Mutually Assured Misinformation

Intro

I’ve been looking into a very interesting document titled “Navigating migration narratives: Research insights and strategies for effective communication”.

This report, published by the JRC in May 2025, attempts to analyze and categorize various narratives surrounding migration in Europe. What it actually is - however - is something much more insidious.

Let’s give it a closer look, shall we?

JRC Who?

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) has, sadly, little to do with cannabis. It is the European Commission’s science and knowledge service, providing scientific advice and support to EU policy.

Their origin traces back to 1957, when the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) was established. Over the decades, the JRC has expanded its scope to cover a wide range of scientific and technological areas, including energy, environment, health, and security.

And now, also sociology and migration.

This mission creep - from nuclear to social engineering - reflects EU’s increasing focus on shaping societal narratives to align with its policy goals, over actual scientific research.

The Report

Ok, that’s enough background. Let’s dive into the report itself. It’s available here (PDF).

(Note: I will be referencing specific sections by their page numbers as they appear in the PDF, not the report’s own numbering in the footer - so you can find them easily.)

On page 6 and 7, foreword from authors highlights the report’s purpose:

It offers a toolbox for critically evaluating information, identifying and addressing misinformation and promoting a more nuanced and evidence-based understanding of migration. For those who want more fact-based and respectful discussions, you have come to the right place.

We’ll see about that.

Here’s your lesson on critically evaluating information, dear Reader.

(Re)Framing

On page 11, the authors set up their argument. First, they describe actual concerns related to migration as “frames”:

A comparison of several studies shows that there are six common migration narrative frames deployed in the mainstream media: the solidarity frame, the humanitarian frame, the economic benefit frame, a pragmatic frame, the threat frame and the crisis frame.

Only to immediately pivot onto their own hyperbolic framing:

Through an analysis of tweets (posts on X, former Twitter) of European populist leaders, they identify 11 super-narratives and 52 narratives, with the “us vs. them” narrative being the most widely used.

Ooh, “super-narratives”, fancy. Like “super-spreaders”? I kinda get it, I use similar rhetorical flourishes. On my blog, not in an official EU report.

Then, they say:

the report equips policymakers and communication professionals with practical insights to foster narratives that promote an evidence-based understanding of migration.

Only to shoot themselves in the foot on the next page:

Narratives are selective depictions of reality. They focus on certain aspects of issues while ignoring others.

Eh… 12 people wrote this report. Nobody noticed?

Imagine what they could achieve using EU’s vast resources, were they actually competent.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 starts on page 15. After some “poor refugees” rhetoric, they tell us why this report was created in the first place:

Migration remains high on the EU political agenda. The implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which aims to help protect people, secure borders, and ensure fair and efficient procedures, is one of the main priorities for the European Commission 2024-2029.

Rather than evaluating the actual effectiveness of the Pact and its impact on migration and sovereignty, they just accept it as a given, claiming it:

• Protects people - whom exactly?
• Secures borders - how?
• Ensures fairness - for whom?
• Ensures efficiency - in what way?

Those questions are left unanswered, making it clear that the report’s purpose is not to provide objective analysis, but to support pre-existing policy goals.

They also list things they consider to be problematic in achieving their goals. For example:

The media often sets the narrative agenda by choosing which stories to highlight and how to present them.

Oof. Can’t have such competition, can we? Also:

Social media platforms often prominently amplify right-wing voices through algorithms that prioritise engagement, elevating extreme positions.

Right-wing voices = a problem to be solved. Ties back nicely to their earlier “us vs them” framing - just not in the way they intended.

Navigating a landscape filled with emotional, political and media-driven challenges requires strategic communication and efforts to build trust with the public.

Hmm, have you tried methodological transparency and open access to data of state-sponsored research? This way, perhaps people would trust you more. Unless… the data isn’t on your side?

Chapter 2: Dominant media narratives

On the page 21 we can find some intellectual honesty, for a change:

Overall, researchers have found that migration narratives are polarised between portrayals that are sympathetic to migrants and portrayals that are focused on the challenges brought about by migrants to host societies.

However, right in the next sentence they decided to go for a quite odd statement:

Both positive and negative frames have in common that they are problem focused.

As opposed to… what? Not noticing problems at all?

Don’t look behind the curtain, kids, and eat your veggies.

On page 26 we get some advice on “correcting” media narratives:

1. Partnership with media organizations…

No, wait. It says “Partnership which media organizations”…? Quality control is hard. Anyway…

1. Partnerships which media organisations: […] Building relationships with journalists and media outlets can help to establish trust, promote media diversity and ensure that a wider range of voices and perspectives are represented in the public discourse on migration.

“Wider range of voices”, eh? So which voices are we missing here? I haven’t watched TV in a decade, but last I checked, mainstream media was already drowning in pro-migration voices.

2. Proactively engaging with wider audiences: Trained media experts can help explain data, trends, patterns and correlations that may not be easy to understand for non-experts. They can also provide historical, cultural and social context to migration issues, helping to present the complexities of migration in a more nuanced manner. […]

“Non-experts” can’t understand complex issues without help of “trained media experts”? All those “unaccounted for variables” won’t invent themselves, you know.

3. Offering training to journalists: […] Training can also help journalists to use data and research effectively in their reporting, including how to interpret and analyse migration data and how to explain trends and patterns.

What data? All these datasets locked behind NDAs, you mean? “How to explain trends and patterns” sounds more like opsec training.

Case Study 1: Narratives on ‘climate migration’

This part is quite ridiculous. First, they express their displeasure with other researchers’ findings:

• “Early studies claimed that the adverse consequences of climate change could force some 200 million people to migrate by 2050”
• “Similarly, the World Bank’s famous Groundswell report argued that by 2050, up to 216 million climate migrants could have to move internally in six major world regions”
• “Furthermore, particularly early projections of the number of future climate migrants suffered from a degree of simplicity in assumptions and elementary postulations.”
• “For example, the popular estimate of 200 million climate migrants referred to above relied on simple extrapolations of demographic and environmental impacts based on macro-level forecasts”
• “Similar simplistic approaches tended to postulate linear relationships between climatic factors and migration, did not account for geographical detail to capture context- specific effects, neglected important interrelationships between different dimensions of mobility and immobility and ignored additional effects, primarily related to adaptation”

High standards. I like it. So what do they propose instead?

What does the evidence base on climate migration disclose?

[…] Establishing causal relationships between climatic variables and human mobility is complex and challenging, as there are generally a variety of often intertwined factors that shape individual migration decisions. Disentangling the numerous migration drivers is difficult if not impossible.

So… nothing? Luckily for them, they’ve found one thing they can use:

In contrast to many other surveys, the Gallup World Poll presents the unique advantage of including a dedicated survey question on environmental mobility. More precisely, survey respondents in 112 countries were asked in 2010 whether they thought they would need to move in the next five years because of severe environmental problems.

Yes, a poll from 2010. They wrestle with it for few pages, only to conclude:

In summary, the example of the evidence derived from the Gallup World Poll reveals how the narratives on climate migration described above are inaccurate and misleading. Rather than supporting the causal attribution of millions of potentially dangerous international migrants from the Global South to specific climate variables, the evidence points to complex and context-specific links between environmental factors and human mobility as well as potential voluntary and involuntary immobility in all regions of the world.

“Evidence derived from a poll” invalidates other “simplistic” research, using their own “nuanced” interpretation of data from a poll asking people about their intentions years into the unknown future of 10 years ago.

Also a pathetic reframing attempt: “Climate change may force millions to migrate” → “Noo they aren’t dangerous migrants from the Global South, they’re migrants with complex links to various climate variables, so you’re wrong, hehe”.

Despite this blatant defiance of logic, they still proceed to give advice on how to shape narratives around climate migration, and it’s as hypocritical as you would expect:

Eliminating alarmist terms such as ‘climate refugees’, ‘climate exodus’ or ‘climate crisis’ from the standard vocabulary may contribute to less emotional, more objective and better informed debates on the issues

Ah, yes. Censorship. Very EU.

Chapter 3: Divisive migration narratives

Here the authors are in full offensive mode against what they perceive as “populist misinformation”. What’s most striking, is their underlying belief that migration = good, always.

Therefore, any concerns about it must be false, and any narratives expressing such concerns must be debunked and censored. Page 33:

The issue of migration is exploited for power and control.

Unlike this report that calls for active censorship, just because other people disagree with them? Unlike the whole Western academia that constantly produces prescriptive research with baked-in biases because of their moral axioms? Axioms they perceive as universal, and for decades have been failing to understand that they aren’t?

This fundamental misunderstanding of their own worldview leads them to say things like:

This narrative moreover encompasses commentary on values, wherein the messengers often reject or ridicule those who prioritise liberal values and policies.

How dare you reject liberal values. Don’t you, simpletons, understand they’re good, and your own values are bad? Then, in the next sentence:

This narrative relies on messages that discredit political rivals and that rally support for anti-establishment agendas (which can take various forms). The ‘us vs. them’ narrative mirrors the ideational core of populism

Hmm… look in the mirror, maybe? The irony here is palpable - these 3 sentences I quoted are right next to each other, and they still fail to notice that THEY are the ones constantly pushing the “us vs them” narrative.

Then, they describe issues related to migration voiced by citizens, while pretending they are entirely made up:

In our analysis of tweets, we noted that messages about migration often also contained references to one or more politically salient issues, even if they had no clear link to migration. These were the cost-of-living crisis (10% of all tweets), security (10% of all tweets), upcoming elections (ca. 9% of all tweets), Euroscepticism expressed by the messenger (7% of all tweets), critique targeting a specific person mentioned by name (i.e. ad hominem attacks, ca.7% of all tweets), and the climate debate (appearing in about 5% of all tweets).

Mmm… climate? No link? But they’ve just described the interconnectedness of these issues. We’ll get back to that, because they do mention some of these other “not linked” issues later on, in a very similar manner.

Throughout this chapter, the authors do not take into consideration whether the “narratives” or “frames” they attack could be in any way reasonable.

• When they criticize concerns about immigration being out of control, they don’t bring up any numbers, focusing on “portrayal” of “perceived threats”.
• When discussing borders, it’s always “perceived weaknesses” of border management.
• On economic impact, they completely ignore costs, focusing only on alleged benefits, but don’t name any.
• And so on - you get the idea.

They’ve promised us evidence-based knowledge, but in this chapter there’s not a single evidence of benefits of immigration they constantly allege to, but never name. So, what are they? Cheap labor? Additional voter base? Moral absolution?

We don’t get to learn that, instead we get lectured that EU’s constant attempts at censorship are just in our imagination:

One of these frames, the ‘freedom/control’ frame, focuses on events and policies as governmental impositions, on censored dissent and government conspiracy against ’the people’.

Is DSA (Digital Services Act) just a fever dream, then? I think not, as we can read on the page The Code of Conduct on Disinformation:

The Code of Conduct aims to combat disinformation risks while fully upholding the freedom of speech and enhancing transparency under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

And who gets to say what disinformation is? Well, our beloved NGOs, based on wonderfully unbiased reports like this one.

I know that being truthful is difficult, especially when one has to operate within an ideologically compromised structure like the academia, but pretending censorship doesn’t exist, while advocating for even MORE censorship, is just… either naive or willfully blind.

And now we’re getting to the juicy part.

Case Study 2: Populist narratives around the threat of replacement

Now watch this (page 41):

Right-wing populist movements argue that the EU has lost control of its borders, allowing migrants to flood into Europe unchecked. The characterisation of the EU’s external borders as being inadequately secured - or even ‘wide open’ - evoke feelings of fear and insecurity, which can be powerful motivators for political engagement and support.

And… are they wrong? If it wasn’t for Poland and Hungary, EU’s borders would be completely open by now.

Construction of immigration as an ‘invasion’ is central to the ‘Great Replacement theory’ […] The theory frames immigration as a deliberate intent by so-called ‘elites’ to replace original populations with non-Western, primarily Muslim immigrants. This framing suggests a conspiracy orchestrated by these elites to destroy Western culture, fuelling fears and shaping perceptions towards migrants.

When we strip away their strawman of a conspiracy, what remains is: mass migration from culturally distant regions, driven by ideological commitment to multiculturalism. A policy openly stated by: academia, politicians, NGOs, and international organizations.

They mention some actual evidence supporting these concerns:

In 2020, the European Conservatives and Reformists party (ERC Group) commissioned a study titled ‘Europe’s Demographic Winter’, […] suggests that ongoing immigration […] may lead to what is described as “permanent ethnic transformation.” […] could potentially lead to the replacement of the original population by new ones if current low fertility rates persist.

That’s interesting info, I didn’t know that - thanks, JRC. Then, they admit:

The study offers data and evidence to support the arguments on demographic change, but does not provide a historical context that recognises the ongoing nature of demographic and ethnic changes throughout history.

Mm-hmm. So they agree with the observation of demographic change, but don’t like its “lack of historical context”.

What about its unprecedented scale and speed, then? Is that historically contextualized? Maybe if we look at wars or colonialism - but I doubt many people would find those acceptable justifications for mass migration today.

But, but- on the next page “historical context” is now the enemy:

Evidence indicates that demographic changes and immigration are negatively politicised using pseudo-scientific claims, historical narratives of ethnic purity […]

First they criticize the study for not providing historical context, then they criticize claims that involve such context? Are they trying to get this theory taken seriously, or what?

Their solution is just out of touch as everything else in this report:

In parallel, providing a constant source of reliable information on demographics and migration trends, clarifying complex concepts (e.g. irregular vs. illegal migration) and terminology (e.g. refugee, asylum seeker, migrant) and explaining what happens at different stages of the asylum procedure, can help clear misunderstandings and address widespread mis- and disinformation on these topics.

Come on. People are scared, angry, and tired - because of having to face these issues daily, and because they’re being lied to. Not confused about the taxonomy of migrants.

If you keep talking down to them like this, they will get more and more radical. And if that happens, you will have only yourselves to blame.

Case Study 3: Migration and the Dutch housing crisis

Here they try to explain how immigration is not to blame for housing shortages in the Netherlands. I don’t even have to dig into the data they present, because they already wrote the conclusion for us (page 51):

The influx of migrants has contributed to the demand for rental properties in big cities. However, rather than causing it, migrants themselves experienced the consequences of the housing crisis. […]

It is possible to suggest that the causes of the Dutch housing crisis are multifaceted, and that the discrepancy between the supply of housing in general and the supply of affordable housing in particular led to a housing crisis in the Netherlands. […] While it is true that the provision of social housing to immigrants could have had some impact on the availability of such housing, most analyses conclude that the overall effect is relatively small, compared to the larger structural issues at play.

“The influx of migrants has contributed to the demand” → but “migrants themselves experienced the consequences” → so it’s not their fault.

“While it is true that the provision of social housing to immigrants could have had some impact” → but “most analyses conclude that the overall effect is relatively small” → so who cares.

Analyses like yours, you mean? Then their findings should be treated as inverted from the start.

But still, by now the pattern is clear: recognize some of the issues, discuss their complexity, then reject the concerns entirely, claiming they are just populist misinformation.

Chapter 4: Disinformation narratives on migration

I think so far they’re doing pretty good. No, wait- they were supposed to combat misinformation, right?

We’re not even halfway through the report, and they already managed to validate multiple “far-right” talking points, while trying to debunk them.

In this section they provide some specific cases, in which disinformation has been supposedly linked to violent incidents (page 65), so we can pinpoint what exactly pains them.

In some cases, disinformation has been linked to violent incidents […] These include the events that unfolded in Dublin, Ireland, in November 2023, after a knife attack outside a school that injured three children. Soon after the attack, unconfirmed reports on social media falsely claimed that the attacker was an ’illegal immigrant’. These claims sparked violent riots […]

Here they describe the case of Riad Bouchaker, originally from Algeria, who had been living in Ireland for years prior to the attack.

Whether he was a legal or illegal immigrant has not been officially reported. With no clear information available, the report latches onto the “illegal” part without giving any evidence, trying to attribute the ensuing riots to misinformation regarding his legal status.

If people are angry about immigration in general, what do you think matters for them?

• Legal status of the attacker,
• Or the fact that he was a foreigner who committed a violent crime?

If JRC cares about misinformation so much, why not criticize the actual facts being withheld?

They care about preventing misinformation so much they want to censor discussions about it, but apparently not enough to criticize privacy laws being abused to hide relevant information from the public.

From the same page:

Unrest and social tensions also erupted in July 2024, when a knife attack in the seaside town of Southport, England, left three girls dead and several others injured. Almost immediately after the incident, false information began circulating on social media, claiming that the attacker was a Muslim male immigrant.

In this case, “false information” stems the fact that the perpetrator isn’t a muslim male immigrant - but he happens to be a child of immigrants. And… well, I’ve looked into it, and this is what it says on Wikipedia:

Rudakubana was arrested at the scene. He was charged with three counts of murder, ten counts of attempted murder, and possession of a bladed article. He was later separately charged under the Biological Weapons Act 1974 and Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to the possession of ricin and a military study of an Al-Qaeda training manual.

But hey, he’s not an immigrant, so stop spreading misinformation, you racists!

Interestingly, it seems like the police wanted to prevent this, but were advised against it:

Kennedy told MPs that, despite violent disorder spreading to other parts of the UK, she was told not to release information about Rudakubana to journalists.

She said she had wanted to tell the media that Rudakubana was not a Muslim.

This crucial piece of information was withheld from the public, and also isn’t mentioned in the report, which tries to put the whole blame on the public for their reaction to the dramatic event.

Again, with zero critique aimed at the institutions responsible for the dissemination of information.

All relevant info about both attackers is conveniently omitted in the report. Thus, rather than providing a complete picture, they are trying to contain the narrative within acceptable bounds.

Had they actually wanted to combat misinformation, they’d present all relevant facts. Otherwise, it’s just deflection, and an attempt at silencing discussions on migration as a whole.

For solutions, they suggest three things:

1. media and information literacy; 2) communication-based responses; and 3) contact-based responses.

On page 67, first they emphasize the importance of media and information literacy:

Essential critical skills include the ability to identify bias, selective reporting and emotional appeals, understanding how media shape perceptions and beliefs, and assessing the reliability of sources.

So, everything they haven’t done themselves in this report, as they cited specific studies to either agree or disagree with, without any kind of assessment of their reliability.

Then, they suggest communication-based responses, and even correctly identify a problem:

Citizens and commentators frequently cite a lack of reliable information on migration issues.

However, instead of criticizing this lack of information, they suggest:

Strengthening access to a diverse, plural and independent media sector is a critical first step to achieve this.

Once again, they ignore the fact that mainstream media is already overwhelmingly pro-migration, and suggest more of the same.

They do realize that trust is an issue, but fail to see that they themselves are part of the problem:

Communication strategies to maintain a balanced debate may backfire if they raise the suspicion that institutional actors are using disinformation concerns as an excuse to control public discourse.

Nothing suspicious about this, right? Move along, citizens.

Lastly, they suggest contact-based responses:

Contact theory posits that, under certain conditions, direct interaction between different groups can reduce prejudice. Positive interactions with members of an outgroup foster more favourable attitudes towards the group as a whole, whereas interactions marked by conflict or competition are less effective or even counterproductive.

Makes sense. But how do you make that happen in practice?

Makes me wonder what kind of contact-based responses German schoolchildren will have when they grow up, after they first-handedly experience the reality of 97 violent incidents, including 2 knife attacks, per day (!) in schools alone, with foreigners overrepresented among perpetrators.

The numbers come from a parliamentary inquiry, as reported by WELT (or here without paywall). Translated to English:

According to this, 35,570 violent crimes took place at Germany’s schools last year – on average around 97 incidents every day in which pupils became victims or perpetrators, 743 of which were knife attacks.

Overrepresentation of foreigners from another inquiry, also reported by WELT (also without paywall):

Another population group reaches a sad peak: Algerian teenagers have a SBR [Suspect Burden Rates] value 56 times higher than their German peers; for Moroccans between 14 and 18, the crime burden is about 19 times higher.

And let’s not forget about classification issues of German crime data, hiding the true scale of the problem. Only now it’s starting to change, as North Rhine-Westphalia introduced tracking of specific nationalities:

North Rhine-Westphalia is taking a new approach to crime statistics: in future, not only the German nationality of suspects and victims will be recorded, but also all nationalities. The decree by Interior Minister Herbert Reul (CDU) will apply retroactively from July 1, 2025 and has met with a mixed response nationwide.

Let’s see how long until other states follow suit. This is what combating misinformation looks like in practice - but I doubt JRC would agree.

Summary

I’m getting pretty tired of this, and I’m sure you are too. We’ve been through about 2/3 of the report, and I think I’ve shown you enough - I hope that from now on, you will be able to do this on your own.

There are four more sections in there, but they’re more mild in comparison to what we’ve already seen:

• a case study about Ukrainian refugees - very short, and I actually agree with most of it,
• a chapter on “Origins and influences on attitudes towards migrants” - mostly survey data analysis, nothing too interesting,
• a chapter on “Trustworthy public communication on migration” - with specific recommendations for policymakers, similar to what we’ve already seen,
• a case study of “Successful migration communication actions” in which they cherry-picked a few examples of pro-migration campaigns that have successfully influenced public opinion.

There’s simply too much to go over in this single post, so let’s wrap this up now.

Methods Used

Throughout the report, the authors employ several manipulative techniques. I’ve already mentioned some of them, but let’s summarize:

Conclusions

Do you remember the title of the report? It reads much differently now: “Navigating migration narratives: Research insights and strategies for effective communication”.

It’s about their own narratives - as they mistakenly admitted at the beginning. But even without that admission, the underlying agenda is quite clear.

Not the first time I’ve seen this kind of thing produced by the academic world, sadly. This isn’t “science”, it’s propaganda in its purest form. An operational manual, if you will.

Every line of it paid for by the very citizens it is designed to manage and mislead. Coming soon to the geopolitical theater near you.

It is a lot to take in, I know. But I find it necessary to lay this out if we want any chance at a better future. One that doesn’t foster the perception of citizens as mere subjects to be controlled.

Mutually Assured Misinformation

When I wrote the title of this post, it was meant as a simple jab at JRC’s Euratom origins and a reference to mutually assured destruction. Now I realize that - coincidentally - the concept seems to apply just as well to the realm of information warfare.

Like in nuclear standoffs, where both sides possess the capability to annihilate each other, their existence relies on survival of the other. Otherwise, the balance of power collapses.

Unlike nukes, however, information is not limited by physical constraints. Not limited to great powers. Meaning: this cycle can be broken.

I think that the best way to achieve a permanent change is through the reform of academic institutions, making them truly independent and transparent. I have described this in a little more detail in my previous post about liberal universalism.

More work needs to be done in this regard, but I believe it is the right direction towards true rationalism. A path that doesn’t end up in a totalitarian regime. I will keep you posted.

Catch me on X, if you’d like to discuss something in private. Or write in the comments how your country is doing.

Be well, and take care of yourselves out there - because they surely won’t.

To Authors

(Note: Prior to publishing this post, I have reached out to the report’s authors via email, to give them a chance to respond to my critique, as per the journalistic standard of the right to reply. I have received no response.)

Let me address you here, then.

Remember this: your work is shaping EU policies and, by extension, the worldview of millions of people, as well as their futures. That’s quite a responsibility to bear.

Look at Sweden, Germany, France, the UK, and think whether this is the legacy you want to leave behind.

Even small acts of courage and defiance against ideologically corrupt structures can lead to significant shifts over time.