder maps and go into more complex detail about the specific figures/organisations involved with each niche. It was interesting unpacking individual participants within the area of media in particular. Within this in particular, we started to uncover links between politicians and certain media publications that were owned by Newscorp specifically – beyond this we can see how these publications may have certain agendas and therefore more likely to employ metaphorical language in order to aid their biases.
In this exercise we are asked to focus on on various polemics and arguments within the issue areas of Asylum Seekers and Refugees. What we uncovered were incredibly complex and indeed, interconnected debates that are easily influenced by language and media. The first broad debate that we attempted to unpack was Australia vs Foreign bodies (eg the UN). Within this the emotion we thought could be connected was compassion and apathy. In terms of apathy we identified it not necessarily as an emotional stemming from a lack of care, but rather from feelings such as nationalism running deeply within certain political parties such as One Nation.
We continued within unpacking polemics within the area of government because, as shown in the previous maps, the policy and decision making from influencers is deeply entrenched within the issue. In trying to unpack the issue of Right-wing vs Left-wing as an offshoot of Media vs Public Perception, we tried to identify the cornerstone feelings behind modern feelings of nationalism which may not necessarily be abstract as we think they are. In that, we saw that fear and insecurity as aided by media perception could be a strong enforcer of public opinion. As well as this, within governmental areas we could see their shaping of refugee narratives as a way to use a scapegoat to shift focus off other areas of policy that there are varying levels of anger over within the public. This unraveling of debates showed the complex manner in which this issue is interconnected on different levels, filtering down from policy makers right down to the public, and indeed refugees themselves who no longer have control or choice over decisions being made. This definitely touched on one of the core problems of the refugee problem within Australia – that is that decision makers and policy makers depend of systemic racism and institionalised nationalism as enforced (in many cases) by left-wing media.
LINKS BETWEEN DEBATES
As touched on in the polemic mapping, we attempted to map out the links between stakeholders and the debates. Once again, this concluded that this issue is highly contentious, heavily divisive and deeply complex and far reaching in terms of who it affect in Australia. Once again, it revealed that the stakeholder with the most influence and decision making power are indeed refugees.
Through engaging in collaborative exercises, I was able to further my understanding of the complexity of this issue beyond the media. By drawing the conclusion that Refugees as stakeholders have the least influence over the decisions being made for them (disturbingly), I could extend my knowledge on how metaphorical language and faux-narratives function within the media as a policy-making or breaking tool. As well as this, it shows how little that the Australian public may not engage with asylum seekers narratives from a direct point of view or using them as a main source of reference, but merely relying on what the media is telling them whether it be positive or negative.