New survey shows the extent of class privilege in UK journalism
UK journalism has a class problem. This statement will not surprise most people familiar with UK newsrooms. What is astonishing, though, is the scarcity of empirical data that could help us better understand the extent to which class inequality affects journalists and their work.
For the first time, research by myy colleagues and me an for the report UK Journalists in the 2020s uses a representative sample of UK journalists to measure their socioeconomic background. The vast majority of our respondents came from a privileged background, measured by their schooling and by the job held by their main household earner when they were a child.
Previous research on this issue was based on considerably more limited data. In July 2009, a report commissioned by the then Labour government found that journalism was one of two professions that had experienced the biggest decline in social mobility (the other being accountancy).
Research by the Sutton Trust established repeatedly (most recently in 2019), that leading news editors, broadcasters and newspaper columnists are about six to seven times more likely to be privately educated than the general population, a typical marker for privilege in Britain.
Some of the best data we have regarding UK journalists' social class was collected by the National Council for the Training of Journalists, who since 2017 has regularly published reports on the diversity among UK journalists.
However, as the report's author Mark Spilsbury concedes, the findings have a considerable margin of error. The report uses data from the UK Government Labour Force Survey, and only extrapolates its figures for the small fraction of journalists within that workforce.
Our report, for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, draws on a survey that media researchers Neil Thurman, Sina Thäsler-Kordonouri and I conducted between September 27 and November 30 2023.
We used data from the 2021 Census for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland and from the Roxhill Media database to estimate the total number of UK journalists to be 68,279. Given how notoriously reluctant journalists are to respond to surveys, already swamped as they are with similar requests, we sent our questionnaire to 16,497 randomly selected participants.
We considered journalists to be those who worked for a media outlet with an identifiable focus on news, and who earned at least 50% of their income from journalism or worked at least 50% of their working week as a journalist. To be included in our survey, respondents also needed to work for a news outlet with a UK base and that was aimed, at least in part, at a UK audience.
After data cleaning, we retained a final sample of 1,130 respondents, a sufficient size to achieve a confidence level of at least 95% and a maximum error margin of 3%.
Our survey is part of the international Worlds of Journalism Study, which uses the same core questionnaire across 75 countries. The survey covers a wide range of topics, including journalists' demographics, working conditions and their experience of safety and wellbeing.
For the UK study, we added two questions regarding journalists' socioeconomic background. First, we asked what job the main earner in their households held when the respondents were 14 years old. Second, we asked about the school journalists attended: fee-paying private or state primary and secondary school, non-fee-paying selective secondary school (such as grammar school) or a school not in the UK.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly , delivered every Friday.
The question on parents' occupation allowed respondents to write in the title of the relevant job. We coded the replies manually using the nine categories of the Office for National Statistics' 2020 Standard Occupational Classification.
Seventy-one percent of journalists in our sample came from a privileged background, with the main earner in their childhood household holding a job within the three top categories of the classification. Only 12% of our respondents came from a working-class background (sales and customer service occupations; process, plant and machine operatives and elementary occupations).
Read more:
We lack the data for an outright comparison with the general population. But the 2021 census gives an indication. It shows that 23.3% of the main earner in all households in England and Wales held a job in the highest AB social grade, about equivalent to the top three categories in our classification. Nearly double (43.9%) fell into the social grade C2 and DE, roughly equivalent with our bottom three categories.
Journalists' privilege also shows in their schooling. Twenty-two percent of journalists in our sample attended a fee-paying secondary, and 13% attended a fee-paying primary school. Around 6% of the general pupil population in England attends private schools, and fewer in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Our data does not suggest that a privileged upbringing makes it more likely for journalists to hold a top management position. Where it does make a difference, though, is whether they work for national media or outlets with international presence (like the Guardian or the Financial Times). Of those who do only 9% come from a working-class background, while 72% come from a privileged one (the rest come from the middle groups in our classification).
In contrast, 20% of journalists working for local and regional outlets (including regional arms of national outlets, such as BBC Wales) have a working-class background, and 57% grew up in a more privileged household.
Our survey also shows other areas of inequality. An interesting one is age. Both women and journalists from an ethnic minority background seem to drop out of the profession after the age of 50. Journalists with an Asian or Black background in particular remain underrepresented compared to the overall population, as they were in 2015.
Female journalists are also still less well paid, less likely to have a permanent contract or to hold a top management role than their male colleagues. They also more often report feeling stressed out. Their disadvantage against their male colleagues may well be a reason.
One reason for the privileged background of so many journalists will be that journalism has become a thoroughly academic profession. Nine out of ten journalists in our sample were university educated.
In an increasingly complex world, there may be good reasons for those who report on it to undergo an academic training. However, as some scholars have argued, trust in journalism not only depends on accurate and reliable reporting, but also on emotional and social factors that are essential for the relationship between journalists and audiences.
Given the lack of trust in news and rising news avoidance among UK audiences, the inequalities our report found should be of concern. If journalists are found to belong to a privileged elite they are less likely to be trusted by the general public. Reliable data on the inequalities that shape the journalism profession is a necessary start to tackle this problem.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Imke Henkel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Latest polling says if an election was held tomorrow Reform UK would win a majority
Since the local elections Reform UK has had no shortage of good polls. But a new one suggests Nigel Farage's party has a chance not only of winning the next election, but of claiming a decent Commons majority, too. In February, Reform topped a Sky News/YouGov poll for the first time, with Nigel Farage's party edging in front on 25%, Labour pushed into second on 24%, with the Tories on 21%. But a fresh one from Ipsos puts Reform on 34%, nine points ahead of Labour on 25%, with the Conservatives a distant third on 15%. While the other parties are flatlining, Reform appears to be pushing boundaries. Were these figures to be replicated across the country at a general election, with every constituency behaving the same way, then Reform could win as many as 340 seats, giving it a majority of 30, Sky News analysis suggests. Labour could be reduced to 176 seats, down 236 on last year's election, while the Tories would hit a record low of 12 seats. But polling should always be taken with a pinch of salt and with the firm acknowledgement that there is not an election coming any time soon. Conservative backbenchers might also tell you publicly that opinion polls are notoriously difficult to translate into seat numbers because voting percentages in individual constituencies can vary hugely from the overall average. But the truth is that the symbolism of Reform UK topping another poll is likely to be noticed by MPs from all parties, especially backbench Conservatives who have actively been hoping their leader, Kemi Badenoch, can help them climb the polls and bring the party back into public favour. Politics is a brutal game and when it comes to toppling underwhelming party leaders, the Tories are more ruthless than most. One wonders how many of these polls Mrs Badenoch's party will allow her to endure. Read more: This poll is also a warning to Labour. As the party approaches a year since its major victory, it will not have much to celebrate if these numbers are anything to go by. According to this survey, only 19% are satisfied with the job Sir Keir Starmer is doing as prime minister, with 73% dissatisfied. And the figure of 25% of voters intending to vote Labour is a level not seen since October 2019. While abstract to much of the public, polling can often shape not only the chatter inside Westminster but how and when plots by MPs begin. For Reform UK, this is a much-needed morale boost after a surprise resignation by their former Chairman Zia Yusuf, and then an almost immediate U-turn back into the party. And Kemi Badenoch - who said during her leadership campaign that the Conservatives needed to go back to first principles and that this would take time - will be wondering, seven-and-a-half months after winning the leadership, how much time she really has left.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
MPs may have passed the assisted dying bill, but the debate is just beginning
Now that the assisted dying bill has passed its momentous third reading in the House of Commons, it may seem like legalisation in England and Wales is a done deal. But despite this significant milestone, the bill is not yet law and its journey through the House of Lords is far from a formality. While the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is now closer than ever to becoming law, both the Commons and the Lords must agree on its final wording. And just like in the Commons, there are passionate supporters and vocal opponents in the Lords. Peers are expected to focus their attention on a number of outstanding, and controversial, issues. One of the biggest concerns that surfaced during both the report stage and today's third reading relates to the speed and process of drafting the legislation. Because this is a private member's bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it was subject to strict timelines. Leadbeater had just 85 days to work with legal drafters and set out a policy framework before the bill was published ahead of its second reading in November 2024. Despite this, the democracy-supporting charity the Hansard Society has noted that the bill is 'among the most heavily scrutinised in recent times', and it could ultimately receive up to 200 hours of parliamentary debate, especially now that it has moved to the Lords. Still, the fast turnaround meant that many important decisions, such as what medications will be approved for use in assisted dying, have been left for the secretary of state to determine later through what's known as delegated legislation (secondary laws made without a full parliamentary vote). One area likely to receive particular scrutiny is the bill's inclusion of so-called 'Henry VIII clauses'. These are controversial powers that allow ministers to make changes to existing primary legislation, effectively altering acts of parliament without needing a new law. A key example is clause 38 that would let ministers revise the NHS Act 2006 to formally include assisted dying within NHS services. Several amendments aimed at strengthening the bill's safeguards were supported during the Commons stages. These included the introduction of independent advocates, a new disability advisory board, and additional protections for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, or autism. An amendment from Labour MP Naz Shah was also supported at the third reading, ensuring that a person who chooses to stop eating and drinking will not automatically be considered terminally ill. This is a protection designed to prevent the system being used inappropriately. Yet despite these measures, concerns remain. Critics worry about the risk of coercion, both from others and self imposed. There is particular unease about people feeling pressured to choose assisted dying because they consider themselves a burden. Questions have also been raised about whether those with conditions like anorexia might qualify for assisted dying under the current wording of the bill. Even with the new safeguards, including mandatory training for doctors to detect coercion and assess mental capacity, many feel the bill needs tighter definitions and clearer criteria to protect the most vulnerable. The impact on palliative and end-of-life care continues to be a major point of debate. Today, MPs backed an amendment from Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson that would require the government to assess the state of palliative care services within one year of the law being enacted. Peers in the House of Lords may push further on this issue. Some may argue that before a person can request assisted dying, they should first be referred to a palliative care specialist to fully understand their options. Others may want the law to spell out more clearly who is qualified to assess these requests. Another key question is who should provide assisted dying services. The British Medical Association has previously suggested a model where assisted dying operates outside the core NHS system. This would be a kind of parallel service overseen by the health secretary but delivered by independent providers. This would be similar to how early medical abortions are offered in some parts of the UK. Time is tight in the Lords, so peers will probably focus on a few high priority areas. Any amendments will need to be proposed, debated and approved quickly if the bill is to continue progressing this session. Even if the bill passes, it includes a four year implementation period to allow for the development of more detailed policies, including training for professionals, protocols for medication and clearer guidance on safeguarding. The passing of the bill in the Commons is historic. But the national conversation on assisted dying is not over. And the next phase will determine how this sensitive and deeply personal issue is handled in practice. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Suzanne Ost has previously received funding from the AHRC for her assisted dying research. Nancy Preston receives funding from Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020 and the NIHR
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Poll of the day: Do you support the assisted dying bill?
The assisted dying bill returns to Parliament today for its final reading amid growing controversy – and a vote that could determine whether the legislation moves forward or falls entirely. A group of Labour MPs dramatically withdrew their support on Thursday night, citing serious concerns about the removal of key safeguards, including the requirement for High Court oversight. They warned that the bill had been 'drastically weakened' and no longer offers enough protection for vulnerable patients. If passed, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow people in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for a medically assisted death. Approval would be required from two doctors and a panel including a senior legal figure, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. Campaigners are making a final push on both sides of the debate, and with a narrow majority at stake, every vote counts. MPs have a free vote and are not bound by party lines. Supporters argue that the bill offers dignity and choice to those in need. Meanwhile, opponents argue it opens the door to abuse and erodes trust in end-of-life care. With so much at stake and such deeply personal questions at the heart of this debate, we want to hear from you: do you support the assisted dying bill? Vote in our poll and let us know your thoughts in the comments.
