Zimbabwean and Daily Maverick publish commentary arguing that discussions about migration are being dominated by populist rhetoric rather than evidence-based reasoning. Both pieces contend that “solid arguments” against anti-migrant sentiment are being drowned out, and they call for a renewed public conversation that balances empathy for affected communities with a commitment to factual claims. The writers argue that addressing popular concerns should not require endorsing xenophobic views, and they stress that reason, logic and facts should remain central to policy and public debate. While the articles focus on the tone and framing of the debate rather than providing new data or policy measures, they broadly agree on the problem: populist messaging overrides rational discussion. They also align on the proposed direction: develop messaging and engagement that acknowledges the social pressures driving mass sentiment, while still resisting hate or stereotyping and maintaining reliance on evidence. Overall, both outlets present the same core viewpoint, presented as an editorial perspective on how migration issues are discussed.