Thread by @CaroRackete

On the topic of my representation in the media. I find it frustrating.

If I see anyone writing an article saying "Carola the voice of the migrants" again, I will seriously consider to never speak to any journalist again. It seems mostly completely pointless.

Here is why.
1/n

First, as anyone can tell you, migrants and refugees have voices of their own. I have never claimed to speak for them. It's completely wrong to make it appear as if I was talking on behalf of someone else, I will never speak "for migrants" as they can speak for themselves.

2/n

I have not given a single interview on "migration" since last autumn. I pass on all those requests. Whenever I give interviews it's about connecting topics of social justice and the environment. Remember, I am an ecologist, not any sort of migration expert.

3/n

When I do interviews on the the need of socio-economic transformation and how the growth-based economy drives injustice, migration, climate crisis, env breakdown (what I lay out in my book), then often 80% of what I say is cut, and the part of migration is published.

4/n

The results of those cuts are that it appears I had chosen to give an interview about migration.

But I have not given a single interview about migration in one year. Because I decline all of them and pass them on to either Sea-Watch or refugees and migrants..

5/n

It's a waste of my time that so much of what I say to journalists in interviews gets cut. It's usually the most important parts. To end inequality and environmental destruction by transforming the economy.

What is published is a lame story about a white charity saviour.

6/n

In the majority of cases journalists have an idea about what content and quotes they need for their story. Then they try to find someone who will say that.

That's why I decline all interviews on migration. Because it's not my topic. I am an ecologist and like polar areas.

7/n

Even if I explicitly give an interview about connecting issues, a majority of what I say is dropped and the parts of migraton remain. Exactly what journalists wanted in the first place. Then they put their migration headline and publish, as if I had agreed on that topic.

8/n

I am not expert on migration. I don't give interviews on migration. If you see an interview with me on migration this is how it came into being.

I am close to not giving any interviews at all anymore. It seems mostly pointless.

9/n

It's frustrating to work with media if they pretend they would want to report wider issues but then they continue constructing a media figure they themselves invented last year. This media figure has nothing to see with me as a real living person.

10/n

The result? I get annoyed and what I have to say is not shared. People who really want to speak on migration and human rights get no platform. But hey.. media gets a few clicks. And some even feel good bc they want to help migrants and "I" produce clicks for the topic.

11/n

Yes, not all journalists and media are like that. Some actually report what I say and how issues are interconnected. But mainly "I" remain a "story" and a "media figure" to be used in their prefigured narrative.

The media system is pretty sick.

12/12