Fake news spreads migrant myths

by Matt Bromley

This article first appeared in The Yorkshire Post newspaper on 14 July 2026. Read the original here.

When I talk to teachers about curriculum planning, I suggest they start at the end: what knowledge do they want pupils to acquire, retain, and apply – not just in exams, but in 5, 10, 20 years’ time? I want my pupils to become informed consumers of information. I want them to know when they’re being lied to or manipulated, when information is biased or fake. That, for me, is one non-negotiable outcome of a well-taught English Language curriculum. And it’s a goal that matters now more than ever because social media is flooded with fake news.

A recent report by the Social Market Foundation says misinformation grew as a share of news posts by 56% in the run-up to polling day in May, from 8.2% to 12.9%. Put another way, about 1 in 8 posts we saw just before casting our vote was a lie. The SMF argue local online groups are “the silent killer of trust in Britain”, spreading false government communications, AI-generated content, and misleading claims – most often about immigration.

The truth matters because public discourse is becoming toxic, fuelled by extremist propaganda from populists with vested (usually financial) interests – as well as outright racists and bigots. In the wake of Henry Nowak’s murder in Southampton, for example, Nigel Farage was quick to call for “pure, cold rage”, ignoring Nowak’s father’s plea not to politicise his son’s murder. Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), Elon Musk, and even US Vice President JD Vance blamed the attack on immigration. Soon there were riots on the streets of Southampton.

Strange how these folk choose their battles. Farage, for example, was quick to call for retaliation after Nowak’s murder – which was committed by a Sikh – but called for calm after the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving (white British) policeman. Everard’s death sparked a national conversation about women’s safety, policing, and public trust. But Farage didn’t focus on those concerns; he warned against attacks on men and the police.

Before that, when Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered outside her constituency surgery by a (white British) far-right extremist during the EU referendum campaign – soon after Farage unveiled his ‘Breaking Point’ poster – most political leaders paused campaigning and lamented Cox’s death, but Farage was silent. When he eventually spoke, he seemed more concerned about the impact of her death on his campaign than on her family. Days later, his victory speech celebrated Brexit “without a single bullet being fired” – a deeply insensitive phrase given the circumstances.

The truth is that all three murders – Cox’s, Everard’s, and Nowak’s – tell us something important about modern Britain. Cox’s death raises questions about political extremism and public discourse. Everard’s exposes deep concerns about violence against women and institutional trust. Nowak’s has prompted difficult discussions about policing, race, and justice. But Farage has chosen to comment on only one and used it to channel public anger against immigrants. He wants to be the next PM, but statesmanship requires consistency; it requires speaking up when the issue is uncomfortable, politically inconvenient, or offers no personal advantage.

Farage, Robinson, Musk, and Vance have used Nowak’s murder to fuel the anti-immigration fire, and their words have led to violence on the streets. And yet they are spreading misinformation which is then amplified through social media. Nowak’s killer was not an immigrant; he was British born. And immigration is falling fast.

We all need to be informed consumers of information these days. We all have a duty to call out bias, to challenge lies, no matter how convenient. Facts are our friends; fake news is society’s biggest foe.