On the usage of data and evidences in diverging narratives about asylum

The contribution draws upon the Gramscian concept of hegemony and the recent scholarship on (de)politicisation, and explores the role of “advocacy” think tanks and the media in producing evidence that contributes to shape policy narratives about asylum seekers and forced migrants. The research focuses on SAR operations in the Central Mediterranean Sea, involving Italy and the European Union, and selects two events as case studies. The first is the discovery of an alleged direct connection between humanitarian rescuers and smugglers, a discourse created and popularized in 2016 by Gefira, a think tank linked to the European far right. The second refers to the collusion between the Maltese government and Libyan traffickers reported by the Italian progressive catholic newspaper Avvenire in spring 2020. The two cases are examined through the lens of critical discourse analysis, focusing on (1) the modes of validation of the information, and (2) the impact on the public sphere of these two discourses. The contribution also observes (3) the dissemination practices and (4) the networks of relevant actors involved. Overall, the aim is to improve our understanding of the (differential) capability of influencing public narratives and actions shown by the two discourses. The results also contribute to the analysis of the political and cultural processes through which hegemony is established, contested or reinforced, and “common sense” is built.