0 comments
Britain’s press has long claimed to simply report politics, but its deep-rooted bias toward the Conservatives suggests it may have played a far more active role in shaping how the public sees power, leadership, and ultimately who gets to win.
On 13 April 1992 after a devastating election loss, swerving the usual graceful exit, Neil Kinnock stood in front of the press and made a striking claim:
‘…the Conservative-supporting press has enabled the Tory Party to win yet again when the Conservative Party could not have secured victory for itself on the basis of its record, its programme or its character’.
It’s kind of wild… or is it?
It opens up a pertinent question: is the media merely reporting politics, or is it subtly brainwashing people into voting Tory?
Although there is no shortage of research on media bias and voting behaviour, the findings are mixed; some studies suggest newspapers influence readers’ political views, while others argue that people simply choose outlets that already match their beliefs. So if you’re a Tory, you read Tory papers. If you’re Labour, you stick to Labour ones.
This creates what researchers call the problem of reverse causality, whereby it becomes difficult to determine if newspapers are shaping political opinions or audiences are selecting media that reflects what they already think.
The reality, however, likely involves elements of both.
Historically, the UK press has not been politically neutral. Between 1945 and 2010, around 50 to 55 percent of national press support leaned Conservative, compared to 38 to 44 percent for Labour.
At certain points, this imbalance became even more pronounced. For instance, between 1979 and 1987, the Conservatives benefited from roughly three-quarters of press circulation.
By 1992, pro-Tory newspapers reached 8.7 million readers, while Labour-supporting papers reached just 3.3 million.
By 2010, only 12 percent of newspaper circulation supported Labour. There was a temporary shift during the years of Tony Blair’s leadership, when Rupert Murdoch-backed papers supported Labour, but this didn’t last and those outlets were back to supporting the Conservatives in 2010.
Generally, the Conservative Party has consistently enjoyed stronger backing from the national press, and one of the most widely cited examples of media influence is the 1992 general election (aka the election that lives in the Museum of Infamy Political Science).
At the time, around 70 percent of newspaper circulation supported the Conservatives, while Labour had significantly less representation in the press.
In the final week of the campaign, newspapers, particularly tabloids, went absolutely feral with hostile coverage of Labour. This period coincided with a late swing of voters towards the Conservatives.
After the results, The Sun drops the iconic headline: ‘The Sun Wot Won It’, essentially taking credit for the whole thing. While the reality behind this may be a point of contention, the timing of media coverage and shift in voter behaviour is difficult to brush off.
A similar pattern can be observed in the 1997 election, when the press environment became more favourable to Labour. During this period, a large proportion of the electorate was engaging with pro-Labour newspapers, and Labour secured a decisive victory.
This link between press support and electoral outcomes across these elections provides compelling initial evidence that media influence plays a role in shaping political results. There’s a reason people throw the word propaganda around.
Some argue that voters are largely resistant to media influence, though. Earlier studies suggested that many individuals decide who to vote for well before election campaigns begin and remain loyal to those preferences. The Conservatives would read the Daily Mail, the Labour supporters would read the Guardian, and everyone stays in their lane.
Research indicates that media influence develops gradually over time, particularly when individuals are repeatedly exposed to similar messages. A prime example of this is the 2004 Ipsos MORI study on immigration, which shows that during periods of extensive newspaper coverage on immigration, concern about the issue increased among readers, suggesting that the media actually decides which issues people prioritise and how they perceive them.
One might say that individuals tend to consume media that aligns with their existing beliefs. This is often explained through the concept of cognitive dissonance, where people prefer to avoid information that contradicts their views.
