Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
GB News quotes Burnham wanting "an honest discussion" and presents it as being about EU Freedom of Movement. The Express reported that his point was about how immigration changed after the Brexit vote: short-term European migration was replaced by long-term settlement in bigger numbers, which he called the Boriswave. Without this, a reader believes the figures rebut Burnham's argument. In fact he was making a point about post-Brexit settlement that the article never puts to him.
Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article says Labour signalled it would fight the election on reversing Brexit, and later suggests a return to free movement. It omits that Burnham's own ministers had refused to back a return to free movement, so a reader overstates how far restoring free movement is government policy.
GB News headlines a Brexit Facts4EU analysis of Home Office data as official figures that lay bare Britain's EU legacy. It counts approved settlement applications, which the article itself says include automatic upgrades to settled status, and presents them as net migration, as more than half of population growth and as double the Remain campaign's count of residents. It describes the numbers in loaded words and gives most of its space to two politicians who oppose free movement.
Uses figures that mislead
Serious
“represented two-thirds of the net migration influx over the past 25 years”
Why this matters
It calls the settlement figures a share of "net migration".
The impression it gives
Net migration, arrivals minus departures, from the EU was two-thirds of the total since 2000.
The context
The only EU figure the article gives is approved settlement applications, not a net migration figure. Nothing in the piece accounts for anyone who left Britain.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“applications under the EU Settlement Scheme have been approved”
“with migration from the EU accounting for more than half of the unprecedented rise”
Why this matters
It places the application count beside the 10.6 million population rise and calls it "more than half" of that rise.
The impression it gives
More than 5.3 million of Britain's extra residents since 2000 are EU migrants.
The context
The article supports this only with approved applications, which it shows include automatic upgrades for the same individuals. Approvals cannot be subtracted from a population change as if each were one extra resident.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“more than 6.1 million applications under the EU Settlement Scheme”
Elsewhere in the article“upgrades the individual to settled status”
“which is double the number initially presented by the Remain side”
Why this matters
It sets 6,046,665 applications against a figure for EU citizens living in Britain and calls the first "double" the second.
The impression it gives
Twice as many EU citizens lived in Britain as the Remain campaign said.
The context
The article compares applications with residents. These are different measures, and the article gives no count of people.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“only three million EU citizens were living in Britain”
Written straight
Home Office data analysed by Brexit Facts4EU show more than 6.1 million approvals under the EU Settlement Scheme. Approvals include automatic upgrades of individuals to settled status, so they are not a count of people or of net migration.
Headline goes beyond the article
Minor
“Andy Burnham's rejoiner dream dealt major blow”
Why this matters
The headline states in GB News's own voice that Burnham's position has suffered a "major blow".
The impression it gives
Something has happened that damages Burnham's case for rejoining the EU.
The context
The body reports no consequence for Burnham at all. It offers one group's figures and the opinions of two Brexit-supporting politicians. The "blow" is the outlet's own verdict, not an event the article reports.
"Damning" passes a verdict on the movement of people in the outlet's own voice.
The impression it gives
The figures prove EU migration was a harm.
The context
The figures are counts of settlement applications. They carry no verdict on whether that migration was good or bad.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“more than 6.1 million applications under the EU Settlement Scheme have been approved”
“staggering migrant influx”
Why this matters
"Staggering" and "influx" cast people settling lawfully under a government scheme as an overwhelming flood.
The impression it gives
The numbers are alarming in themselves.
The context
The article describes approvals under a legal settlement scheme. The alarm comes from GB News's words, not from the data.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“applications approved under the settlement scheme”
“Britain's population explosion”
Why this matters
"Explosion" turns an 18 per cent rise over 25 years into a sudden catastrophe.
The impression it gives
The population grew in a sudden, uncontrolled burst.
The context
The article's own figure is a rise of 18 per cent spread over 25 years.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“almost 10.6 million (18 per cent) in the 25 years”
One side gets the space
Minor
“Former secretary of state Lord Redwood told Britain's News Channel”
Why this matters
GB News quotes Lord Redwood at length and closes the article on his words. David Jones also gets several sentences. Both oppose free movement.
The impression it gives
The figures have only one reasonable reading, the one Brexit supporters give them.
The context
Burnham appears only in two short fragments. His own argument, that long-term settlement grew after the Brexit vote, is absent. Nobody who supports EU membership or free movement is quoted.
GB News quotes Burnham wanting "an honest discussion" and presents it as being about EU Freedom of Movement. The Express reported that his point was about how immigration changed after the Brexit vote: short-term European migration was replaced by long-term settlement in bigger numbers, which he called the Boriswave. Without this, a reader believes the figures rebut Burnham's argument. In fact he was making a point about post-Brexit settlement that the article never puts to him.
The article says Labour signalled it would fight the election on reversing Brexit, and later suggests a return to free movement. It omits that Burnham's own ministers had refused to back a return to free movement, so a reader overstates how far restoring free movement is government policy.