Media Bias in Immigration Reporting: A Comparative Study of Spanish Newspapers’ Source Usage

Abstract

This study examines the media coverage of illegal immigration in Spain during the first year of the war in Ukraine, focusing on the four most-read online newspapers: El Español, Okdiario, La Razón, and eldiario.es. The research aims to understand how ideological differences influence source selection and framing of immigration issues. Using Source Credibility Theory as a framework, the study analyzes the frequency of coverage and types of sources used by each outlet. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative analysis of source frequencies with qualitative examination of content. The results reveal significant disparities in coverage and source usage among the newspapers. Conservative outlets like Okdiario relied heavily on official sources (51.5%), while the progressive eldiario.es gave more weight to civil society sources (38.2%). El Español and Okdiario published more articles on illegal immigration compared to La Razón and eldiario.es. Notably, La Razón, also conservative, used hidden sources more frequently (17%) than other outlets. The findings highlight how ideological leanings shape journalistic practices in covering sensitive topics like immigration. Conservative media’s focus on institutional narratives contrasts with progressive outlets’ emphasis on human stories, potentially influencing public perception and discourse on immigration issues. This study contributes to understanding the role of media in shaping societal attitudes towards immigration and underscores the importance of diverse perspectives in news coverage.

1. Introduction

In today’s saturated information landscape, media credibility is fundamental for public trust and informed citizenship. The ability of news organizations to maintain credibility directly shapes how societies perceive reality, participate in democratic processes, and respond to complex issues such as immigration (Karlsson et al., 2017; Metzger et al., 2003; Strömbäck & Esser, 2017). As audiences are confronted with competing narratives across traditional and digital platforms, distinguishing between reliable journalism and misinformation becomes increasingly challenging, making the evaluation of credibility more crucial than ever (Tandoc et al., 2018; Lewandowsky et al., 2020).

The rise of the post-truth era has further complicated this dynamic. Emotional appeal and personal belief often overshadow factual accuracy, eroding trust in institutions—including the media—and enabling the rapid spread of disinformation. In this context, the media’s dual role as both a gatekeeper and a potential amplifier of bias is under scrutiny, especially when covering contentious topics (Waisbord, 2018; Hameleers, 2022).

This tension is particularly evident in media coverage of immigration. Research shows that the way the media frames immigration—whether emphasizing security, cultural threat, or humanitarian perspectives—can reinforce stereotypes, polarize debate, and influence policy outcomes (Eberl et al., 2018; Kovář, 2022; Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2009). Source selection and presentation are central to this process: credible, diverse sourcing fosters balanced reporting, while reliance on limited or anonymous sources can undermine both accuracy and public confidence.

Against this backdrop, this article aims to analyze how Spain’s leading online newspapers report on illegal immigration, focusing on how ideological differences influence source selection and narrative framing (Buyens & Van Aelst, 2021). By examining source usage patterns, the study seeks to reveal the mechanisms through which media outlets construct public perceptions of immigration and, ultimately, shape societal attitudes.

Since the foundation of the media, there has been a need to gain credibility. This is based on the well-established principle that argues that people’s attention towards media decreases with low credibility (Johnson & Kaye, 1998). The main question then relates to the basic understanding of the concept. Valentini (2018) establishes that “credibility is the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest.” These basic principles of the concept are constantly revisited as we delve into the post-truth era.

In the current information ecosystem, the challenge of maintaining credibility is heightened by the proliferation of digital platforms and the speed with which information spreads. The public’s perception of who delivers credible news, in contrast with those who spread fake news, is shifting. Since the arrival in the political sphere of politicians such as Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, or Boris Johnson, other lower-profile politicians are following their example. In fact, Waisbord (2018) established an elective affinity between populist politics and post-truth communication, mainly due to the current conditions of public communication. On this note, Mayoral-Sánchez et al. (2022) argue that verification and control of subjectivity largely define the essence of the journalistic profession, especially if we focus attention on the production of informative stories.

This dynamic is particularly visible in the coverage of socially sensitive topics like immigration, where the credibility of both sources and media outlets is constantly under scrutiny. Especially around the immigration topic, studies have shown that right-wing populist actors exploit digital and social media to spread disinformation and frame it as a threat (Conrad, 2021; De Blasio et al., 2023; Padilla-Castillo & Rodríguez-Hernández, 2022). This process often leads to the objectification of migrants and the polarization of political debate (De Blasio et al., 2023). The mainstreaming of far-right ideologies is facilitated by elite actors who shape public opinion and legitimize reactionary politics (Mondon, 2022).

Moreover, the digital environment amplifies the reach and impact of these narratives. Social bots play a role in disseminating unreliable content, particularly in online immigration debates (Vilella et al., 2022). Media coverage can inadvertently contribute to the normalization of xenophobic rhetoric (Missier, 2022). Emotional factors, especially anger, are crucial in driving far-right support (Erisen & Vasilopoulou, 2022). Language choices in media reporting significantly influence public attitudes towards immigration (Djourelova, 2023; Speakman, 2021). In line with these ideas, Brandtzaeg and Chaparro Domínguez (2018) highlight that there is a consensus, both professional and academic, regarding the problem posed by prejudices in the practice of journalism.

Periods of humanitarian crisis reveal the power of media framing and source selection in shaping public discourse. During periods of humanitarian crises resulting in migratory fluxes to Europe, such as the Syrian conflict peaked in 2016, media coverage of immigration often centered on the concept of insecurity, linking it intrinsically to the migratory process. This was the conclusion drawn by Kovář (2022) upon analyzing media coverage in countries like the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both recipients of immigration due to their proximity to Eastern Europe. This coverage emphasized security concerns and highlighted cultural components, asserting the incompatibility of immigrants with Western culture. It is crucial to underscore the significance of media in shaping public discourse during these crises, as their influence can potentially sway voter decisions (Eberl et al., 2018).

The media’s treatment of immigration is fundamental in understanding the types of messages conveyed to the population, considering the framing power of the media. Also, the impact of personal biases on journalism remains a significant concern. While agenda-setting theory describes how the media influence which issues are perceived as important by the public, framing theory focuses on how the media construct and present those issues, shaping the interpretation and meaning attributed to them. In this study, framing is particularly relevant, as the analysis centers on the narratives and perspectives used by different outlets when reporting on illegal immigration

Cultural and ideological factors further complicate the media narrative on immigration. The perception of cultural proximity can be a crucial factor, as the presence of identifiable groups living in native residential contexts often leads to a perception of cultural threat (Schraff & Sczepanski, 2022). Consequently, the cultural proximity of immigrants is a fundamental factor in their acceptance or rejection by radical right-wing parties (RRPs). These parties emphasize culture, as it has proven to be a more effective approach than other right-wing movements in the past (Minkenberg, 2021). Similarly, Nettelbladt (2022) argues that in their discourse, current right-wing movements emphasize cultural boundaries without being overtly racist. Sometimes, these parties employ an ethnopluralist approach (Rueda, 2021; Spektorowski, 2003) as a strategy. In this vein, whiteness as an ethnocultural characteristic is embedded in the cultural identity and history of the Global North and West, evident in various social contexts. This concept is illustrated in the differential treatment between different types of immigrants, a phenomenon anchored in white normativity and colonial legacies (Krivonos, 2022).

Recent events, such as the war in Ukraine, have brought new dimensions to media coverage of migration, offering a comparative lens through which to consider how different groups are portrayed. The most recent example of these issues in the European context was the escalation of the war in Ukraine in 2022. It brought a coverage marked by belonging versus otherness, where Ukrainians formed part of the “us” and Russians part of the “other” (Strukowska, 2023). This marks a significant difference in opposition to the coverage of other humanitarian crisis such as the Syrian refugee crisis or the ongoing Southern-European border with African countries. For the first time since the Balkan War, the refugees and displaced population came from an ethnically similar country. The treatment of migrants whose origin was Ukraine was fundamentally opposite to those coming from Africa (Monroy Trujillo, 2023).

Therefore, the main goal of this article is to understand how media coverage developed during the first year of the war in Ukraine concerning the treatment of illegal immigration. Notably, we will study the source usage of the most-read digital newspapers in Spain: El Español, La Razón, Okdiario, and eldiario.es. The selected approach is through the Source Credibility Theory, as it will allow us to understand the different usages of sources and their meaning, potentially highlighting the ideological differences among the outlets.

Source Credibility Theory (SCT), developed by Carl I. Hovland and colleagues, argues that subjects exposed to different sources tend to discount materials coming from untrustworthy sources (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). Therefore, the theory identifies expertise and trustworthiness as key dimensions of credibility (Flanagin & Metzger, 2020). Research has shown that higher credibility perceptions lead to greater persuasion and attitude change (Pornpitakpan, 2004) and an explicit relationship between source credibility and interpersonal trust (Giffin, 1967). While high-credibility sources are generally more persuasive, interaction effects with variables such as message, receiver, and channel characteristics can influence outcomes (Pornpitakpan, 2004).

Even though this theory was first proposed as a tool to understand offline media outlets, there is no reason that invalidates it for online media. SCT is a fundamental concept in communication research, particularly relevant in the digital age of online reviews and social media, as there is an overabundance of misinformation and disinformation. It posits that an information source’s perceived trustworthiness and expertise significantly influence message acceptance and behavioural intentions (Cohen et al., 2023).

Research on media credibility has evolved significantly over the past decades, with a focus on newspapers and television news. Early studies established foundational credibility measures (Gaziano & McGrath, 1986), while later research explored factors influencing credibility perceptions. These include individual and community-level factors (Yamamoto & Nah, 2018), differential criteria for evaluating newspapers versus TV news (Newhagen & Nass, 1989), and the impact of context on news credibility (Thorson et al., 2010). Studies have consistently found that people are generally sceptical of news across media channels, with newspapers often rated as more credible than television or online news (Kiousis, 2001). However, accuracy remains a significant issue, with high error rates negatively affecting newspaper credibility and source cooperation (Maier, 2005). The relationship between credibility and newspaper readership or support for press rights has been debated, with some studies finding no clear correlation (Blake, 2002), highlighting the complex nature of media credibility in the modern information age. The importance of credibility in journalism cannot be overstated, and as Mayoral-Sánchez et al. (2022) point out, journalism demands objectivity and verification as fundamental elements of the profession.

In the specific topic of immigration and crisis, events reveal a complex interplay between official and non-official sources. While some studies find that journalists prioritize unofficial sources like victims over government sources (Mayo-Cubero, 2020), others suggest that non-official sources can enhance the credibility of government messages (Sheen et al., 2021). In contrast, Lawson (2021) argues they often rely on trusted databases and institutional information to maintain credibility, especially during humanitarian crisis coverages. However, the author also claims that this can lead to overreliance, as journalists often need to verify the numbers coming from official sources. The media landscape is evolving, with social media enabling diverse actors to disseminate information, though this comes with challenges like misinformation (Manganello et al., 2020).

Farkas and Neumayer (2020) found out that tabloid news platforms are used to disseminate racist and xenophobic content presented as professional journalism. Supporting this observation, right-wing alternative media often employ distinct framing strategies compared to mainstream outlets, based on Klawier et al. (2022). For instance, they use threat frames such as security, economics, and culture, while at the same time minimizing the victim frames for the immigrants. Framing as a threat allows for generating the dichotomy between us and them, as we have seen in previous studies such as the one about Ukrainians and Russians. On the other hand, left-wing newspapers tend to frame immigration from the opposite side, emphasizing the victimization of the immigrants (Famulari & Major, 2022).

There is also another angle that needs to be treated in relation to the usage of hidden sources. Conservative newspapers in politically charged contexts sometimes lean on unnamed or hidden sources, a practice that several studies tie to weakened verification and credibility. Baek and Jeong (2020) report that in coverage of North Korean affairs, conservative South Korean newspapers more frequently rely on anonymous or absent sources—and that these sources tend to be negative—than their United States counterparts. In U.S. political controversies, Carlson (2011) and Feldstein (2007) describe heavy reliance on unnamed, government-aligned sources during high-profile cases. Their analyses note that such practices undermine verification efforts and fuel perceptions of bias, especially when editorial framing selectively presents information. Thus, this article brings the case of Spain to this claim; to analyze to which extent this applies to the Spanish conservative newspapers when treating another sensitive topic as is immigration.

Previous research has demonstrated that the ideological orientation of media outlets strongly influences their sourcing practices. Progressive newspapers are more likely to foreground civil society actors—such as NGOs, advocacy groups, and individual testimonies—to highlight human rights perspectives and social justice issues. In contrast, conservative outlets tend to prioritize official and institutional sources, emphasizing authority, policy, and security concerns (Buyens & Van Aelst, 2021; Gemi et al., 2012; Famulari & Major, 2022). This pattern reflects broader editorial strategies, where progressive media seek to amplify marginalized voices, while conservative media reinforce institutional legitimacy and governmental narratives. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that, in the context of immigration coverage, progressive outlets will rely more on civil society sources, whereas conservative outlets will focus on official sources.

Seminal scholarship has long highlighted the risks of media overreliance on official sources. Hall et al. (1978), in Policing the Crisis, demonstrated how the privileging of authoritative voices in news coverage can reinforce dominant ideologies and exclude marginalized perspectives. Complementing this, Tuchman (1978) described the “strategic ritual of objectivity,” whereby journalists systematically favor official sources to maintain professional credibility, often at the expense of narrative diversity. These foundational works underscore the importance of examining which sources are prioritized in immigration reporting and inform the present study’s analytical approach. Based on the literature provided, we built the hypotheses around the ideology of the newspapers, as studies have consistently pointed out that their world views and own agenda impact their selection of sources:

Hypothesis 1. 

Progressive outlets (e.g., eldiario.es) will prioritize civil society sources (NGOs, individual testimonies) over official ones, reflecting a human-centered approach distinct from conservative outlets’ institutional focus.

Hypothesis 2. 

Conservative newspapers (Okdiario, La Razón) will publish more articles on illegal immigration compared to progressive outlets (eldiario.es), as right-wing media tend to focus more on immigration issues, particularly framing them as threats to national security or culture.

Hypothesis 3. 

Conservative outlets (e.g., La Razón) will employ unnamed or hidden sourcing (e.g., ‘sources close to the outlet’).

2. Materials and Methods

This article aims to compare the media coverage of so-called illegal immigration across the four most-read Spanish online newspapers. To achieve this, the MyNews tool was utilized to search for news articles specifically containing the phrase ‘illegal immigration’. This method has been employed in various previous studies (e.g., Catalan-Matamoros & Elías, 2020; Carrasco et al., 2019) across diverse topics, and thus its extension and academic use has been widely justified.

This tool allows for searching the digital archives of media outlets for all their news articles. The MyNews tool was used to retrieve all articles containing the phrase ‘illegal immigration’ published by each outlet during the study period. While this approach aims for comprehensive coverage, it is possible that some relevant articles were not captured due to variations in terminology or database limitations. Therefore, the sample may not represent the entire population of immigration-related articles. All articles containing the phrase ‘illegal immigration’ were retrieved for each outlet using the MyNews tool. However, this sample does not include the total number of articles published by each outlet during the period, nor does it account for articles using alternative terminology. As a result, the absolute number of articles on illegal immigration should be interpreted with caution, as it may not accurately reflect each outlet’s proportional editorial focus.

The selected period coincides with the first year of the war in Ukraine, during which immigration-related topics were expected to receive greater media attention. Specifically, the study covers the period from 24 February 2022 to 24 February 2023. The following methodological approach was designed to systematically analyze source usage in news coverage of illegal immigration during the first year of the war in Ukraine.

Given this context, it is essential to clarify the ideological frameworks of the media outlets under study to understand their approach to immigration coverage. It is fundamental to clarify the ideological considerations that we are building on regarding the outlets in this study. First, eldiario.es (2024) is a left-wing progressive newspaper, defined by its focus on equality, minority rights, and other social issues, being the only left-wing newspaper of the four studied. Conversely, we place Okdiario as a neoliberal, anti-multicultural, and nationalist outlet (Zaragüeta, 2016), sometimes defined in the literature as libertarian (Pineda et al., 2020). La Razón is defined as right-wing, conservative, religious –catholic–, and pro-monarchy (PRNoticias, 2013). Lastly, there is a more problematic definition of what El Español is considered, although they present themselves as conservative but revolutionary (Delgado, 2015).

The four newspapers analyzed in this study—El Español, Okdiario, La Razón, and eldiario.es—were selected because they were the most-read online newspapers in Spain with open access during the study period. Although El País was the most-read online news site in Spain in 2022 according to the Digital News Report 2023, it was excluded from the sample due to its digital subscription model, which restricts free access to its content. This study therefore focuses on the most-read free-access digital outlets, as this allows for a systematic and comprehensive analysis of all relevant articles published on the topic. The selected newspapers were chosen solely due to their position as the most-read digital newspapers by the beginning of the studied period. The data was retrieved from the official website of the Dissemination Justification Office (OJD in Spanish), whose main purpose is the monitoring of the audiences of online media. According to OJD (2022) the most read newspaper was El Español with 3.6 M unique visitors, followed by Okdiario (2.1 M), La Razón (1.9 M) and eldiario.es (1.4 M). It is worth noting that these indicators would remain consistent even if the study used total website visits instead of unique visitors (identified by IP address). The resulting order or ranking would be the same in both cases.

After retrieving the top four most visited newspapers, the next observation to face was their ideological profile. Among them, the only liberal or progressive outlet is eldiario.es, while the other three have been consistently identified as neoliberal or conservative among their own readers (Masip et al., 2020). The biggest ideological difference is set with Okdiario, as some researchers place this newspaper close to libertarian positions (Pineda et al., 2020). Therefore, it was expected that the differences between eldiario.es and Okdiario are more significant than with the other news outlets.

This study applies the content analysis method, which is widely recognized as a systematic and replicable technique for compressing many words of text into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding (Krippendorff, 2019). Content analysis allows researchers to quantify and analyze the presence, meanings, and relationships of certain words, themes, or concepts within qualitative data, making it especially suitable for examining patterns in media coverage (López-Aranguren & Sánchez-Aranda, 2020).

In the field of communication, content analysis is one of the most widely used methods for studying media messages, source use, and framing (López-Aranguren & Sánchez-Aranda, 2020). This approach enables both quantitative (frequency counts, patterns) and qualitative (contextual interpretation) analyses, as recommended by the leading methodological literature (Krippendorff, 2019). A mixed approach was employed for the final data coding. According to Skjott Linneberg and Korsgaard (2019), the most used approach is a combination of inductive and deductive coding, also known as a mixed approach.

To analyze how media coverage of irregular immigration occurred during this period and the traceability of the sources used, the typology of sources proposed by Mayo-Cubero (2020, p. 2) was employed, albeit being open to possible changes. In the initial data coding, it was detected that in a significant number of cases, the source was hidden, with similar mentions to ‘sources close to the environment’ or ‘consulted sources’. Therefore, this observation was included in the final coding, resulting in seven different categories. Furthermore, each of the categories employed was specified in a series of observations listed as follows:

-

Official: governments, laws, international organisations, security forces and bodies;

-

Political: political parties;

-

Civil society: NGOs, individuals, immigrants, victims, associations/lobbies, reports or studies;

-

Media: media outlets;

-

Economic: businesses;

-

Alternative: experts;

-

Hidden: non-explicit, unknown, visual.

The coding was performed manually using the Atlas.ti program. Numerous studies (e.g., Cárcel-Carrasco & Gómez-Gómez, 2021; García-Tudela & Marín-Marín, 2023) also widely recognize this tool as a tool for data analysis, searching within corpora, and integrating both qualitative and quantitative aspects (Gibbs, 2007). The categorization was made based on the appearance, naming, and description of the sources provided by the newspapers. The analysis of the number of articles on illegal immigration is based on the total retrieved from each outlet using the MyNews tool. However, this measure does not account for the overall editorial output of each newspaper during the same period. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution, as differences in the total number of published articles across outlets could influence the observed frequencies. For a more accurate assessment of editorial focus, future research should calculate the proportion of immigration articles relative to the total output of each outlet.

Based on this coding, a mixed analysis was conducted. The quantitative analysis provides information on frequencies, trends, and patterns in the traceability of sources used by the different media outlets studied. On the other hand, the qualitative data analysis and the sources employed allowed for a deeper interpretation of the results.

To test the reliability of the coding scheme, an intercoder reliability test was conducted on a randomized sample representing 30% of the articles from each newspaper. Given the low frequency of some codes, we agreed that only those with at least three instances of agreement or disagreement would be included in the test. We compared the coding results and calculated the agreement rate when the same portion of text was assigned the same codes; disagreement was defined as a mismatch between the coders. The results are presented in

Table 1. Intercoder reliability test (percentage of agreement).

Code	La Razón	Eldiario.es	El Español	Okdiario	Average Code
Official	1	0.85	0.80	0.88	0.88
Political	1	0.71	0.70	0.94	0.83
Alternative	0.83	1	0.95	0.94	0.93
Media	0.83	0.85	0.85	0.94	0.86
Hidden	0.83	0.85	0.85	1	0.88
Civil Society	1	0.85	0.80	1	0.91
Average Outlet	0.91	0.85	0.82	0.95

Source: Own production.

. Economic sources were excluded, as there was only one instance of an economic source used across all four outlets combined.

Intercoder reliability was calculated using percentage agreement due to the aggregated and non-exclusive nature of the coding (i.e., multiple instances of the same code could occur within a single article). While percentage agreement does not account for chance agreement, it is commonly used in similar qualitative coding contexts (Gibbs, 2007). We acknowledge this as a potential limitation and recommend future studies explore alternative reliability measures if the coding structure allows. The coding structure in this study allowed for multiple codes to be assigned to the same unit of analysis (i.e., a single article or excerpt could be coded with several source types simultaneously). This non-mutually exclusive, overlapping coding complicates the application of statistical measures such as Krippendorff’s Alpha or Fleiss’ Kappa, which require each unit to be assigned to a single, mutually exclusive category.

There are three aspects to note from this intercoder reliability test. First, some variables are less prominent throughout the coding, such as alternative and political sources, which appear rarely. Second, our intercoder reliability sample fluctuated notably among outlets. This is due to the number of pieces published by each outlet during the studied period: El Español and Okdiario published nearly twice as many articles as La Razón and eldiario.es. Consequently, this affects the 30% sample used for the test. Using one of the other reliability tests mentioned would likely have overestimated agreement by chance due to the small sample size in some outlets.

It is essential to note that our coding scheme does not aim merely to identify the presence of certain sources in each article, but rather to determine how many of each type of source are used to support their claims. For all the reasons stated above, percentage agreement was chosen as the most appropriate measure for this coding context.

3. Results

The primary results to highlight from this study is the disparity in coverage of the phenomenon studied, i.e., illegal immigration. On one hand, we have El Español and Okdiario with 66 and 58 news articles, respectively. On the other hand, La Razón and eldiario.es have 24 and 22. The observation of ideological deviation among the newspapers is, therefore, discarded due to the number of articles published. Regarding coding, the distribution of sources has shown consistency with the number of published news articles, as can be seen in the total sources per newspaper in Figure 1. As for the average number of sources per article, El Español used 234 sources, representing an average of 3.8 sources per article; La Razón cited 94, with an average of 3.8; eldiario.es published 76, averaging 3.45 sources per article; and Okdiario published 134, with the lowest average at 2.34. It is here that we find the first significant difference in the study. While Okdiario is the second newspaper with the most news about illegal immigration, it is the publication that uses the fewest citations per piece produced. In comparison, the other three newspapers average similarly.

This difference in the use of sources could indicate various editorial strategies or journalistic approaches in covering illegal immigration. For instance, the lower number of sources per article in Okdiario might reflect a preference for a more direct or focused reporting style, while the higher number of sources used by El Español and La Razón could suggest a more comprehensive approach, emphasizing the diversification of these sources. Furthermore, the number and variety of sources cited in articles can impact the reader’s perception of the credibility and depth of the reporting. A greater number of sources could be viewed as an effort to provide balanced and well-researched coverage, while fewer sources might be perceived as a lack of depth or a more unidimensional approach.

Regarding the typology of sources used, it is possible to identify patterns where newspapers act similarly, while simultaneously exhibiting some substantial differences worth highlighting (Figure 2). The most frequently used type of source is the official source, with Okdiario relying on them the most (51%), followed closely by El Español (50%), while eldiario.es uses them the least (39%), followed by La Razón (40%). Secondly, given that immigration is a sensitive topic for society, civil society sources have a notable impact. In this case, the trend is reversed, with eldiario.es practically giving the same weight to these sources as to official sources at 38%, while Okdiario allocates 12%. Both La Razón (22%) and El Español (23%) assign similar weight to these sources.

Concerning the remaining sources, the most significant result comes from analyzing the relevance of hidden sources. These are all references to sources that are not explicitly specified by the media outlet. In this regard, La Razón stands out with 17%, representing the third most frequently used source, five points behind the second. At the opposite end, we find eldiario.es, citing hidden sources only 3% of the time. Both Okdiario (9%) and El Español (7%) give similar weight to other sources. This aspect is particularly noteworthy, as the reader is unaware of the bases supporting the veracity of the piece, and overuse of these sources can affect the credibility of the media outlet.

Table 2. Data breakdown.

Source Type	Item	La Razón	eldiario.es	Okdiario	El Español
Official Sources	N	38	30	69	117
	Weight in %	40.4%	39.5%	51.5%	50.0%
	$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$	45.3%
	S	6.3%
Political Sources	N	7	10	17	31
	Weight in %	7.4%	13.2%	12.7%	13.2%
	$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$	11.6%
	S	2.8%
Alternative Sources	N	6	0	7	2
	Weight in %	6.4%	0.0%	5.2%	0.9%
	$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$	3.1%
	S	3.2%
Economic Sources	N	1	0	0	0
	Weight in %	1.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$	0.3%
	S	0.5%
Media Sources	N	5	5	13	13
	Weight in %	5.3%	6.6%	9.7%	5.6%
	$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$	6.8%
	S	2.0%
Hidden Source	N	16	2	12	17
	Weight in %	17.0%	2.6%	9.0%	7.3%
	$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$	9.0%
	S	6.0%
Civil Society Sources	N	21	29	16	54
	Weight in %	22.3%	38.2%	11.9%	23.1%
	$\overline{\mathrm{x}}$	23.9%
	S	10.8%
Sources per newspaper (N)		94	76	134	234

Source: Own production.

presents a comprehensive breakdown of the data from the coding process, including the average percentages for each source type across all media outlets and the standard deviation for each source type. Official sources are used 45.3% of the time, with a standard deviation of 6.3%, which is not significant in comparison. Secondly, in order of importance, we have civil society sources, with an average of 23.9% and a deviation of 10.8%, with this deviation being more relevant as it highlights greater differences between media outlets. Notably, hidden sources account for 9% of the total weight and have a deviation of 6%, which exposes significant differences among the four analyzed media outlets. The remaining sources were not frequent enough to establish a reliable standard deviation.

This detailed analysis of the use of different types of sources reveals interesting patterns in media coverage of illegal immigration. The predominance of official sources, with a usage of 45.3% and a low standard deviation, indicates a generalized and uniform tendency among media outlets to rely on governmental and official sources. This consistency in the use of official sources may reflect a preference for the authority and legitimacy that these sources bring to the narrative of the articles.

On the other hand, civil society sources, although used less frequently, show more significant variability in their use, as indicated by their higher standard deviation of 10.8%. This suggests that there are more marked differences in how each media outlet incorporates the voices and perspectives of civil society in their coverage of illegal immigration. Such diversity in the use of these sources could be due to differences in the editorial lines of the media outlets or a more selective approach in including testimonies and opinions from civil society groups.

Although hidden sources are less prevalent, with 9% of the total, they present a standard deviation of 6%, indicating notable variations in their use among different media outlets. This variability could reflect differences in journalistic practices, source accessibility, or the willingness of media outlets to cite sources whose identity is not openly revealed. Political, media, alternative, and economic sources’ less frequent use and the difficulty in establishing a reliable standard deviation suggest that they play a secondary role in the coverage of the topic. However, their presence, although limited, contributes to the diversity and depth of reporting, providing various perspectives and contexts that enrich the understanding of the illegal immigration phenomenon.

Overall, the analysis of the distribution and variability in the use of different types of sources offers valuable insight into how media outlets approach the coverage of such a complex and multifaceted topic as illegal immigration. The choice of sources not only influences the content and credibility of the articles but also reflects each media outlet’s priorities and editorial approaches in presenting this crucial issue.

3.1. Official Versus Civil Society Sources

The results of the coding process yield unequivocally clear outcomes: media outlets predominantly cite official sources, with 254 mentions. In this regard, we have encountered numerous references to national and international governments, organisations such as the Council of Europe and the European Commission for their resolutions on migration, or directly official documents such as laws approved and published in the Official State Gazette (BOE in Spanish, or “Boletín Oficial del Estado”). To a lesser extent, but still recurrently, State Security Forces and Bodies, including the Civil Guard and National Police, as well as the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), are cited. The common denominator of all these sources is the official character and apparent rigor they lend to the news articles. Alongside these sources, statistical data, percentages, and testimonies from representatives of these institutions are provided. Examples of this are seen throughout the outlets. This is an example from Okdiario:

“According to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, “from 2019 onwards, and owing to its ability to procure a greater number of inflatable boats, the criminal organisation it operated saw an increase in illicit activity and managed to organise as many as three clandestine immigration operations per week.”

Regarding civil society sources, they are more varied as they encompass a broader terminological coverage. Generally, all media outlets resort to testimonies from NGO sources or associations working with immigration. This approach also provides data, statistics, and testimonies that carry a particular official character similar to that of official or institutional sources. These are complemented, especially in eldiario.es, by testimonies from individuals such as teachers, friends of victims of discrimination based on origin, priests, and even migrants themselves. To a lesser frequency, we can find some reports or studies on the subject. Therefore, in the case of civil society sources, first-person testimony, personal experience, and lived experiences over data and officials prevail. One example of recurrent civil society sources used by eldiario.es is the following:

“The humanitarian organisation recalls that UNHCR expressed last May its concern “over the risk of torture” for “a 32-year-old Algerian asylum seeker who had been convicted of criminal offences in Algeria.”

While Source Credibility Theory posits that audiences are more likely to trust information from sources perceived as expert and trustworthy, this framework can explain both the general reliance on official sources across outlets and the variation in source selection according to ideological orientation. All newspapers may prioritize official sources to enhance perceived legitimacy and authority, aligning with the theory’s emphasis on expertise. However, progressive outlets may deliberately foreground civil society voices to project trustworthiness through proximity to affected individuals and advocacy groups, thus signaling credibility to their own audiences. In this sense, source credibility not only underpins the universal preference for official sources, but also shapes the strategic inclusion of alternative sources according to each outlet’s editorial stance and target public.

3.2. Diversity of Sources

The diversity of sources used by the studied media reveals interesting patterns that go beyond official and civil society sources. This more detailed analysis allows us to better understand editorial strategies and journalistic practices in covering illegal immigration. The use of hidden sources represents a particularly intriguing phenomenon. These sources, whose acquisition and identification are not explicit, manifest through expressions like “consulted sources” or “sources close to the environment”. The use of hidden sources raises important questions about transparency and verifiability in journalism, especially on sensitive topics like immigration.

La Razón stands out for its greater use of hidden sources (17%), which could be interpreted in several ways. It could indicate an effort to protect informants who fear retaliation, suggest connections with power circles that prefer to remain anonymous, or potentially undermine reader trust in the presented information due to excessive use. However, in our analysis, we have detected a notable number of occasions where the newspaper claims to have talked to experts without identifying them, this being the distinction not to have been coded as an alternative source:

“Immigration experts assert that the history of migratory movements towards Europe is one of open and closed doors—a story defined by political decisions that influence the rise or fall of irregular flows.”

Political sources, although less frequent, play a crucial role in the immigration narrative. These sources are usually representatives of political parties, either through direct statements or parliamentary interventions. The inclusion of these voices reflects how the immigration debate is deeply politicized and how the media can amplify certain political positions over others. There was a rather clear preference for reporting political critiques from one party to another. There was no example of consensual decisions or praise among political leaders. In addition, the tendency was to quote national politicians, as seen in this example from La Razón:

“The leader of the People’s Party (PP), Alberto Núñez Feijóo, sent a letter yesterday to the Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, in which he calls for agreements on foreign policy and national defence. In the letter, the PP leader expresses his “concern” over the crisis with Algeria “and its uncertain consequences”, as well as the “lack of unanimity within the Government” regarding NATO.”

References to other media outlets, particularly foreign ones like the BBC, suggest an effort to contextualize information within an international framework. This approach can provide a broader perspective on the illegal immigration phenomenon, but it also raises questions about dependence on secondary sources and possible reproduction of biases from other media. Next, the use of identified experts as alternative sources adds a layer of specialized analysis to the coverage. However, the specific mention of Rubén Pulido, a former Spanish military officer, by Okdiario raises questions about expert selection and how this may align with the outlet’s editorial line. The single mention of an economic source in La Razón, related to gas importation from Algeria, suggests a tendency to link immigration issues with broader economic and geopolitical matters. This approach can provide richer context, but also risks reducing the immigration issue to purely economic considerations. This is the excerpt in question:

The latest wave of illegal immigrants arriving in Andalusia was predictable—so much so that migration policy expert Rubén Pulido had been warning about it days in advance on his social media. However, the government ignored the alerts, and the Andalusian coast has seen a surge of Maghrebi nationals arriving in dinghies, on jet skis, and even on surfboards.

This diversity of sources reflects the complexity of the illegal immigration topic and how different media attempt to approach it from multiple angles. However, it also reveals potential biases and limitations in coverage. Dependence on certain types of sources may lead to a biased or incomplete narrative. The variable use of hidden sources among media suggests different standards of transparency and verification. The limited inclusion of expert and economic voices could indicate a lack of depth in analyzing the causes and consequences of illegal immigration.

4. Discussion

Although the quantitative analysis reveals clear disparities in the number of articles and the types of sources used by each outlet, a qualitative review of the content further clarifies how ideological orientation shapes the framing of illegal immigration. Right-wing newspapers, such as Okdiario and La Razón, frequently employ threat-oriented and institutional frames, emphasizing security, legality, and national identity in their headlines and leads. For example, Okdiario often uses language that highlights migration as a risk to public order or economic stability. In contrast, eldiario.es consistently foregrounds humanitarian and social justice frames, giving prominence to personal stories, testimonies from NGOs, and narratives that humanize migrants. These qualitative differences in framing are evident not only in the selection of sources but also in the tone and focus of the coverage, reinforcing the notion that ideological stance influences both the content and perspective of immigration reporting. This pattern aligns with previous research, which suggests that progressive outlets seek to amplify marginalized voices, while conservative outlets reinforce institutional legitimacy and security concerns.

The data has provided a clear vision of the differences in the usage of sources by the four most-read online newspapers in the Spanish media landscape. The main goal of this study was to understand if this coverage related to their ideological standpoints, as it is a highly contested topic. This section has been organised around the hypotheses and their relation to the previous literature to understand the results.

Hypothesis 1. 

Progressive outlets (e.g., eldiario.es) will prioritize civil society sources (NGOs, individual testimonies) over official ones, reflecting a human-centered approach distinct from conservative outlets’ institutional focus.

The data supports this hypothesis. The analysis shows that Okdiario relied heavily on official sources, with 51.5% of its sources being official, while eldiario.es used official sources the least (39.5%). In contrast, eldiario.es gave significant weight to civil society sources, using them in 38.2% of cases, nearly equal to its use of official sources. This aligns with the expectation that progressive outlets like eldiario.es would prioritize non-official sources such as NGOs and individual testimonies more than conservative newspapers like Okdiario. While Okdiario and El Español published more articles on illegal immigration than La Razón and eldiario.es, this difference may partly reflect variations in overall publishing volume rather than editorial prioritization. Without data on the total output of each outlet, it is not possible to determine the relative focus on immigration. Future studies should consider the share of immigration articles within the total published content to provide a more precise measure of editorial emphasis.

There is a significant difference in the usage of non-official sources by eldiario.es in comparison to the other three newspapers. In particular, the usage of Civil Society sources represents a similar percentage to the official sources, which establishes their editorial line. This finding can spark different interpretations. On the one hand, Sheen et al. (2021) argue that non-official sources contribute to enhancing credibility of other messages, such as governmental ones. On the other hand, Lawson (2021) defends that newspapers often rely on official sources to maintain social credibility.

In this case, eldiario.es prefers to treat the illegal immigration topic as a social problem, giving voice to immigrants and associations while at the same time offering data provided by institutions such as the Ministry of Domestic Affairs. This is a similar finding to Buyens and Van Aelst (2021), as they observed that left-wing alternative news media present more civil society actors, while right-wing alternative news outlets pay more attention to right-wing politicians and parties.

In addition, eldiario.es gave significant weight to civil society sources, with a special emphasis on NGOs and illegal immigrants, using them in 38% of its articles. Contrarily, Okdiario only used civil society sources in 12% of its coverage. This demonstrates a clear difference in framing, with progressive media focusing more on human stories and societal impacts.

Okdiario relied heavily on official sources (51% of its articles), such as government bodies and security forces. These official sources lend an air of authority and legitimacy but tend to frame the issue of illegal immigration in terms of law enforcement, security, or policy compliance. This reflects a more institutional perspective that often aligns with conservative ideologies focused on national security and governance. These findings reinforce the seminal literature presented in the paper, especially Hall et al. (1978).

Hypothesis 2. 

Conservative newspapers (Okdiario, La Razón) will publish more articles on illegal immigration compared to progressive outlets (eldiario.es), as right-wing media tend to focus more on immigration issues, particularly framing them as threats to national security or culture.

This hypothesis is partially supported. The results indicate that Okdiario and El Español published more articles on illegal immigration (58 and 66 articles, respectively), compared to La Razón and eldiario.es, which published fewer (24 and 22 articles, respectively). While Okdiario did publish significantly more articles than eldiario.es, La Razón did not publish as many articles as expected. Therefore, while the general trend supports the hypothesis (with Okdiario publishing more), the lower number of articles from La Razón suggests that this hypothesis is only partially supported.

It is important to note that using the absolute number of articles as an indicator of editorial focus may be misleading if outlets differ substantially in their overall publishing volume. Without data on the total number of articles published by each outlet during the study period, we cannot determine whether the observed differences reflect a true editorial emphasis or are simply a function of outlet size. As such, the findings regarding Hypothesis 2 should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive.

A key limitation of this study is the absence of data on newsroom resources and internal dynamics. Differences in the volume of immigration coverage across outlets may reflect not only editorial priorities but also disparities in staffing, budgets, and production capacity. For example, Okdiario’s higher article count but lower average use of sources may indicate a strategy of producing more content with fewer resources, relying more on opinion and less on time-intensive reporting. Without accounting for these factors, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of editorial choice from structural constraints. Future research should integrate measures of newsroom resources to provide a more accurate interpretation of coverage patterns and reporting depth.

Hypothesis 3. 

Conservative newspapers (e.g., La Razón) are more likely to utilize hidden sources in their reporting on illegal immigration compared to progressive newspapers (e.g., eldiario.es), potentially reducing transparency and affecting the perceived credibility of their coverage.

This hypothesis is also supported by the data. La Razón used hidden sources in 17% of its articles, Okdiario 9%, and El Español 7.3%, while eldiario.es only used hidden sources in 3% of its coverage. This suggests that conservative outlets may rely more on undisclosed or anonymous sources, which could impact transparency and credibility perceptions. The most common phrase used refers to the sources consulted by the newspaper, without clearly indicating the origin of the information.

It is important to acknowledge the high standard deviation observed in the intercoder reliability for hidden sources, particularly for Okdiario, where it reached 0.50. This substantial variability indicates that coders had considerable difficulty consistently identifying and categorizing hidden sources in this outlet’s content. Given the prominence of hidden sources in our findings—especially their higher frequency in Okdiario—this inconsistency merits careful consideration.

Beyond potential human error, several factors may contribute to this variability. Hidden sources are inherently ambiguous, often referred to with vague expressions like “sources close to the environment” or “consulted sources,” which can be interpreted differently by coders. Additionally, editorial practices in Okdiario may involve more nuanced or less explicit references to sources, complicating codification. This ambiguity poses challenges for reliable coding and suggests that conclusions drawn about hidden source usage should be interpreted with caution.

Future research could benefit from more detailed coding protocols or coder training focused specifically on identifying hidden sources, as well as the exploration of alternative methods to improve intercoder agreement in this category. Recognizing these limitations enhances the transparency and rigor of the study. The right-wing media usage of hidden sources aligns with Coddington and Molyneux’s (2024) findings, as they found that they use fewer sources and more unattributed assertions compared to mainstream media. This approach can shape public discourse by presenting simplified or unverified claims that resonate with certain ideological audiences, but it also raises concerns about journalistic rigor and accountability.

Our findings also contribute to widening the knowledge found by other authors on this topic. Similar contributions were made in this regard in different geopolitical contexts, such as South Korea (Baek & Jeong, 2020) and the United States of America (Carlson, 2011). Conservative outlets seemingly use hidden sources to cover sensitive topics, something that also applies to Spain. More research on this regard could universalize this claim, to then start building on the possible implications and motivations of this choice.

5. Conclusions

This study provides valuable insights into how Spanish online newspapers covered illegal immigration during the first year of the war in Ukraine, revealing significant ideological differences in framing and source selection. The findings offer a nuanced understanding of media practices and their potential impact on public perception of immigration issues.

The dominance of official sources across all newspapers (45.3% on average) reflects a broader trend in journalism to rely on authoritative voices, particularly when covering sensitive topics like immigration. While this approach may lend credibility to reporting, it also risks narrowing the narrative by potentially excluding diverse perspectives and experiences. This overreliance on official sources raises important questions about the comprehensiveness and balance of immigration coverage in Spanish media.

Ideological leanings emerged as a crucial factor influencing source selection and framing. The stark contrast between progressive outlets like eldiario.es, which prioritized civil society sources (38.2%), and conservative outlets like Okdiario, which heavily favored official sources (51.5%), underscores how political orientation shapes journalistic practices. This divergence in approach has significant implications for public discourse on immigration, as readers of different outlets are exposed to markedly different narratives and voices.

The study also revealed intriguing patterns in coverage frequency and depth. While conservative outlets like Okdiario and El Español published more articles on illegal immigration, the quality and diversity of sources varied considerably. Okdiario’s lower average of sources per article (2.34) compared to other outlets suggests a more efficient, possibly less nuanced approach to covering immigration issues. This finding raises questions about the depth and comprehensiveness of immigration coverage across the ideological spectrum.

The varying use of hidden sources among outlets, with La Razón relying on them most heavily (17%) and eldiario.es least (2.6%), highlights ongoing debates about transparency and credibility in journalism. While anonymous sources can provide valuable information, their frequent use, especially on contentious topics like immigration, may undermine public trust in media reporting.

These findings have broader implications for understanding how media shapes public perception and discourse on immigration. The clear ideological divide in framing and source selection suggests that readers of different outlets may develop significantly different understandings of immigration issues. Conservative media’s focus on institutional narratives and security concerns contrasts sharply with progressive outlets’ emphasis on human stories and rights-based perspectives. This polarization in coverage may contribute to wider societal divisions on immigration policy and attitudes towards immigrants.

This study, while offering valuable insights into the media coverage of illegal immigration in Spain, is not without its limitations, which future research should aim to address. The reliance on the MyNews tool for data collection, though effective in capturing a substantial volume of articles, may have inadvertently excluded relevant content due to its inherent constraints, such as limited access to pay-walled or rapidly updated digital content. Similarly, the manual coding process conducted through Atlas.ti, despite efforts to ensure intercoder reliability, introduces the possibility of human error or subjective interpretation, which could affect the consistency and depth of the analysis.

The temporal scope of the research also presents a notable limitation. By focusing exclusively on a single year—the first year of the war in Ukraine—the study provides a overview of media practices during a specific period but may fail to capture longer-term trends or shifts in coverage. Media narratives around immigration are often shaped by evolving political, social, and economic contexts; therefore, a broader temporal analysis could reveal more dynamic patterns and changes over time. Additionally, while the selection of four major online newspapers ensures a focus on influential outlets, it narrows the scope by excluding regional publications or alternative media that might offer contrasting perspectives or highlight underrepresented voices.

Future research could build upon these findings by adopting a more longitudinal approach to examine how media coverage evolves over several years and in response to different crises or political developments. Expanding the range of analyzed media outlets to include regional and alternative sources would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how diverse editorial lines influence public discourse on immigration. Furthermore, integrating advanced computational methods such as natural language processing could enhance the precision and scalability of content analysis, reducing reliance on manual coding and mitigating potential biases.

Another promising avenue for future exploration involves investigating the relationship between media coverage and public opinion. Understanding how variations in source usage and framing influence audience perceptions of immigration could offer critical insights into the role of the media in shaping societal attitudes and policy debates. Additionally, examining visual elements like imagery or video content within news articles could complement textual analysis by revealing how multimodal storytelling contributes to framing immigration narratives.