When Hate-Inspired Reports Become Xenophobic Fuel In South Africa -By Isaac Asabor

South Africa has experienced recurring waves of xenophobic violence since 2008, when dozens of migrants were killed and thousands displaced. According to the Xenowatch Factsheet (2021) from the African Centre for Migration & Society at the University of the Witwatersrand, between 1994 and 2021 there were 796 xenophobic incidents resulting in “588 killings, 1,000 physical assaults, and nearly 4,700 foreigner-owned shops looted”. While many factors contribute to this violence, economic frustration, political manipulation, and social inequality, mounting evidence points to an accomplice that has escaped sufficient accountability: the South African print media, whose hate-inspired reports act as a relentless fuel for xenophobia.

Decades of academic research have documented a disturbing pattern in how South African newspapers depict black African migrants, particularly Nigerians, Ghanaians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, Mozambicans, and Somalis. The coverage is overwhelmingly negative, alarmist, and dehumanizing, consistently framing foreigners as criminals, drug traffickers, and economic threats. This article argues that such hate-inspired reportage is not merely irresponsible journalism; it is “actively worsening xenophobic tendencies in South Africa” and leaves blood on its trail.

A landmark report by Danso and McDonald (2000) for the Southern African Migration Project (SAMP), titled “Writing Xenophobia: Immigration and the Press in Post-Apartheid South Africa,” analyzed over 1,200 newspaper clippings from all English-language South African newspapers between 1994 and 1998. The findings were damning as they wrote that “coverage of international migration by the South African press has been largely anti-immigrant and unanalytical… A large proportion of the articles also reproduce racial and national stereotypes about migrants from other African countries, depicting, for example, Mozambicans as car thieves and Nigerians as drug smugglers” (Danso & McDonald, 2000).

This criminalization did not fade with time; it deepened. A later study by Mkhize and Bhengu (2018) notes that “Nigerians, Congolese, and Mozambicans in particular have been presented in South African media as criminals and threats to the country’s economic and security interests.” They further observed that media coverage of crime in South Africa gives the sense that foreigners from African countries are to blame for rising criminal activity, and any individual identified as a foreigner is “automatically categorized in the negative, bearing characteristics of black African migrants” (Mkhize & Bhengu, 2018).

Even the language used in headlines and reports carries subtle but powerful prejudice. As one participant in a study on media and xenophobia observed, “When there is a xenophobic attack taking place, South African media always alienate foreign nationals, with names like refugees and others” (Mkhize & Bhengu, 2018). The persistent use of terms like “illegal” and “alien,” despite being roundly criticized by institutions like the United Nations for contributing to misconceptions, continues to demonize an otherwise law-abiding population. These hate-inspired word choices are not innocent; they are xenophobic fuel.

The connection between media portrayal and real-world violence is not coincidental, it is causal.

A 2023 study published in “The Conversation” by researchers Masuku and Nkala (2023) examined how South Africa’s biggest print and online newspapers, including the Mail & Guardian, Sowetan, Times Live, Daily Maverick, IOL, and News24,  portray foreign nationals. The findings showed that “the media often used language that portrayed foreigners in a bad light and dehumanized them… this has the potential to trigger violence against the perceived invaders” (Masuku & Nkala, 2023). The language was often alarmist regarding the size of the African immigrant population, creating the false sense that the country has an overwhelming number of immigrants, despite foreigners comprising only about 7% (4 million people) of South Africa’s population (Masuku & Nkala, 2023).

Other studies reinforce this conclusion. Mkhize and Bhengu (2018) argue that a growing body of literature on media and xenophobia in South Africa has shown that “the depiction of immigrants by the mainstream print media is overwhelmingly negative, and this in turn enforces negative stereotypes that contribute to further xenophobic attacks.”

Research by Alugbin and Osisanwo (2025), analyzing 80 news articles from Nigerian and South African newspapers, found that “South African reports often exhibit extreme nationalist sentiments that justify attacks on foreigners.” Similarly, an analysis of print media reporting during the 2015 xenophobic attacks by Ngcamu and Mantzaris (2025) concluded that “the country’s print media have been filled with stories that were anti-immigration and xenophobic which have resulted in the exacerbation of attacks by Black South Africans against immigrants of African origin.”

The framing often obscures perpetrators and responsibility. Ononye and Chukwuike (2025) noted that in media reports of xenophobic violence, terms like “‘xenophobic attacks’ and ‘looting’ were often turned into nouns in a way that hid the perpetrators of the xenophobic violence.” By depersonalizing violence and shifting blame to abstract forces, the media absolves attackers of accountability.

Mkhize and Bhengu (2018) further cite student participants in their study who pointed to newspaper headlines they described as pejorative toward African countries. One participant stated that “the way South African media represent foreigners; it injects the idea that they are so much different from us South African students” (Mkhize & Bhengu, 2018). This “us/them dichotomy”, emphasizing the positive traits of South Africans and the negative traits of the foreign “other”, is a recurring discursive strategy identified across multiple studies. Such hate-inspired reports do not merely inform; they ignite.

The consequences are not abstract. According to the Xenowatch Factsheet (2021), between 1994 and 2021, 588 people were killed in xenophobic incidents across South Africa. By 2019, diplomatic sources reported that at least 127 Nigerians had been killed in xenophobic attacks, leading to protests in Nigeria and diplomatic interventions between both countries (Alugbin & Osisanwo, 2025).

Ngcamu and Mantzaris (2025) noted that xenophobic violence has “in most cases occurred before or during election periods with politicians and print media reporters opting for the populist and rhetoric route of characterizing foreigners as a scapegoat to challenges facing the local population.” The media, in other words, does not merely reflect existing prejudice, it amplifies, legitimizes, and weaponizes it for political and commercial gain. When hate-inspired reports become routine, xenophobic fuel is poured onto a fire that consumes real human lives.

South African newspapers have failed in their ethical obligation to inform the public responsibly. By persistently criminalizing Nigerians and other African immigrants, using dehumanizing language, sensationalizing crime, and downplaying the humanity of victims, the press has become an active participant in the very violence it purports to cover.

As Danso and McDonald (2000) concluded, at best, South African media present a limited, biased perspective on cross-border migration. “At worst, the press has been contributing to public xenophobia generally through weaving myths and fabrications around foreigners and immigration” (Danso & McDonald, 2000). This is not just bad journalism, it is dangerous, hate-inspired journalism.

The media’s agenda-setting function wields enormous influence over public opinion. When newspapers consistently portray African immigrants as criminals, drug lords, and threats to the economy, they provide ideological fuel for vigilante groups like Operation Dudula and justification for mob violence. The Constitution of South Africa proclaims that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.” The media must be held to this standard.

It is time for South African editors and journalists to engage in urgent self-reflection. Balanced, critical, and humane reporting on migration is not optional, it is a matter of life and death. Until then, hate-inspired reports will continue to serve as xenophobic fuel, and the blood of innocent Africans will remain on the hands of those who print prejudice instead of truth.