Libya’s migration debate has become a test of whether the media can report legitimate public concerns without laundering rumours, fuelling hate, or turning vulnerable migrants into scapegoats.

The issue of irregular migration is not new to Libya, but in recent weeks it has returned to the forefront of the public scene in an unprecedented way, with rising calls rejecting the presence of migrants and repeated claims about their settlement. 

Social media platforms have filled with campaigns and warnings, and protests have been organised in a number of cities, in parallel with growing talk about the security and demographic risks associated with migration. 

Conversely, warnings have emerged that this debate could turn into inciteful discourse or into the widespread circulation of unverified information, reflecting on the nature of public debate and the situation of migrants inside the country. 

Amid this scene, the Libyan media found itself facing a complex equation. Between conveying the concerns expressed by the street, and committing to verifying information and avoiding hate speech, coverage methods varied and questions arose about the extent to which media outlets succeeded in maintaining professional balance when addressing this file. 

An old issue renewed 

The editor-in-chief of Al Nas newspaper, Abubakr al-Baghdadi, believes that the paradox does not lie in the existence of migration itself. The issue, according to his description, has accompanied Libya for many years. Rather, it lies in the way it suddenly turned into a crisis dominating the media scene, as though it had emerged only now. 

Al-Baghdadi says that the media discourse that accompanied this escalation was not homogeneous, noting that part of the media identified with the general mood, which was marked by sharpness, while other institutions preferred to stay away from the file or address it from angles that served their editorial orientations, something that was reflected in the level of professionalism in the coverage. 

He adds that “what was published by open sources, whether local or international, was in many cases more useful than the populist discourse that fed the state of polarisation and contributed to directing accusations and stirring up the street”. 

He also believes that some media institutions subjected the file to their own agendas more than to journalistic standards, noting that this file needs another dimension represented in “humanising media discourse”, since it is not about abstract numbers, but about people, each of whom has his circumstances and his story. 

The migration file is not about abstract numbers, but about people, each of whom has his circumstances and his story, which obliges us to humanise media discourse. 

An exceptional challenge 

The journalist in Libya faces an exceptional challenge when covering this type of issue, especially amid conflicting narratives, the rapid spread of rumours, and the overlap between security, political and humanitarian dimensions. This requires a considerable degree of caution in dealing with information, so that the journalist does not become a party to a political conflict or media campaign whose full facts he does not possess. 

Through following what has been published and circulated, it appears that the matter is no longer only about verifying information or debating facts, but has gone beyond that to reading intentions and assuming the existence of conspiracies and collusion, whether by the governing authorities in the east and west or by international organisations. This has made the journalist’s task more complicated. 

Recently, some activists have presented the activities of international organisations related to humanitarian assistance or voluntary return programmes to public opinion as projects to settle migrants, despite the absence of evidence proving this, which has increased the intensity of polarisation. 

The trap of generalisation 

For his part, the director of the experts’ office at the General Authority for Monitoring Media Content, Reda Faheel al-Boum, believes that media coverage of the migration file in Libya has, in many cases, fallen into the trap of generalisation, noting that public debate lacks accurate data that can be relied upon to assess the real impact of migration on infrastructure, public services and the support provided by the state. 

Al-Boum believes that most coverage has focused on the violations to which migrants are subjected, while it has not paid sufficient attention to the economic and social effects of the large presence of migrants outside shelter centres, nor to the file of the unregulated labour market and the use of public services. 

As for the recent movement, he believes that some media outlets contributed, during their coverage of demonstrations rejecting settlement, to conveying slogans and inaccurate information, which further inflamed incitement discourse. 

He cites what happened after the demonstrations, namely the storming of the headquarters of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in the capital, Tripoli, and the accompanying chaos and accusations. He calls on the media to present a balanced picture based on facts, and to discuss the causes of the phenomenon, its effects and its solutions, while avoiding incitement, generalisation, or discourses that could lead to fuelling hatred or violence. 

Al-Boum adds: “Addressing the migration file should not be borne by Libya alone. It is a shared responsibility that includes countries of origin, transit and destination, alongside the international community. The spread of smuggling networks and weak border control in more than one country have also contributed to aggravating the phenomenon.” 

Assaults and expulsion 

From a rights perspective, the head of the Benghazi Centre for Migration and Asylum Studies, Tarek Lamloum, believes that the danger lies not only in the nature of media discourse, but in its movement from the media space into reality. He points out that recent weeks have witnessed, according to his monitoring, cases of verbal and physical assault against migrants, in addition to the expulsion of families and children from their homes in the first days of the escalation wave. 

Lamloum says that this atmosphere created a state of fear that pushed many migrants to avoid moving around or seeking assistance. Some were even forced to hide or move to more fragile places, which made them more vulnerable to exploitation by smugglers and human-trafficking networks. 

He says: “The Libyan state has the right to manage its borders and regulate the presence of foreigners on its territory, but this must be done in accordance with the law and with respect for human dignity. Combating irregular migration means pursuing smuggling networks, human trafficking and exploitation, not collectively punishing migrants or inciting against them.” 

Lamloum also criticises the spread of unverified information regarding settlement, considering that part of the public debate has confused internal legal and historical files, such as some issues relating to holders of administrative numbers and temporary records, with the current migration file, even though these issues preceded the current crisis by many years. He believes that this confusion has contributed to clouding public opinion and moving the debate away from the actual issues related to migration management. 

The responsibility of the media appears more complicated than merely conveying statements or following protests. Professional coverage is also required to convey the legitimate concerns raised by society, while at the same time verifying information, avoiding generalisation and incitement, and allowing space for different points of view. 

False claims 

The debate was not limited to media outlets and social media platforms, but extended to international organisations operating in Libya. The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General in Libya, Hanna Tetteh, warned that the spread of claims she described as “false and misleading” regarding the existence of a UN plan to settle migrants and refugees had created an atmosphere of hostility targeting migrants, refugees and displaced persons, as well as UN staff and humanitarian workers. 

Tetteh confirmed, in her briefing to the Security Council on 18 June, that the mission of the United Nations in Libya is not to settle migrants. She considered that the challenges linked to migration cannot be addressed through “fabrication and disinformation”, but rather through effective institutions and policies based on facts. 

Legitimate concerns 

As the debate over the migration file continues, the responsibility of the media appears more complicated than merely conveying statements or following protests. Professional coverage is also required to convey the legitimate concerns raised by society, while at the same time verifying information, avoiding generalisation and incitement, and allowing space for different points of view. 

It cannot be overlooked that part of the ongoing debate is based on concerns raised by a section of public opinion related to pressures on public services, as well as demographic anxieties, organised crime and the spread of diseases amid the entry of numbers of migrants through irregular channels and without official documents or accurate data held by the authorities. 

Between security considerations, legal obligations and humanitarian dimensions, the real challenge remains to produce a media discourse that helps people understand the issue, rather than complicating or inflaming it. 

This article was originally published in Arabic on 23/07/2026