ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
519
received: 2021-02-05                 DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2021.33
RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: 
THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”
Rok SMRDELJ
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Sociology, Aškerčeva cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: rok.smrdelj@ff.uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT
The article presents the results of the first systematic literature review on migration in Slovenian media 
from the perspective of the hybrid media system. The mass media coverage of refugees and migrants is deter-
mined by the process of construction of the “other” in the Slovenian society. Stereotypical negative reporting 
prevails, portraying refugees and migrants as a security and cultural threat. The social media research notes 
the prevalence of an extremely xenophobic and racist discourse tacitly supported by the political elite and 
serving as a legitimisation for the government’s security policy.
Keywords: refugees, migrants, mass media, social media, hybrid media system, crisis
IL TEMA DELLE MIGRAZIONI NEI MEDIA SLOVENI: «GLI ALTRI» 
NEL PERIODO DI «CRISI»
SINTESI
Il contributo presenta i risultati della prima disamina sistematica della letteratura sulla copertura in-
formativa del tema delle migrazioni dal punto di vista del sistema mediale ibrido. La cronaca sui rifugiati 
e migranti determina il processo della costruzione de «l’altro» nella società slovena. Prevale la cronaca 
stereotipata e negativa che presenta i rifugiati e i migranti come una minaccia alla sicurezza e alla cultura. 
Le indagini sui social rilevano la prevalenza di un discorso altamente xenofobico e razzista, che gode del 
tacito sostegno dell’élite politica e funge da legittimatore delle misure securitarie del governo.
 
Parole chiave: rifugiati, migranti, mass media, social media, sistema mediale ibrido, crisi
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
520
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
INTRODUCTION
“Migration in the media” and “media in migration” 
are two research directions within the broader field 
of media and migration studies (Wood & King, 2001; 
Pogliano, 2017). While the field of “migration in the 
media” is generally characterised by the examination 
of media representations of refugees and migrants1 
in the mass media and social media, the field of 
“media in migration” mostly takes into consideration 
ethnographic and anthropological research on the use 
of new media technologies in the migration process 
(Pogliano, 2017). The first field is dominated by the 
finding that mass media most often portrays refugees 
and migrants as the “other”, “criminals” and “undesi-
rables” (Wood & King, 2001; Consterdine, 2018; Eberl 
et al., 2018). However, the fundamental contribution 
of the second field is that new media technologies 
are a significant factor in the integration of refugees 
and migrants into the environment of the destination 
country (Redecker et al., 2010; Laanpere et al., 2011). 
In addition, contemporary digital technologies (e.g., 
smartphones) have an ambivalent role in the migration 
process. On the one hand, they are an important means 
through which refugees and migrants obtain informa-
tion on their way to destination countries, but on the 
other hand, they jeopardise their status by recording 
activities (e.g., stops, movements, communication with 
others) and thus exposing them to state surveillance 
(Zavratnik & Cukut Krilić, 2018, 2020).
In this article,2 I do not discuss “media in 
migration”,3 but “migration in the media” in the period 
1991–2020 in Slovenia. Namely, I present the results 
of the first systematic literature review on migration in 
the Slovenian media from the “hybrid media system” 
perspective (Chadwick, 2013). I intend to shed light on 
a relatively well-established research field in Slovenia 
that has not yet been systematically and comprehensi-
vely reflected on.
The hybrid media system perspective, a framework 
I applied in the present research, is defined as the 
broadest empirical framework for understanding the 
contemporary media landscape. Its key element is the 
online digital context, which dictates the forms of inter-
twining “old” and “new” media institutions, practices, 
and content. In other words, the hybrid media system 
is defined by the interaction of mass media and social 
1 I do not distinguish between the terms “refugee” and “migrant”. I use them interchangeably to refer to all persons traveling, regardless 
of the reason for departure or arrival. Introducing more neutral hypernym into the discussion, e.g., “people on the move” (King, 2010), 
seems awkward and unfitting, given the studies in focus use the terms “refugee” and “migrant”. On the other hand, I reveal the implicit 
ideological assumptions of the established labels for travellers in the prevailing media discourse.
2 This research work was conducted as part of the research programme Problems of Autonomy and Identities at the Time of Globali-
sation P6-0194 (funded by the Slovenian Research Agency) and as part of the activites funded by the eng. Milan Lenarčič University 
Foundation. I express my gratitude to Roman Kuhar for his comments on an earlier version of this article.
3 For examples of Slovenian studies on “media in migration”, see Erjavec, 2015; Zavratnik & Cukut Krilić, 2018; 2020; Perner & Zavratnik, 
2019; Lenarčič, 2020.
4 When I use the term “media” without adjectives, I refer to both mass media and social media.
media. Mass media refers to traditional mass media and 
their news content, while social media refers to “new” 
media platforms determined by user-generated content.4
Numerous studies in the field of “migration in the 
media” have confirmed that mass media and social me-
dia have a significant role in shaping citizens’ attitudes 
towards refugees and migrants. Both types of media 
normalise and reproduce the selection and hierarchy 
of key issues in the public sphere and influence their 
understanding (Chauzy & Appave, 2014; Consterdine, 
2018; Eberl et al., 2018).
The roles of mass media and social media in shaping 
citizens’ attitudes towards refugees and migrants are 
also important because most European citizens are not 
in direct contact with refugees and migrants. Media 
representations of them are thus their primary sources 
of information about refugees and migrants. For exam-
ple, in one of the first Slovenian studies on migration 
in the media (Doupona et al., 1998 [2001], 16), it was 
observed that although the presence of Bosnian refugees 
had been relatively strong in the Slovenian public con-
sciousness in the 1990s, few citizens had had personal 
contacts with them. Furthermore, Kogovšek Šalamon & 
Bajt (2016, 9) noted, in the context of the 2015–2016 
refugee crisis, that the majority of the Slovenian popu-
lation would not have even known that refugees and 
migrants had come to Slovenia if they had not been 
reported on by the media.
The above observations confirm the significance 
of addressing migration through the analysis of media 
content. Although media discourse is not the only one 
and independent of other discourses that generate the 
context of political consensus in the public sphere, it 
is the leading creator of the general framework that de-
termines attitudes towards marginalised groups (Jalušič, 
2001 [2002], 14). In the contemporary social context, 
mediated reality matters much more than any other 
form of reality (Strömbäck, 2008, 239), especially in the 
case of deprived social groups with whom the dominant 
society is not usually in direct contact (Medica, 2017, 
79). Due to the central role of the media in shaping 
public attitudes towards the migrant issues, the question 
also arises whether the media discourse represents the 
migrant issues autonomously or is it just a “mouthpiece 
of political parties or other powerful groups” (Wood & 
King, 2001, 2). Who controls the dominant public image 
of a refugee and migrant in a hybrid media system?
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
521
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
The article is divided into four sections. First, I focus 
on the general features of Slovenian research dynamics 
in the field of “migration in the media” in the period 
1991–2020. I define the principal object of the analysis, 
the frequency of occurrence of the studies, the predomi-
nant sample and method, and some other peculiarities in 
the research dynamics Although the Slovenian research 
context is in focus, in some cases, I highlight the simi-
larities or differences with broader European research 
trends. In the second section, I address the constants and 
changes in the media representations of refugees and 
migrants in mass media, and in the third section, I do 
likewise in the area of social media. In both sections, 
I also answer the question of whose discourse is pri-
vileged by the contemporary media. In the concluding 
section, I reflect on the main findings and clarify further 
research perspectives.
GENERAL FEATURES OF THE FIELD
Object of analysis
The principal object of the analysis in the research 
field of “migration in the media” in Slovenia is one 
of the three mass arrivals of refugees and migrants in 
Slovenia in the periods 1992–1993, 1999–2001, and 
2015–2016.5 In the prevailing media and political dis-
course, these arrivals were labelled by the ideological 
term “crisis” (Žagar, 2018, 103), which presupposes 
how to understand the mass arrival of refugees and mi-
grants and how to act in such a situation: as in the case 
of an epidemic or natural disaster, which requires im-
mediate emergency measures and the activation of the 
repressive state apparatus. The creation of a problem, 
a moral panic and a crisis (Jalušič, 2001 [2002]; Drolc, 
2003; Erjavec, 2003; Kralj, 2008; Esses et al., 2013; 
Berry et al., 2016; Milharčič Hladnik, 2016), which in 
political practice leads to the tightening of the asylum 
legislation and the closure of Slovenia’s state borders, 
is a constant prevailing political and media attitude in 
all three periods (Doupona et al., 1998 [2001]; Mihelj, 
2004a; Kralj, 2008; Malešič, 2017; Pajnik, 2017; Ve-
zovnik, 2018b; Žagar, 2018).
In the first period, as a result of the war on the terri-
tory of the former SFRY in the summer of 1991, Croatian 
refugees were the first to arrive (most of them from 
Vukovar and Osijek in eastern Croatia and some also 
from Karlovac and Krajina). They stayed in Slovenia for 
a brief time and did not attract much public attention. A 
massive influx of Bosnian refugees followed, which was 
the subject of media attention, mainly between April 
and June 1992 (Doupona et al., 1998 [2001], 14–15). 
The second period was dominated first by the arrival of 
Kosovo refugees in spring 1999 (Erjavec, 2003, 84) and 
later by migrants from the former Soviet republics, Asia, 
5 In the article, I call them the first, second and third periods.
Middle East, and Africa (Žagar, 2018, 103). They were 
reported in the media, mainly between autumn 2000 
and the first three months of 2001 (Jalušič, 2001 [2002], 
16–21). The third period encompasses the arrival of 
refugees and migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, and 
Iraq in the second half of 2015, especially in October 
and November, when the number of arrivals peaked, 
and were accompanied by an intense media coverage 
(Eurostat, 2019; Migracije v številkah, 2016). 
It should be noted that while Bosnian refugees sta-
yed longer in Slovenia, for most of the arriving refugees 
and migrants in the second and third periods, Slovenia 
was only one of the transit countries on the way to 
the destinations in the Western and Northern Europe. 
Furthermore, all three mass arrivals were shaped by 
different socio-historical contexts. While the first 
period is characterised by the immediate proximity of 
Slovenian independence and the disintegration of the 
SFRY, which led to wars and the arrival of Croatian and 
Bosnian refugees (Erjavec, 2003), the later migrations 
to Slovenia are coupled with broader global processes. 
Namely, in the second period, people migrated mainly 
due to the desolate economic situation in the countries 
of origin (Pajnik et al., 2001), while in the third period 
the emergence of the “Arab Spring” and the volatile 
military and social situation in the region dictated the 
pattern of migration dynamics around the world (Kogo-
všek Šalamon & Bajt, 2016; Zadnikar, 2017).
The third period is characterised by a radically diffe-
rent media landscape compared to the first and second 
periods, which were mainly covered by traditional mass 
media, while the third period was shaped by both mass 
media and social media (Wright, 2014, 461–462). In 
1992 and 2000, most information was accessible throu-
gh mass media, while in 2015, much of the information 
was also provided through social media, especially 
Facebook and Twitter (Žagar, 2018, 120). The change in 
the media landscape and the use of new media techno-
logies affect not only the dominant media portrait of the 
contemporary refugee and migrant (Wright, 2014), but 
also a migration process that is not only tied to physical 
space, but also cyberspace (Lenarčič, 2020). 
One of the three mass arrivals in Slovenia as the 
principal object of analysis in the research field of “mi-
gration in the media” requires a brief critical comment. 
A migration is a complex phenomenon consisting not 
only of the arrival of individuals, but also of their de-
parture (Lukšič Hacin, 2017). It seems that the existing 
studies—by choosing the object of study in focus—im-
plicitly reproduce the image of a refugee and migrant 
who comes to Slovenia and does not belong to the Slo-
venian ethnic national community. On the one hand, 
the studies mostly focus on the media representations 
of Bosnian refugees, migrants from Eastern European 
countries and refugees and migrants from the Middle 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
522
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
Eastern countries. On the other hand, the studies do 
not tackle media representations of other travelling 
groups, e.g., “Slovenes from Sarajevo” (Šumi, 2001; 
Klavora, 2012) or “Slovenes from Argentina” (Lukšič 
Hacin, 2004), who also arrived to Slovenia but were 
recognised as part of the Slovene ethnic community 
and, therefore, did not have the status of foreigners. In 
other words, the studies focus on media representations 
of the “other”, a foreigner excluded from the Slovene 
ethnic community and not welcome in Slovenia. Si-
multaneously, they do not address the invited, espe-
cially the members of the Slovenian ethnic diaspora, 
who after Slovenia’s independence participated in the 
process of imagining the Slovenian nation, not through 
exclusion, as in the case of foreigners, but through 
inclusion in the Slovenian nation (Štiks, 2010), based 
on the idea of Slovenia as a country of all blood-related 
Slovenians and not as a country of all its inhabitants 
(Mihelj, 2004a). To understand more comprehensively 
the narratives of exclusion and inclusion in the pre-
vailing media discourse in Slovenia, further research 
should also focus on refugees and migrants who do not 
have the status of the “other”.
Frequency
The studies in focus were collected through the 
Slovenian national bibliographic system Cobiss under 
the keywords “refugees” and “migrants”. Besides, I 
checked the volumes in the Peace Institute’s book se-
ries MediaWatch, all issues of the Intolerance Monitor 
Report and the Monitor ISH, as well as some hits in 
the Google search engine. I focused on journal arti-
cles, chapters in monographs, and other scientific texts 
that chose media depictions of refugees and migrants 
as their object of study and appeared in the period 
1991–2020 in Slovenia.
In terms of the number of studies, periods of con-
tinuity and discontinuity could be discerned. In the 
period 1991–1997, no studies appeared. Later, in the 
period 1998–2012, 19 studies were published, focu-
sing mainly on the first and the second mass arrival.6 
In the years 2013 and 2014, again no studies could 
be found. The turning point comes after 2015 when 
the number of studies increases rapidly. In the period 
6 These are: Doupona et al., 1998 [2001]; Kuzmanić, 1998 [1999]; Jalušič, 2001 [2002]; Kuhar, 2001; Kuzmanić, 2001; Bassin et al., 
2002; Drolc, 2003; Erjavec, 2003; Mihelj, 2004a; 2004b; Mlekuž 2006; 2007 [2011]; 2008 [2009a; 2009b; 2016]; Pajnik, 2007; 2008; 
Kralj, 2008; Žagar, 2002a [2002b; 2004; 2006], 2009; Vidmar Horvat & Učakar, 2012 (N.b. identical studies—unchanged or slightly 
modified—republished elsewhere are listed in square brackets.) 
7 These are: Vezovnik, 2015a [2015b]; 2017b [2018a]; 2018b; Bajt, 2016; 2018; Pajnik, 2016; 2017; 2018; Vidmar Horvat, 2016; 2017; 
2020; Hrvatin, 2017; Jontes, 2017; Luthar, 2017; Malešič, 2017; Pušnik, 2017; Šaina & Turnšek, 2017; Velikonja, 2017; Arnejčič, 2018; 
Vezovnik & Šarić, 2018; Žagar, 2018; Jalušič & Bajt 2020; Smrdelj & Vogrinc, 2020; Vehovar et al., 2020 (N.b. identical studies—un-
changed or slightly modified—republished elsewhere are listed in square brackets.)
8 The reasons for this situation are probably systemic and have nothing to do with research affinity. It is not that the third period is more 
relevant and interesting than the second or the first one. The crucial reason most likely lies in the fact that the conditions of production 
of academic work in the first and second periods were quite different from those in the third period, since they were not determined by 
the Sicris hyperproduction imperative that demands the quantitative accumulation of scientific texts. This could be one of the possible 
reasons which explains the low volume of studies in the first period and the large production in the third period.
2015–2020, 24 studies were published, focusing main-
ly on the third mass arrival.7 However, the first period 
is the least researched, while the last received the most 
research attention.8
The same trend can be observed in the broader Eu-
ropean research dynamics. The so-called 2015–2016 
European refugee crisis, referred to in this article as the 
third period, represents the dominant research topic in 
the broader field of media and migration research in 
Europe, especially in 2017 and 2018, when most stu-
dies were published compared to previous years (Eberl 
et al., 2018, 208). The situation is similar in Slovenia, 
where most of the studies published in the last five 
years appeared in 2017 and 2018.
Sample, method and some other peculiarities
Most studies focus on mass media coverage, among 
which the daily or weekly newspapers dominate (e.g., 
Doupona et al., 1998 [2001]; Kuzmanić, 1998 [1999]; 
Jalušič, 2001 [2002]; Kuhar, 2001; Bassin et al., 2002; 
Erjavec, 2003; Mihelj, 2004a; 2004b; Pajnik, 2007; 
2008; 2017; Kralj, 2008; Vezovnik, 2015a [2015b]; 
2017b [2018a]; Jontes, 2017; Pušnik, 2017; Šaina & 
Turnšek, 2017). Research on television media cove-
rage is also present in the field (e.g., Erjavec, 2003; 
Mihelj, 2004a; 2004b; Hrvatin, 2017; Luthar, 2017; 
Vezovnik, 2018b; Smrdelj & Vogrinc, 2020). The 
content of social media is less frequently analysed 
compared to mass media (e.g., Kuzmanić, 2001; Bajt, 
2016; 2018; Malešič, 2017; Velikonja, 2017; Žagar, 
2018; Vehovar et al., 2020). A similar situation is 
evident in the broader field of media and migration 
research in Europe. Traditional printed mass media are 
most frequently analysed, while social media content, 
online news, and interpersonal communication are 
covered less frequently, despite being an important 
segment of the contemporary media landscape (Eberl 
et al., 2018, 218).
Methodologically, approaches related to discourse 
analysis (e.g., Doupona et al., 1998 [2001]; Jalušič, 
2001 [2002]; Kuhar, 2001; Pajnik, 2007; Kralj, 2008; 
Vezovnik, 2015a [2015b]; 2017b [2018a]; 2018b; Paj-
nik, 2017; Šaina & Turnšek, 2017) and frame analysis 
(e.g., Jontes, 2017; Malešič, 2017) predominate. On 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
523
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
the one hand, most studies focus on mass media 
and social media content separately. Although mass 
media and social media interact in the contemporary 
hybrid media system, they are very rarely studied in 
their hybridity. On the other hand, studies dealing 
with different media (e.g., Žagar, 2018) do not make 
theoretical and methodological distinctions in relation 
to different media content, as it is analysed with the 
same approach, regardless of the type of media that 
produced it. For example, the traditional mass media 
content is usually treated in the same way as the social 
media content without taking into account the speci-
fics of the contemporary media landscape determined 
by the online digital context that influences the (re)
production, circulation and reception of the media 
content (see Klinger & Svensson, 2015). 
Most studies focus on the periods of most extensive 
media coverage coinciding with the periods of mass 
arrivals in Slovenia. The analysis of media portrayal of 
refugees and migrants is most interesting for researchers 
in the cases of the most extensive media coverage. 
Exceptions are Kuzmanić (1998 [1999]), Mlekuž (2006; 
2007 [2011]; 2008 [2009a, 2009b, 2016]), Pajnik 
(2007), Vidmar Horvat & Učakar (2012), and Vezovnik 
(2015a [2015b]) who analyse a sample of media texts 
outside the periods of mass arrivals in Slovenia. Some of 
these studies also aimed at different objects of analysis. 
For example, Mlekuž (2006; 2007 [2011]; 2008 [2009a, 
2009b, 2016]) analyses the media representations of 
immigrants and their descendants from the countries of 
the former Yugoslavia through the discourse on burek, a 
dish with a distinctly immigrant and “Balkan” connota-
tion in Slovenian media and culture. On the other hand, 
Vidmar Horvat & Učakar (2012) and Vezovnik (2015a 
[2015b]) focus on the media representation of ex-Yugo-
slav immigrant workers, which attracts media attention 
mainly due to the events related to the 2009 economic 
crisis leading to bankruptcy of numerous enterprises, 
especially in the construction sector, where hundreds of 
immigrant workers lost their jobs and social security (see 
the author’s studies).9
The research focus is on analysing media content, 
while the study of media effects on the audience is 
largely neglected. Such lack of study is also a specific 
feature of the broader field of media and migration 
research in Europe (Eberl et al., 2018, 215–217). An 
exception in Slovenia is Malešič (2017), who analyses 
media and political discourse from the perspective of 
securitisation in the third period. The author finds that 
the results of public opinion polls confirm the influen-
ce of media and political discourse on public opinion, 
9 Although Komac (2005) does not directly address the refugee and migrant issue, as he discusses the role of the media from the perspective 
of the national minority, his contribution should also be mentioned here. The author focuses on the issue of the right of members of national 
minority communities to access the media and consequently to participate in cultural life. He develops a theoretical starting point for ad-
dressing three issues: 1) media in the language of the dominant ethnic group and minority issues; 2) media production by minorities them-
selves in their own language; and 3) access to media by members of national minorities from their “mother country”. Although the author’s 
paper was written before the emergence of social media, it can still be applied to research from the hybrid media system perspective. 
with print media being relatively neutral in portraying 
migrants as a security problem and even opposing 
excessive securitisation, while political representatives 
were biased. The most biased was the largest oppo-
sition party at the time, the right-wing SDS, which 
disseminated the discourse on migrant securitisation 
based on selective information, simplifications, and 
exaggerations.
In the broader field of media and migration research 
in Europe, comparative research between selected sta-
tes is very rare, indicating a need for more comparative 
studies, as migration is an international issue and it is 
usually not confined only to one country (Lecheler et 
al., 2019, 698). Even when studies do involve a com-
parative approach, they are often limited to describing 
results, without the intention of clarifying differences 
between the countries (Eberl et al., 2018, 215–217). 
Although comparative studies are also rare in Slove-
nia, they can still be found. Mihelj (2004a) and Žagar 
(2018) deal comparatively with different periods of 
mass arrivals in Slovenia. Furthermore, Šaina & Turn-
šek (2017) present a discursive analysis of metaphors 
in dailies Večernji list in Croatia and Slovenske novice 
in Slovenia. Vezovnik & Šarič (2018) discuss visual 
representations of migrants on Slovenian and Croatian 
online public portals, and finally, Jalušič & Bajt (2020) 
discuss changes in attitudes towards refugees and mi-
grants in public debates on migration and integration 
in Austria, Denmark, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and the 
United Kingdom.
Although I argue below that negative stereotypical 
coverage predominates in the media, traces of positive 
media coverage can also be detected in some studies. 
In the case of the second arrival, Jalušič (2001 [2002]) 
and Mihelj (2004a) discuss the switch to a more positi-
ve media reporting, which came as a result of the con-
demnation of the public’s xenophobic reaction by some 
politicians, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 
and scholars. Based on the analysis of the Slovenian 
mainstream print media in the period 2003–2005, Paj-
nik (2007) notes the emergence of stories, albeit few, 
in which refugees speak of or report on their difficulties 
in finding work, housing, etc. However, as the author 
stresses, even the seemingly positive coverage has its 
pitfalls. For example, although a refugee voice is inclu-
ded in a particular media reporting, their stories are a 
prop for content that understands integration processes 
as the adaptation of “them” to “us”. Also, a lack of re-
flection exists on the integration policy and approaches 
that do not shift responsibility for integration solely 
onto the refugees. 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
524
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
MASS MEDIA
Based on the results of the collected studies appea-
red in the period 1991–2020, I find that the mass media 
coverage of refugees and migrants is initially determi-
ned by the process of construction of the “other” in 
Slovenian society, which is also a constitutive feature 
of the media coverage of marginalised social groups 
in post-socialist Slovenia (Pajnik, 2003; Petković et 
al., 2006; Vezovnik, 2017a). The “other” in the media 
coverage of refugees and migrants is built on a com-
plex interweaving of nationalist discourse, security 
discourse, criminalisation discourse, and humanitarian 
discourse. These discourses have different manife-
stations in the first, second and third periods of mass 
arrivals, and they dictate a predominantly xenophobic 
and stereotypically negative media coverage. The 
position of the “other” in relation to media coverage of 
refugees and migrants manifests most explicitly at the 
level of 1) naming, 2) the dualism of “us” vs. “them” 
and the natural disaster metaphors, 3) the privileging of 
the voice of the parliamentary political elite, and 4) the 
marginalisation of the refugees’ voice (see references 
below).
The nationalist discourse that was strongly present 
in the first period is related to the establishment of the 
new state and the idea of Slovenia as a country of all 
blood-related Slovenians and not as a country of all its 
inhabitants (Kuzmanić, 1998 [1999]; Mihelj, 2004a). 
Like other former Yugoslav republics, Slovenia built its 
national identity on ethnic antagonism that manifested 
not in bloody interethnic wars but the construction of 
moral panic or “crisis” related to incoming Bosnian 
refugees in the first period and migrants later in the 
second period (Erjavec, 2003). Both were presented as 
a cultural and security threat to the Slovenian nation 
(Jalušič, 2001 [2002]; Kuhar, 2001; Kralj, 2008). In the 
media coverage, they appeared as a distinct social gro-
up or as part of all “southerners” or “Balkans” (Kuzma-
nić, 1998 [1999]). In the first period, Bosnian refugees 
in particular were portrayed in a nationalistic manner 
as dirty, lazy, uncultured, nationalistic, non-European, 
Balkan, prone to violence and crime. Simultaneously, 
a positive self-image of the Slovenes was established. 
Implicit features of the media texts (e.g., specific cate-
gorisation of texts in newspapers or television reports 
within daily news broadcasts, selection of interviewees 
and use of metaphors and symbols) reinforced these 
negative images (Mihelj, 2004a, 432). 
10 Nationalist discourse is also closely linked to the media construction of the “border”, which has different meanings in different 
periods and geographical regions. For example, Zavratnik (2003) analyses various forms of intolerance in the case of the media 
discourse at the Slovenian-Croatian state border. Moreover, using the example of media and political discourse at the Italian-Slo-
venian state border during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, Jurić-Pahor (2020) shows that border discourse is associ-
ated with the fear of contagion, which on the one hand implies exclusion, but on the other hand it also establishes awareness of 
the need for empathic and cross-border European integration.
11 Trends related to the increasing intertwining of criminal and immigration proceedings are also defined as “crimmigration” (see Bajt & 
Frelih, 2019, and Kogovšek Šalamon, Frett & Stark Ketchum, 2020).
In the first period, an explicit association existed of 
the Bosnian refugees with the Balkans and of the Slo-
venes with Europe. The idea of the Balkans symbolised 
something backward and negative, associated with the 
former socialist Yugoslav regime, and opposed to the 
Western democracies that Slovenia was supposed to 
follow after its declaration of independence in 1991. 
Since the Bosnian refugees were part of the former 
common Yugoslav state, they were associated with 
the idea of the Balkans. In the second period, when 
migrants from Eastern European countries, Asia and 
elsewhere arrived, Slovenia was no longer located in 
Europe or the West, but was recognised as an area 
separating “West” and “East”, that is, “wealth” and 
“poverty”. Slovenia declared itself as the defender of 
Europe associated with the idea of “wealth”. The re-
striction of migration was interpreted in the light of the 
defence of “wealth” against “poverty” (Mihelj, 2004a, 
434–435). In the third period, Slovenia similarly took 
over the role of the guardian of the Schengen border 
on its own initiative. This role was, however, filtered 
through memories of the 20th century, especially the 
allegedly traumatic connection to the socialist Eastern 
Bloc (Vidmar Horvat, 2017).10
Parallelly to the nationalist discourse, the security 
discourse and the criminalisation discourse also inten-
sified. The security discourse combined with the rhe-
toric of exceptionalism, the criminalisation discourse 
and the idea of risk and imminent danger created the 
so-called securitisation of migration (Malešič, 2017; 
Šaina in Turnšek, 2017; Učakar, 2017; Vidmar Horvat, 
2017; Vezovnik, 2018b; Smrdelj & Vogrinc, 2020).11 
In the first period, Bosnian refugees were presented as 
a threat to public order and security and as potential 
criminals (Doupona et al., 1998 [2001], 23). At the 
beginning of the second period, migrants were repor-
ted in the news related to crime, illegal crossing of the 
state border being the most commonly reported on. 
The media coverage was dominated by succinct police 
reports comprising information about the number and 
the place where migrants were apprehended. Later, 
in the second period of the mass arrivals, the topic 
expanded to other sections in the media but remained 
in the context of crime news (Bassin et al., 2002, 161; 
Erjavec, 2003, 88–89). Compared to Bosnian refugees, 
migrants in the second period were more often referred 
to as “illegal migrants” and the “illegals”, which further 
emphasised their illegality and criminality. They were 
portrayed as exploiters of the asylum process justifying 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
525
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
deportations and the tightening of the asylum legislati-
on (Žagar, 2018, 105). Furthermore, the securitisation 
of migration was also present in the media discourse 
of the third period. It resulted in the implementation 
of many concrete political measures, such as the in-
stalment of a razor wire fence along the border with 
Croatia, tightening of the asylum legislation, strict 
border controls, “militarisation” of the state border 
through conferring additional power upon the army, 
etc. (Malešič, 2017, 965; Vezovnik, 2018b).
Humanitarian discourse also plays an important 
role, referring to the dynamics between “here” and 
“there”. When refugees are “there”, far away from “our” 
country, they are recognised as victims of a humanitari-
an and war catastrophe, but when they are “here”, they 
threaten “our” security and culture (Wright, 2014, 461). 
In Slovenia, the humanitarian discourse is documented 
on the example of Slovenian national television, where 
the coverage before the third mass arrival focused on 
tragic news about travelling refugees and migrants in 
overcrowded boats, rescuing them and collecting their 
bodies from the Mediterranean Sea between Libya and 
Italy. The coverage during this period is defined by the 
humanitarian discourse, which allowed the existence 
of the refugee and migrant voice and offered the media 
consumers the possibility of identification with their 
unfortunate fate. In Slovenia, the change occurred in 
September 2015, when the first larger group of refugees 
and migrants crossed the Croatian-Slovenian border by 
train to continue their journey to Germany. As long as 
the refugees were far from Slovenia, they were occasi-
onally reported on as a humanitarian problem abroad. 
However, when Slovenia became their transitional 
country on their way to the West, the focus shifted from 
the prevailing humanitarian discourse to the prevailing 
security discourse (Smrdelj & Vogrinc, 2020, 293–294). 
Moreover, the discursive shift tied to the dynamics 
between “here” and “there” is not only a peculiarity of 
the Slovenian national television reports, but it is also a 
feature of the mass media in other European countries 
(Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017; Consterdine, 2018). 
Finally, Jalušič & Bajt (2020), discussing changes in 
the treatment of migration policy in political and media 
discourse, also noted a significant move from the previ-
ous proclamation of more liberal and democratic valu-
es that sought equal rights for refugees and immigrants 
to a stricter approach to immigration and integration.
Naming
The naming of refugees and migrants is usually de-
termined by the distinction between “genuine refugees” 
and “economic migrants”—a constant feature of the me-
dia coverage in Slovenia and other European countries 
(see Kaye, 2001; Wood & King, 2001; Crawley, 2005; 
Nickels, 2007; Szczepanik, 2016; Consterdine, 2018). 
The distinction is very noticeable in the second period 
when a distinction between Bosnian refugees from the 
first period and migrants from the second period was 
introduced. In the first period, the term “temporary re-
fugees” prevailed, in the second one “illegal migrants”. 
The former were recognised as having the desire to stay 
in Slovenia for some time, while the latter were assumed 
to be only crossing Slovenia because they were leaving 
their home country for economic reasons and, therefo-
re, their lives were not in danger as was the case with 
Bosnian refugees (Žagar, 2018, 111–112). Labelling as-
suming the migrants came to Slovenia with the intention 
of remaining here for a long time was very rarely chosen 
(Mihelj, 2004a, 434). 
The term “illegals”—explicitly defining foreigners 
as criminals—was also often used for migrants in the 
second period. This term reduced their status to mere 
violators of the law while obscuring the complexity and 
authenticity of the migratory experience (Žagar, 2018, 
114). As a result, migrants in the second period were 
most often referred to as thugs and criminals associated 
with the police and criminal activity (e.g., drugs, prosti-
tution). Besides, they were portrayed as dirty, unhygie-
nic, and as potential carriers of communicable diseases 
(Bassin et al., 2002, 164; Erjavec, 2003, 86; Mihelj, 
2004a, 436). Compared to Bosnian refugees, they were 
less often the object of sympathy (Mihelj, 2004a, 436).
Also in the third period, the goal of the Slovenian 
political elite was to categorise as many people as pos-
sible as economic migrants, i.e. as indivudals who could 
be more easily rejected and deported (Velikonja, 2017, 
112–113; Vezovnik, 2017b [2018a], 128–129; Žagar, 
2018, 121). When politicians and the media wanted to 
emphasise the humanitarian dimension, they referred 
to them as refugees (especially women and children). 
But when border controls were tightened, they argued 
for a separation of refugees and supposedly undeserving 
economic migrants, especially young men, who should 
have stayed at home and defended their homeland. 
Later, when a new border regime with a razor wire fence 
was introduced, the supposedly undeserving economic 
migrants became potential terrorists (Pajnik, 2016, 67; 
Pajnik, 2018, 190–191). Moreover, Pušnik (2017) de-
monstrated that refugees were doubly degraded in the 
right-wing press: first, they were portrayed as economic 
migrants attacking the economy of “our” country, and 
then their status was further reduced to a Muslims 
assaulting not only the economic but also the cultural 
foundations of Slovenia.
The dualism of “us” vs. “them” and the natural 
disaster metaphors
The natural disaster metaphors illustrating the 
“amount” of arriving refugees (e.g., wave, river, flood) 
was another constant in the media coverage of refu-
gees and migrants in Slovenia (Doupona et al., 1998 
[2001]; Mihelj 2004a; Pajnik, 2017; Pušnik, 2017; 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
526
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
Arnejčič, 2018; Žagar 2018). In the broader European 
research dynamics, the representation of migrants as 
masses and hordes was also recognised as negative 
manner of reporting (Eberl et al., 2018, 213–214). The 
metaphor of natural phenomena implied that migrati-
ons are unpredictable, they could only be curbed by 
force and aggression, their causes were independent 
of human action, and the role of politics and social ca-
uses of migration were not reflected. Such a narrative 
was a prerequisite for the establishment of the “other”, 
for its homogenisation and differentiation. Velikonja 
(2017) explains that homogenisation is about the lack 
of reflection of any intra-group heterogeneity and the 
representation of refugees and migrants as de-indivi-
dualised, ahistorised and apolitical subjects. Homoge-
nisation is complementary to differentiation, which is 
associated with the persistent emphasis on differences 
between “us”, the members of the dominant society, 
and “them”, the refugees and migrants. The dualism 
of “us” vs. “them” manifests itself in many different 
discursive contexts. Vezovnik (2017b [2018a]), for 
example, shows that tabloid news in the third period 
primarily creates binary dichotomies between “us” as 
those who embody victims, heroes, and heroized vic-
tims, and “them” who embody a cultural and security 
threat to the majority population.12 
The privileging of the voice of the parliamentary 
political elite
The research notes the privileging of the voice of 
the parliamentary political elite (e.g., the government 
and ministry representatives, the MPs) and the margi-
nalisation of other voices (e.g., NGO representatives, 
academics, refugees and migrants). Representatives of 
the political mainstream are given the most space in 
media coverage of refugees and migrants. Their voice 
appears not as one of the possible explanations, but as 
the central and most normal interpretation of what is 
happening. The mass media fail to distance themselves 
from the voice of the parliamentary political elite and 
establish their own perspective on the refugee issues 
by presenting the position of the political elite as one 
of many and not as the only and most self-evident 
one. Journalists uncritically adopt their discourse, 
which is evident at the level of word choice, selection 
of interviewees, categorisation of news, and quoting 
mainly official government sources while neglecting 
alternative sources (see references below).
The example of privileging the voice of the parli-
amentary political elite was already documented in 
the first period. Doupona et al. (1998 [2001], 20–23) 
argued that journalists were seriously concerned with 
12 Although in Slovenia, the dualism of “us” vs. “them” is predominant in the research field of “migration in the media”, some authors, 
e.g. Jurić Pahor (2015), reveal an erosion of traditional binary (op)positions (e.g., whites/blacks, we/others, centre/periphery) through the 
examples from the arts (music and literature), which have emerged mainly in the multi-ethnic and border societies.
the maximum number of Bosnian refugees Slovenia 
could have accepted. The issue, initially launched by 
the political elite, was taken over by the journalists 
and presented as a legitimate national problem, rather 
than stressing that this was only one of the numerous 
possible ways of addressing the refugee topic and that 
it stemmed from the discourse of the parliamentary 
political elite. Consequently, the refugee “wave” me-
taphor prevailed, illustrating the number of Bosnian 
refugees arriving.
At the beginning of the second period, brief news 
reports appeared regularly in the media focusing on 
the migrants apprehended while crossing the state 
border. News releases provided to the media by police 
representatives were published or broadcast almost 
unaltered. Journalists normalised the government’s 
xenophobic views by faithfully and uncritically mirro-
ring the police definition of “illegal migrants” (Erjavec, 
2003, 88–89). Later, in January and February 2001, 
two positions were established in the media—the 
“voice of the people” position and the position against 
xenophobia (Jalušič, 2001 [2002]; Erjavec 2003; Mi-
helj, 2004a). The “voice of the people” represented the 
views of residents and civic groups who spoke out aga-
inst migrant accommodation centres in their respective 
neighbourhoods. Journalists normalised xenophobia 
by faithfully and uncritically mirroring their views 
(Erjavec, 2003). The victim statuses were attributed to 
locals rather than migrants (Jalušič, 2001 [2002], 23). 
In response to xenophobic rhetoric, appeals for more 
tolerant media coverage started to emerge, demanded 
by some intellectuals, NGOs and even politicians. 
Journalists were divided into two sides: the majority 
supported the “people” over the “state”, while the 
minority labelled these protests as xenophobic (Mihelj, 
2004a, 436). According to Jalušič (2001 [2002], 24), 
the position of the “voice of the people” redefined Slo-
venian national identity, which was no longer derived 
from the opposition Slovenia vs. the Balkans, but the 
“local community” vs. the “state”. On the other hand, 
Mihelj (2004a, 436–437) argues that media support for 
the “people” and opposition to the “state” was based 
on the notion of Slovenia as a country of all blood-rela-
ted Slovenes, and not as a country of all its inhabitants. 
According to the author, the call for less xenophobic 
media coverage could have shaken the dominant nati-
onal imagination, but was met with general resistance 
as the media defended the “people”. As a result, poli-
tical representatives changed their tactics. They took 
into account some of the NGOs demands for a more 
liberal immigration policy, but simultaneously, they 
considered the will of the “people” and introduced 
more restrictive legislation (e.g., limiting the right to 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
527
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
free movement). However, although some political 
representatives attempted to deny the “voice of the 
people”, Erjavec (2003, 97) emphasises that they were 
primarily responsible for establishing xenophobia in 
the prevailing media discourse at the beginning of the 
second period when mirroring the police discourse.
In the third period, the privileging of the voice 
of the parliamentary political elite is documented in 
many cases. Pajnik (2016, 67–69) demonstrated how 
journalists did not reflect on the meanings of the terms 
they used. Just as politicians did not want to discuss 
the “razor wire”, and preferred to use the “technical 
barrier” euphemism, so did the journalists. Similarly, 
the journalists uncritically adopted the definitions 
mentioned above of refugee and migrant rather than 
drawing attention to their implicit ideological assump-
tions. The voice of the parliamentary political elite also 
predominated in the Odmevi, the current affairs bro-
adcast on the Slovenian national television. Although 
Odmevi allowed the topic to be examined from many 
angles, Luthar (2017) showed that the selection of gue-
sts in the interviews and their discursive treatment led 
to a narrowing of the debate to the perspective of the 
parliamentary political elite. Politicians appeared most 
frequently as guests in the studio or as the authors of 
statements in the news, most often from the right-wing 
political party SDS, while left-wing parties (ZL and SD) 
appeared less frequently. Furthermore, based on the 
analysis of the journalistic commentaries in Delo daily 
newspaper, Pajnik (2017) concluded that their content 
was placed in the prevailing political context. They 
addressed the European migration policy in the context 
of current political debates and omitted the NGO so-
urces. Moreover, Jontes (2017) found that journalistic 
articles in the main Slovenian dailies (Delo, Dnevnik 
and Večer) most frequently cited official government 
sources, while representatives of the NGOs, volunte-
ers, refugees and migrants rarely appeared as sources.
Marginalisation of the refugee voice
The marginalisation of the “refugee voice” (Sigona, 
2014) refers to the neglect or absence of refugees and 
migrants in the prevailing media coverage at the verbal 
level (written or spoken text) and at the visual level 
(photos, videos). Such marginalisation has been do-
cumented both in Slovenia media representations (see 
references below) and in the print media of some other 
European countries (see Chouliaraki & Stolic, 2017; 
Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017). 
Hrvatin (2017) addresses the media representation 
of female refugees in Slovenian television coverage 
during the third period. The author finds that male 
refugees appeared most frequently (89%), while female 
refugees appeared very rarely (11%). The television 
news in which refugees appeared as interviewees in-
cluded brief statements from multiple people or people 
appeared in a group and complemented each other. 
However, when white individuals appeared in the 
news, the opportunity to speak was left only to them 
and was not fragmented as in the case of the refuge-
es. Furthermore, in the case of the news programme 
Dnevnik broadcast on the Slovenian public television, 
Smrdelj & Vogrinc (2020) note that migrants were 
prevented from being one of the instances involved 
in the television communication process about them. 
Instead, they were reduced to a topic that others speak 
about (politicians, concerned villagers, police officers).
Bassin et al. (2002, 161–162) found that newspaper 
photographs from the second period depicted migrants 
at border crossings, in the basements of police stati-
ons, and in the private spaces of people who helped 
them cross the Slovenian border. Such locations in 
which migrants appeared emphasised their illegality. 
The migrants in the photographs squatted or lied on 
the ground, covering their faces or hiding them bet-
ween their legs. The faceless representation reinforced 
their dehumanisation, undifferentiation, and loss of 
individual identity. Vezovnik & Šarić (2018)—using 
the example of Slovenian and Croatian public online 
portals in the third period—addressed a specific cate-
gory of photographs dubbed “subjectless images” and 
depicting migrants and migrations, but not as subjects. 
Subjects were replaced by objects (e.g., fences, garba-
ge, razor wires, vehicles, boundary fences) that stand 
metaphorically, metonymically, or symbolically behind 
migrants and migrations. There were photographs in 
which migrants were present but obscured, shown as a 
crowd or blurred, and photographs in which migrants 
were not shown at all.
SOCIAL MEDIA
Research on migration in social media uncovered 
a prevalence of an extremely xenophobic and racist 
discourse driven by the rapid flow of hostile and false 
information, where the opinions of (anonymous) in-
dividuals acquire a public character (Vogrinc, 2019, 
145–147). Moreover, the highly negative stereotypical 
discourse on social media has the tacit support of the 
parliamentary political elite and consequently serves 
to legitimise the government security policy (see refe-
rences below).
Although most studies focus on the third period, 
the first analysis appeared already in the second 
period. Kuzmanić (2001) discussed the so-called 
hate-page that was active at http://bojkot.muba-bk.
si/begunci and published approximately 900 hateful 
graffiti during its existence. The webpage was intro-
duced with the rhetorical question “How to get rid of 
refugees and asylum seekers?” followed by the answer 
“Give vent to your anger!”. Anonymous users posted 
comments under pseudonyms calling migrants thugs, 
sloths, shirkers, criminals, stalkers, rapists, etc. The 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
528
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
comments also contained references to Hitler and 
Nazism. There were explicit tendencies to extermina-
te migrants and open concentration camps.
Fifteen years later, the same rhetoric was present 
in social media. Žagar (2018, 120–123) identified 
extremely explicit racist and xenophobic hate spe-
ech. As at the beginning of the millennium, there 
were incredibly dehumanising terms for refugees 
and migrants in the third period, and many allusions 
to Hitler and Nazism reappeared. Also, Vehovar 
et al. (2020) revealed a relatively high and stable 
proportion of online comments on the Facebook 
pages of selected Slovenian news portals containing 
the elements of the so-called “socially unacceptable 
discourse (SUD)”.
The most comprehensive analysis of social media 
was conducted by Bajt (2016; 2018). The author notes 
that in the third period, several pro et contra groups 
were formed on Facebook, as action against those 
who spread hate speech was not taken by Facebook. 
When public condemnations of hate speech emer-
ged (e.g., Zlovenia, ibid., 56), a subtler articulation 
of the same views appeared. In the case of Twitter, 
the author highlighted the post by Sebastian Erlah, 
which called for the shooting of all arriving refugees 
and migrants. In addition to the highly inappropriate 
content of this post, a lack of response from the Slo-
venian political elite, police, and prosecutors was 
notable. Many organisations (e.g., the Alternative 
Academy [Društvo alternativna akademija] and the 
Slovenian Association of Journalists [Društvo novi-
narjev Slovenije]) spoke out and warned that online 
hate speech could lead to actual anti-migrant actions 
and hate crimes. Bajt (ibid.) argued that the lack of 
political condemnation in this and similar cases led 
to tacit support to the inappropriate content on soci-
al media, which simultaneously represented support 
to restrictive anti-migration securitisation measures. 
The author concluded that political actors and re-
presentatives at local, national and European levels 
were most responsible for the rise of hate speech 
about migration on social media. Similarly, Velikonja 
(2017) found that the hate speech and exclusionary 
activities of Slovenian politicians are no different 
from those of right-wing extremists, expressed in 
graffiti, at protests and rallies.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
I present the research field of “migration in the 
media” in Slovenia from the hybrid media system 
perspective. The object of analysis of most studies was 
one of the three periods of the mass arrival of refugees 
and migrants in Slovenia. A large part of the existing 
studies focuses on mass media, among which daily or 
weekly newspapers dominate. In addition, research on 
television coverage also appeared. Social media are 
analysed less frequently than mass media. Methodo-
logically, approaches related to discourse analysis and 
frame analysis predominate.
Media coverage of refugees and migrants is deter-
mined by the process of constructing the “other” in 
Slovenian society, which is established on a complex 
interweaving of nationalist discourse, security dis-
course, criminalisation discourse and humanitarian 
discourse. These discourses have different manifesta-
tions in the first, second and third periods of mass 
arrivals, and they dictate a predominantly xenopho-
bic and stereotypically negative coverage. Moreover, 
refugees and migrants are often portrayed in the mass 
media as a security and cultural threat.
Research on social media reveals an extraordina-
rily xenophobic and racist discourse driven by the 
rapid flow of hostile and false information. Moreover, 
the extremely negative stereotypical discourse on so-
cial media has the tacit support of the parliamentary 
political elite and consequently serves to legitimise 
government security policy. 
The social media content seems to be driven by 
hostile reactions to incoming refugees and migrants, 
which have support in the prevailing political rhetoric, 
which also guides mass media reporting. From this per-
spective, social media reinforces the prevailing mass 
media discourse privileging the voice of the parliamen-
tary political elite and marginalising all other voices.
The central finding of the studies in focus—na-
mely, a predominantly negative, stereotypical media 
discourse determined by the dominance of the voice 
of the parliamentary political elite—is in accordance 
with broader European research trends (see Pogliano, 
2017; Consterdine, 2018; Eberl et al., 2018). But how 
should this key finding be contextualised in the re-
search field of “migration in the media” in Slovenia? 
One possible explanation, however, could be in the 
fact that Slovenian studies mostly focus on the peri-
ods of most intense media coverage of refugees and 
migrants, which coincide with the periods of their 
mass arrivals. When the refugee and migrant issues 
are the central media topic, they are also interesting 
for researchers, but otherwise, they are not. It is rare 
that the object of an analysis are the periods of media 
coverage when the refugee and migrant issues are 
not the most exposed media topic (for exceptions see 
Kuzmanić, 1998 [1999]; Mlekuž (2006; 2007 [2011]; 
2008 [2009a, 2009b, 2016]); Pajnik, 2007; Vidmar 
Horvat & Učakar, 2012; Vezovnik, 2015a [2015b]). 
In addition, Pajnik (2007; 2008) argues that in the 
media, a particular topic appears depending on the 
current social relevance and the occurrence of events 
related to it (e.g., the mass arrivals of refugees and 
migrants influence the fact that refugees and migrants 
are the most exposed media topic). It seems that the 
research dynamics in the field of “migration in the 
media” in Slovenia depends on a similar principle, as 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
529
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
the analysis of media representations of refugees and 
migrants focus on the periods of the greatest media 
exposure. However, it is important to note that the 
most intense media coverage is usually characterised 
by the most negative reporting. Drolc (2003, 164) 
explains that intense media coverage turns the issues 
of refugees and migrants into a “problem”, “scandal”, 
“crisis”, etc. This influences the reaction of politici-
ans and other involved, which is why the issue needs 
to be reported again. The so-called panic circle (van 
Dijk, 1991, 88) is created, which negatively affects 
the image of the group reported on in the media (van 
Dijk, 1991, 113). Therefore, since the predominant 
object of the analysis are the periods of the most 
intense media reporting of refugees and migrants 
in Slovenia, the finding of negative media coverage 
consequently prevails.
To ensure more diverse and representative con-
tributions in the research field of “migration in the 
media” in Slovenia, it is necessary to study media 
representations of refugees and migrants more conti-
nuously in the future and not only during periods of 
the greatest media exposure when the reporting is the 
most negative. Moreover, the prevailing definition of 
refugee and migrant, which is mostly equated with a 
foreigner and the “other” in Slovenian society, needs 
to be broadened. Instead, the focus must also be pla-
ced on other groups of refugees and migrants.
Although the contemporary media landscape is 
defined by the online digital context, print mass media 
are still most frequently discussed, while online media 
content (online news, social media and interpersonal 
communication) is less frequently addressed. Consi-
dering that contemporary reality is highly mediatised 
(see Couldry & Hepp, 2017), the still predominant 
preoccupation with traditional media does not seem 
to be a productive choice for further research. All 
types of media should be considered, and different 
media should be treated with different theoretical and 
methodological approaches.
Furthermore, in the studies in focus, mass media 
and social media are usually studied separately, 
although they are intertwined in the contemporary 
hybrid media system. The emergence of the Internet 
and new media technologies is responsible not only 
for the emergence and rapid penetration of social 
media, but also for the fundamental transformation 
of traditional mass media, whose content is available 
not only through traditional newspapers, radio and 
television but also through new media technologies. 
The transformation of the functioning of traditional 
mass media, the emergence of new media and 
communication technologies and their interaction is 
made possible by the online digital context, which 
determines the hybrid character of the contemporary 
media. The latter are hybrid media (see Chadwick, 
2013). Therefore, they should be addressed in their 
interaction and not separately.
The next research step is to examine mass media 
and social media together from the perspective of 
the (re)production, circulation, and reception of their 
contents. Wright (2014, 462) argues that social media 
has the potential to subvert the hierarchy of traditio-
nal mass media and allow refugees and migrants to 
create and control their own media image. But why 
does existing research on “migration in the media” 
in Slovenia find the opposite? How does the mass 
media in the hybrid media system still maintain the 
dominance of the voice of the political parliamen-
tary elite? Why are refugees and migrants unable to 
establish an autonomous position in the public space 
through social media, from which they can speak for 
themselves, on their own behalf? It seems that despite 
earlier overly optimistic predictions about their de-
mocratic potential (Vehovar et al., 2020, 622–624), 
social media cannot shake the existing media hierar-
chy. I argue that the reasons for the hegemony of the 
political parliamentary elite should be addressed in 
research, which should be based on the interaction 
of different types of media, i.e., both mass and social 
media, in relation to the (re)production, circulation 
and reception of media content (see Klinger & Svens-
son, 2015).
In addition to the above research proposal, any 
gaps identified in this article should be addressed in 
further research. For example, the first mass arrival 
of refugees in Slovenia, namely Bosnian refugees, is 
subject of the least research attention, so it should 
be included in future analysis. Moreover, there is a 
lack of systematic and comprehensive comparative 
research between the first, second and third periods 
of most mass arrivals of refugees and migrants in 
Slovenia that should be conducted in the future. 
On the other hand, further research should focus on 
periods that do not coincide with mass arrivals and 
focus not only on foreigners but also on other people, 
such as “Slovenes from Sarajevo” and “Slovenes from 
Argentina”. Research can also examine journalistic 
routine practices and their influence on obtaining 
official and alternative sources. Finally, there is also a 
lack of comparative research between the prevailing 
media discourse in Slovenia and other countries. 
The inclusion of the Slovenian case in comparative 
foreign studies would shed additional light on the 
similarities and its peculiarities compared to broader 
trends worldwide.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
530
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
RAZISKOVANJE MIGRACIJ V SLOVENSKIH MEDIJIH: “DRUGI” V OBDOBJU “KRIZE”
Rok SMRDELJ
Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za sociologijo, Aškerčeva cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
e-mail: rok.smrdelj@ff.uni-lj.si
POVZETEK
V članku predstavim rezultate prvega sistematičnega pregleda literature na temo migracij v slovenskih medijih 
z vidika hibridnega medijskega sistema. Predmet analize večine raziskav je eno od treh obdobij množičnih 
prihodov beguncev in migrantov v Slovenijo v letih 1992–1993, 1999–2001 in 2015–2016. Raziskave običajno 
tematizirajo množične medije, med katerimi prevladujejo dnevni ali tedenski časopisi, nekoliko manj pa je pri-
sotno raziskovanje televizijskega poročanja. Družbeni mediji so v primerjavi z množičnimi mediji obravnavani 
redkeje. Metodološko prevladujejo pristopi, povezani z analizo diskurza in analizo okvirov. Poročanje množičnih 
medijev o beguncih in migrantih določa proces konstrukcije “drugega” v slovenski družbi, ki se vzpostavlja na 
kompleksnem prepletu nacionalističnega diskurza, varnostnega diskurza, diskurza kriminalizacije in humanitar-
nega diskurza. Ti diskurzi imajo v obdobju posameznih množičnih prihodov različne izrazne oblike, ki določajo 
pretežno ksenofobno in stereotipno negativno medijsko poročanje. Raziskave na temo družbenih medijev ugo-
tavljajo prevlado zelo ksenofobnega in rasističnega diskurza, ki uživa tiho podporo politične elite in nastopa v 
funkciji legitimacije sekuritizacijskih vladnih ukrepov.
Ključne besede: begunci, migranti, množični mediji, družbeni mediji, hibridni medijski sistem, kriza
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
531
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnejčič, B. (2018): Perception of the Behaviour of 
Refuges Crowd as Portrayed on TV. Innovative Issues 
and Approaches in Social Sciences, 11, 3, 45–66.
Bajt, V. (2016): Anti-Immigration Hate Speech in 
Slovenia. In: Kogovšek Šalamon, N. & V. Bajt (eds.): 
Razor-wired: Reflections on Migration Movements 
through Slovenia in 2015. Ljubljana, Peace Institute, 
50–61. Available at: Http://www.mirovni-institut.si/
wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Razor_wired_publikaci-
ja_web.pdf (last access: 26. 1. 2021).  
Bajt, V. (2018): Online Hate Speech and the “Re-
fugee Crisis” in Slovenia. In: Žagar, I. Ž., Kogovšek 
Šalamon, N. & M. Lukšič Hacin (eds.): The Disaster of 
European Refugee Policy: Perspectives from the “Bal-
kan Route”. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars 
Publishing, 133–155. 
Bajt, V. & M. Frelih (2019): Krimigracije v Sloveniji. 
Dve domovini, 49, 7–25.
Bassin, M., T. Fabjančič, T., Frlič, A., Kušar, A., Rolc, 
N. & I. Verdel (2002): Medijska toča: analiza medijske 
konstrukcije prebežništva. In: Lipovec Čebron, U. (ed.): 
V zoni prebežništva. Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta, 
151–166. 
Berry, M., Garcia-Blanco, I. & K. Moore (2016): 
Press Coverage of the Refugee and Migrant Crisis in 
the EU: A Content Analysis of Five European Countries. 
Geneva, United Nations High Commissioner for Refu-
gees, Project Report. Available at: Http://www.unhcr.
org/56bb369c9.html (last access: 27. 1. 2021).
Chadwick, A. (2013): The Hybrid Media System: 
Politics and Power. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Chauzy, J.-P. & G. Appave (2014): Communicating 
Effectively about Migration. In: Dell’Orto, G. & V. L. 
Birchfield (eds.): Reporting at the Southern Borders: 
Journalism and Public Debates on Immigration in the 
US and the EU. New York, Routledge, 62–72. 
Chouliaraki, L. & T. Stolic (2017): Rethinking Media 
Responsibility in the Refugee “Crisis”: a Visual Typolo-
gy of European News. Media, Culture & Society, 39, 8, 
1162–1177.
Consterdine, E. (2018): State-of-the-art Report on 
Public Attitudes, Political Discourses and Media Co-
verage on the Arrival of Refugees. Available at: Http://
ceaseval.eu/publications/02_Consterdine_State-of-the-
-art_report_on_public_attitudes.pdf (last access: 30. 7. 
2020).
Couldry, N. & A. Hepp (2017): The Mediated Con-
struction of Reality. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Crawley, H. (2005): Evidence on Attitudes to Asylum 
and Immigration: What We Know, Don’t Know and 
Need to Know. University of Oxford, Centre on Migra-
tion, Policy & Society, Working Paper No. 23. Available 
at: Https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/
WP-2005-023-Crawley_Attitudes_Asylum_Immigrati-
on.pdf (last access: 27. 1. 2021).
Doupona, M., Verschueren, J. & I. Ž. Žagar (1998 
[2001]): Retorika begunske politike v Sloveniji: 
pragmatika legitimizacije, druga izdaja. Ljubljana, 
Mirovni inštitut. Available at: Http://mediawatch.mi-
rovni-institut.si/edicija/seznam/01/mediawatch01.pdf 
(last access: 27. 1. 2021).
Drolc, A. (2003): Imigranti med evropsko migra-
cijsko politiko in posebnostmi prostora. In: Pajnik, 
M. & S. Zavratnik-Zimic (eds.): Migracije – globali-
zacija – Evropska unija. Ljubljana, Mirovni inštitut, 
147–167.
Eberl, J.-M, Meltzer, C. E., Heidenreich, T., Herre-
ro, B., Theorin, N., Lind, F., Berganza, R., Boomgaar-
den, H. G., Schemer, C. & J. Strömbäck (2018): The 
European Media Discourse on Immigration and Its 
Effects: A Literature Review. Annals of the International 
Communication Association, 42, 3, 207–223.
Erjavec, K. (2003): Media Construction of Identity 
Through Moral Panics: Discourses of Immigration in 
Slovenia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29, 
1, 83–101. 
Erjavec, K. (2015): Vloga medijev pri oblikovanju 
identitete in integraciji mlajših priseljenih mladostni-
kov iz držav nekdanje Jugoslavije v slovensko družbo. 
Dve domovini, 41, 127–138.
Esses, V. M., Medianu, S. & A. S. Lawson (2013): 
Uncertainty, Threat, and the Role of the Media in 
Promoting the Dehumanization of Immigrants and 
Refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 3, 518–536.
Eurostat, the statistical office of the European 
Union (2019): Asylum in the EU Member Sta-
tes. Available at: Https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
documents/2995521/9665546/3-14032019-AP-EN.
pdf/eca81dc5-89c7-4a9d-97ad-444b6bd32790 (last 
access: 27. 1. 2020).
Georgiou, M. & R. Zaborowski (2017): Media 
Coverage of the ‘Refugee Crisis’: a Cross-European 
Perspective. Council of Europe report DG1(2017)03.
Hrvatin, A. (2017): Begunke v medijih: arhetip be-
gunke kot žrtve. Available at: Http://www.mirovni-in-
stitut.si/begunke-v-medijih-arhetip-begunke-kot-zrtve/ 
(last access: 26. 1. 2021).   
Jalušič, V. (2001): Ksenofobija ali samozaščita? O 
vzpostavljanju nove slovenske državljanske identi-
tete. Poročilo skupine za spremljanje nestrpnosti, 1, 
12–43.
Jalušič, V. (2002): Xenophobia or Self-Protection? 
On the Estabilishing of the new Slovene Civic/Citi-
zenship Identity. In: Pajnik, M. (ed.): Xenophobia and 
Post-Socialism. Ljubljana, Peace Institute, 45–72. 
Jalušič, V. & V. Bajt (2020): A Paradigm Shift Framed 
by a Crisis: Recent Debates on Immigration and Inte-
gration in Six EU Countries. Annales, Series Historia et 
Sociologia, 30, 4, 517–530.  
Jontes, D. (2017): Med distanciranostjo in anga-
žiranostjo: protislovja poročanja o »begunski krizi« v 
dnevnem tisku. Dve domovini, 45, 185–200.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
532
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
Jurić-Pahor, M. (2015): Od starih k novim imagi-
narijem pripadanja: nacionalna in etnična identiteta 
onkraj binarnih o/pozicij. Annales, Series Historia et 
Sociologia, 25, 1, 183–196.
Jurić-Pahor, M. (2020): Border as Method: Impact 
of the Covid-19 Pandemic on the Border Area between 
Italy and Slovenia and on the Slovene Minority in Italy. 
Razprave in gradivo, 85, 57–81.
Kaye, R. (2001): “Blaming the Victim” An Analysis 
of Press Representation of Refugees and Asylum See-
kers in the UK in the 1990s’. In: King, R. & N. Wood 
(eds.): Media and Migration: Constructions of Mobility 
and Difference. London, Routledge, 53–70.
King, R. (2010): People on the Move. An Atlas of 
Migration. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Klavora, M. (2012): Ko izbire ni: Pričevalci in 
evakuacija Slovencev iz Sarajeva novembra 1992. Dve 
domovini, 36, 143–155.
Klinger, U. & J. Svensson (2015): The Emergence 
of Network Media Logic in Political Communication: 
A Theoretical Approach. New Media & Society, 17, 8, 
1241–1257.  
Kogovšek Šalamon, N. & V. Bajt (2016): Introducti-
on. In: Kogovšek Šalamon, N. & V. Bajt (eds.): Razor-
-Wired: Reflections on Migration Movements through 
Slovenia in 2015. Ljubljana, Peace Institute, 7–11. 
Available at: Http://www.mirovni-institut.si/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2016/03/Razor_wired_publikacija_web.
pdf (last access: 12. 12. 2019).
Kogovšek Šalamon, N., Frett, B. & E. Stark Ketchum 
(2020): Global Crimmigration Trends. In: Kogovšek Ša-
lamon, N. (ed.): Causes and Consequences of Migrant 
Criminalization. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 3–25.
Komac, M. (2005): Mediji in “nove” narodne sku-
pnosti. In: Komac, M. & M. Medvešek (eds.): Percepcije 
slovenske integracijske politike: Zaključno poročilo. 
Ljubljana, Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja, 389–399.
Kralj, A. (2008): Nezaželeni? Medijske in politične kon-
strukcije tujcev v Sloveniji. Dve domovini, 27, 169–190. 
Kuhar, R. (2001): Zagrabiti in izgnati: Vzorec kse-
nofobičnega diskurza v Slovenskih novicah. Poročilo 
skupine za spremljanje nestrpnosti, 1, 44–55.
Kuzmanić, T. (1998): Nočna kronika (Ne)Dela: od 
ogroženosti identitete do identiteta ogroženosti. Časo-
pis za kritiko znanosti, 26, 188, 41–85.
Kuzmanić, T. (1999): Bitja s pol strešice: slovenski 
rasizem, šovinizem in seksizem. Ljubljana, Open Soci-
ety Institute-Slovenia. 
Kuzmanić, T. (2001): Rasizem in ksenofobija, ki 
da ju v Sloveniji ni. Poročilo Skupine za spremljanje 
nestrpnosti, 1, 56–77. 
Laanpere, M., Tammsaar, K. & S. C. Sousa (2011): A 
Case Study on Using Social Media for e-Participation: 
Design of Initiative Mapper Web Service. In: Estevez, 
E. & M. Janssen (eds.): ICEGOV ‘11: Proceedings of the 
5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of 
Electronic Governance. Tallin, ACM, 289–292. 
Lecheler, S., Matthes J. & H. Boomgaarden (2019): 
Setting the Agenda for Research on Media and Migrati-
on: State-of-the-Art and Directions for Future Research. 
Mass Communication and Society, 22, 6, 691–707.
Lenarčič, B. (2020): Migracijski proces v omrežni 
družbi. Dve domovini, 51, 167–183. 
Lukšič Hacin, M. (2004): Vračanje Slovencev iz 
Argentine. Dve domovini, 20, 13–34.
Lukšič Hacin, M. (2017): Sociologija mednarodnih 
selitev in njeni začetki v Sloveniji skozi tematizacije 
slovenskih izseljencev. In: Žitnik Serafin, J. & A. Kalc 
(eds.): Raziskovanje slovenskega izseljenstva: vidiki, 
pristopi, vsebine. Ljubljana, Založba ZRC, 37–48.  
Luthar, B. (2017): Begunci in “Odmevi”: epistemo-
logija konvencij. Dve domovini, 45, 153–168. 
Malešič, M. (2017): The Securitisation of Migrati-
ons in Europe: The Case of Slovenia. Teorija in praksa, 
54, 6, 947–968. 
Medica, K. (2017): Od medijacije k medijatiza-
ciji migrantske problematike. Monitor ISH, 19, 1, 
75–94. 
Migracije v številkah [Migration in numbers; 
Slovenian government data] (2016). Available at: 
Https://www.policija.si/images/stories/DelovnaPo-
drocja/meja/migracije/angleska_besedila/2016/02_
februar/02_februar/160202_migranti.pdf (last 
access: 27. 1. 2021).
Mihelj, S. (2004a): The Role of Mass Media in 
the (Re)constitution of Nations: the (Re)constitution 
of the Slovenian Nation through the Mass Media 
Representations of the Plebiscite for an Independent 
Slovenia, Bosnian Refugees and Non-Registered 
Migration (1990–2001). Doctoral Dissertation. Lju-
bljana, Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis. 
Mihelj, S. (2004b): Negotiating European Identity 
at the Periphery: Media Coverage of Bosnian Refugees 
and “Illegal Migration”. In: Bondebjerg, I. & P. Golding 
(eds.): European Culture and the Media. Bristol, Intel-
lect Books, 165–189.
Milharčič Hladnik, M. (2016): Doživljanje “begun-
ske krize” skozi intervencijo v javni diskurz: mi kot 
Drugi v zgodovinski perspektivi slovenskega izseljen-
stva in integracijskih praks. Ars & Humanitas, 10, 2, 
79–92.  
Mlekuž, J. (2006): Slovenci z burekom v Evropo in/
ali diktatura kranjske klobase: nekaj o bureku, repre-
zentacijah bureka in “slovenskem” etnonacionalnem 
diskurzu. Dve domovini, 23, 159–179. 
Mlekuž, J. (2007): Burek, nein danke! The Story 
of an Immigrant Dish and a Nationalist Discourse. In: 
Drnovšek, M. (ed.): Historical and Cultural Perspec-
tives on Slovenian Migration. Ljubljana, ZRC SAZU, 
173–201.  
Mlekuž, J. (2008): Čapac.si, or on Burekalism and 
its Bites. An Analysis of Selected Images of Immigrants 
and their Descendants in Slovenian Media and Popular 
Culture. Dve domovini, 28, 23–37.  
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
533
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
Mlekuž, J. (2009a): Čapac.si ali o burekalizmu in 
njegovih ugrizih: analiza izbranih podob priseljencev 
in njihovih potomcev v slovenskih medijih in popular-
ni kulturi. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, 37, 235–236, 
270–277.
Mlekuž, J. (2009b): Podobe priseljencev in njihovih 
potomcev v slovenskih medijih in popularni kulturi. In: 
Žitnik Serafin, J. (ed.): Demografska, etnična in migra-
cijska dinamika v Sloveniji in njen vpliv na Slovensko 
vojsko. Ljubljana, ZRC SAZU, 129–136.  
Mlekuž, J. (2011): Burekalism: a Slovenian View 
of Bureks and Burekpeople. Annales, Series Historia et 
Sociologia, 21, 2, 317–326.
Mlekuž, J. (2016): Bosanci, čefurji, čapci and other 
Burekalised Creatures: Images of Immigrants and their 
Descendants in Slovenian Media and Popular Culture. 
In: Bennich-Björkman, L., Kostić, R. & B. Likić Brborić 
(eds.): Citizens at Heart? Perspectives on Integration 
of Refugees in the EU after the Yugoslav Wars of 
Cuccession. Uppsala, Hugo Valentin Centre, Uppsala 
University, 69–85.
Nickels, H. C. (2007): Framing Asylum Discourse in 
Luxembourg. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20, 1, 37–59. 
Pajnik, M., Lesjak-Tušek P. & M. Gregorčič (2001): 
Prebežniki, kdo ste? Ljubljana, Mirovni inštitut. 
Pajnik, M. (2003): Poročanje medijev o marginali-
ziranih skupinah. Socialno delo, 42, 2, 87–94. 
Pajnik, M. (2007): Medijske podobe o beguncih. 
Socialno delo, 46, 1/2, 1–11.
Pajnik, M. (2008): Mnenja o migrantih v tisku: 
potreba po korektivu javnomnenjskega raziskova-
nja. Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia, 18, 1, 
219–232. 
Pajnik, M. (2016): Migration in the Mirror of Me-
diatized Anti-Politics. In: Kogovšek Šalamon, N. & V. 
Bajt (eds.): Razor-Wired: Reflections on Migration Mo-
vements through Slovenia in 2015. Ljubljana, Peace 
Institute, 62–70. Available at: Http://www.mirovni-in-
stitut.si/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Razor_wired_pu-
blikacija_web.pdf (last access: 26. 1. 2021).
Pajnik, M. (2017): Medijsko-politični paralelizem: 
legitimizacija migracijske politike na primeru komen-
tarja v časopisu “Delo”. Dve domovini, 45, 169–184. 
Pajnik, M. (2018): Media Logic in Disposing of 
Migrants. In: Žagar, I. Ž., Kogovšek Šalamon, N. & 
M. Lukšič Hacin (eds.): The Disaster of European 
Refugee Policy: Perspectives from the »Balkan Route«. 
Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 
179–195. 
Perner, Š. & S. Zavratnik (2019): #Revolucija 
smartphone: na (begunsko) pot s pametnim telefonom. 
Časopis za kritiko znanosti, 47, 278, 114–134.
Petković, B., Hrvatin, S. B., Kučić, Lenart, J., 
Jurančič, I., Prpič, M. & R. Kuhar (2006): Mediji za 
državljane. Ljubljana, Mirovni inštitut, 119–167.  
Pogliano, A. (2017): Media, Migration, and Socio-
logy. A Critical Review. Sociologica, 1, 1–41. 
Pušnik, M. (2017): Dinamika novičarskega diskurza 
populizma in ekstremizma: moralne zgodbe o begun-
cih. Dve domovini, 45, 137–152. 
Redecker, C., Haché, A. & C. Centeno (2010): 
Using Information and Communication Technologies 
to Promote Education and Employment Ppportunities 
for Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities. Luxembourg, 
Publications Office of the European Union, JRC Eu-
ropean Commission, IPTS. Available at: Ftp://ftp.jrc.
es/pub/EURdoc/JRC57947_TN.pdf (last access: 27. 1. 
2021). 
Sigona, N. (2014): The Politics of Refugee Voices: 
Representations, Narratives, and Memories. In: Fiddian 
Qasmiyeh, E., Loescher, G., Long, K. & N. Sigona 
(eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced 
Migration Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 
369–382.
Smrdelj, R. & J. Vogrinc (2020): Television News 
Discourse Migrant Objectification in the Context of 
Criminalisation: A Case Study Concerning Slovenian 
Public Television Broadcast News. In: Kogovšek 
Šalamon, N. (ed.): Causes and Consequences of Mi-
grant Criminalization. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 
287–305.
Strömbäck, J. (2008): Four Phases of Mediatisation: 
An Analysis of the Mediatisation of Politics. Journal of 
Press/Politics, 13, 3, 228–246.
Szczepanik, M. (2016): The “Good” and “Bad” 
Refugees? Imagined Refugeehood(s) in the Media Co-
verage of the Migration Crisis. Journal of Identity and 
Migration Studies, 10, 2, 23–33. 
Šaina, V. F. & T. Turnšek (2017): Begunci so voda in 
pošiljka, evropski dom je treba zaščititi: analiza meta-
for v Večernjem listu in Slovenskih novicah. Časopis za 
kritiko znanosti, 45, 268, 143–162. 
Štiks, I. (2010): A Laboratory of Citizenship: 
Shifting Conceptions of Citizenship in Yugoslavia and 
Its Successor States. CITSEE Working Paper Series, 2. 
Šumi, I. (2001): “Mislili smo, da je kaj takšnega 
možno samo na Marsu”: Kratka etnografija slovenstva 
skozi identifikacije evakuirancev Vlade Republike 
Slovenije in medvojne BiH. Anthropos, 1/3, 239–262. 
Učakar, T. (2017): Migracijska politika EU: nove 
artikulacije izključevanja v 21. stoletju. Ljubljana, 
Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete.
van Dijk, T. A. (1991): Racism and the Press. Lon-
don, New York, Routledge. 
Vehovar, V., Povž, B., Fišer, D., Ljubešić, N., Šulc, 
A. & D. Jontes (2020): Družbeno nesprejemljivi diskurz 
na Facebookovih straneh novičarskih portalov. Teorija 
in praksa, 57, 2, 622–645.
Velikonja, M. (2017): Novi Drugi: ideološke podo-
be beguncev v sodobni Sloveniji. Časopis za kritiko 
znanosti, 45, 268, 107–121. 
Vezovnik, A. (2015a): Ex-Yugoslavian Immigrant 
Workers in Slovenia: Between Balkanization and Victi-
mization. Dve domovini, 41, 11–22.  
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 31 · 2021 · 3
534
Rok SMRDELJ: RESEARCH ON MIGRATION IN SLOVENIAN MEDIA: THE “OTHER” IN THE PERIOD OF “CRISIS”, 519–534
Vezovnik, A. (2015b): Balkan Immigrant Workers 
as Slovenian Victimized Heroes. Slavic Review, 74, 2, 
244–264.
Vezovnik, A. (2017a): Introduction to the Thematic 
Section. Dve domovini, 45, 99–103. 
Vezovnik, A. (2017b): Otherness and Victimhood in 
the Tabloid Press: the Case of the “Refugee Crisis” in 
“Slovenske novice”. Dve domovini, 45, 121–135.
Vezovnik, A. (2018a): Migranti v tabloidu Slo-
venske novice: kritična analiza diskurza. In: Ule, 
M., Kamin, T. & A. Švab (eds.): Zasebno je politično: 
kritične teorije vsakdanjega življenja. Ljubljana, Za-
ložba FDV, 258–273.
Vezovnik, A. (2018b): Securitizing Migration in Slo-
venia: a Discourse Analysis of the Slovenian Refugee 
Situation. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16, 
1/2, 39–56.
Vezovnik, A. & L. Šarić (2018): Subjectless Images: 
Visualization of Migrants in Croatian and Slovenian 
Public Broadcasters’ Online News. Social Semiotics, 
30, 2, 168–190. 
Vidmar Horvat, K. & T. Učakar (2012): Migrant 
Workers in Post-Yugoslav Slovenia: Between Memory, 
Solidarity and Denial. In: Nuber, J. & A. Welebil (eds.): 
Gast:arbeit : Gehen – Bleiben – Zurückkehren; Posi-
tionen zur Arbeitsmigration im Raum Ex-Jugoslawien. 
Wien, Edition Art Science, 223–245. 
Vidmar Horvat, K. (2016): Evropski spomin in 
vizualizacija travme: vloga umetniške reprezentacije v 
medijskem projektu “Begunec_ka sem”. Ars & Huma-
nitas, 10, 2, 13–30.  
Vidmar Horvat, K. (2017): The Balkan Road and the 
Guarding of Europe: The Refugee Crisis on the Borders 
of Slovenia. Dve domovini, 45, 105–119. 
Vidmar Horvat, K. (2020): Visualisation of the 
“Balkan Road”: Media Representations of the Refugee 
Crisis at the Periphery of Europe. Culture, Practice & 
Europeanization, 5, 1, 67–84. 
Vogrinc, J. (2019): Spremembe interpretativnega 
okvira informacijskih medijev v Sloveniji od leta 1990 
do danes in spremembe v njihovih reprezentacijah 
izbranih družbenih manjšin. In: R. Kuhar (ed.): Identi-
tete na presečišču kriz. Ljubljana, Znanstvena založba 
Filozofske fakultete, 137–152.
Wood, N. & R. King (2001): Media and Migration: 
An Overview. In: King, R. & N. Wood (eds.): Media and 
Migration: Constructions of Mobility and Difference. 
London, Routledge, 1–22. 
Wright, T. (2014): The Media and Representations 
of Refugees and Other Forced Migrants. In: Fiddian 
Qasmiyeh, E., Loescher, G., Long, K. & N. Sigona (eds.): 
The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration 
Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 460–474.
Zadnikar, D. (2017): Epistemologija migrantske 
krize. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, 45, 268, 247–260.
Zavratnik, S. (2003): Žongliranje z “vojno”. Poročilo 
skupine za spremljanje nestrpnosti, 2, 128–143.  
Zavratnik, S. & S. Cukut Krilić (2018): Digital Routes, 
Digital Migrants: from Empowerment to Control over 
Refugees’ Digital Footprints. Družboslovne razprave, 
34, 89, 143–163.
Zavratnik, S. & S. Cukut Krilić (2020): Digitalni 
begunci: transformacije migracijskih poti ali ko pametni 
telefon nadomesti kovček. Ljubljana, Založba FDV, 
Založba ZRC.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2002a): Refugees, Mad Cows, and Bone 
Meal or Why Citizenship Education should Learn from 
the Media: in Place of Introduction to the Thematic Block 
Citizenship Education and Political Theory: Reflections 
in Language. The School field, 13, 6, 5–14.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2002b): Xenophobia and Slovenian 
Media: How the Image of the Other is Constructed (and 
What it Looks Like). In: Pajnik, M. (ed.): Xenophobia 
and Post-Socialism. Ljubljana, Peace Institute, 37–44.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2004): How “Refugees” became “Illegal 
Migrants”. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 
7. Available at: Http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr7/
zagar.htm (last access: 27. 1. 2021).
Žagar, I. Ž. (2006): From “Refugees” to “Illegal 
Migrants”, from “Troublemakers” to “Delinquents”. 
In: Čok, L. (ed.): Bližina drugosti. Koper, Univerza na 
Primorskem, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče, Založ-
ba Annales, Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, 
Grafis trade, 391–400.  
Žagar, I. Ž. (2009): The (Re)construction of Refugees 
in Slovenian Media. In: Galasińska, A. & M. Krzyża-
nowski (eds.): Discourse and Transformation in Central 
and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 
75–92.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2018): Devolution of Language in Post-
-Democracy: Decaying Discourse on Refugees from the 
Bosnian to the Syrian War. In: Žagar, I. Ž., Kogovšek 
Šalamon, N. & M. Lukšič Hacin (eds.): The Disaster of 
European Refugee Policy: Perspectives from the “Balkan 
Route”. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars 
Publishing, 103–132.