2016 Should he stay or should he go? Television and Online News Coverage of the Labour Party in Crisis Dr Justin Schlosberg Media Reform Coalition in association with Birkbeck, University of London 7/27/2016 1 Contents Executive Summary p. 2 I. Methodology p. 6 II. Sources and Issues p. 8 III. A Tale of Two Reports p. 12 IV. Spotlight on the BBC p. 13 V. Conclusion and Recommendations p. 16 2 Executive Summary 465 online articles and 40 prime time news bulletins assessed Twice as much airtime given to critical, rather than supportive voices Huge imbalance in favour of issues pushed by Corbyn critics on early evening BBC and ITV bulletins – especially pronounced in headline stories Strong tendency within BBC main evening news for reporters to use pejorative language when describing Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters Domination of views opposed to the Labour leadership in all but one of the online outlets sampled, and across both left and right-leaning titles Online-only news sites relatively balanced in their coverage, as well as the BBC online Aims and context The news media have for some time been on the front lines of controversy surrounding Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. In November 2015, the Media Reform Coalition produced research which showed that newspapers overwhelmingly sought to attack Corbyn’s leadership credentials from the moment he was elected.1 In June 2016, the London School of Economics published research based on a more extensive analysis of newspaper coverage that reached similar conclusions.2 Many of the most salient stories and issues observed in those studies reached fever pitch during the political fallout following the EU referendum, and Labour’s existential crisis that ensued. In conjunction with Birkbeck, University of London, we have conducted a real-time analysis of this coverage over a crucial 10-day period following the first wave of shadow cabinet resignations and finishing on the day the Iraq War Inquiry was published. This builds on previous research in two important ways. First, it provides crucial insights into how the news media responded when the debate about Corbyn’s leadership crystallised and when the majority of MPs went on the record in calling for him to resign. The media’s role in dissecting and reporting one of the most profoundly destabilising moments in modern British political history warrants urgent scholarly attention. Second, unlike previous studies, this research focuses on television and online news. It is not surprising that predominantly conservative national newspapers would adopt a negative editorial view of Corbyn and the anti-austerity and anti-war agenda he represents. It is also inevitable that this ideological standpoint will not be contained within the columns and opinion pages but have a defining influence on the press agenda as a whole. Even left-leaning titles have taken an ambiguous 1 See http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Corbyns_First_Week- Negative_Agenda_Setting_in_the_Press.pdf 2 See http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf 3 and, on balance, critical view of the Labour Party’s new direction. But unlike newspapers, television news providers are subject to relatively strict rules on impartiality and balance. From the outset, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership presented a disruptive challenge to routine interpretations of journalistic balance in this sense. In particular, it marked a break from a long-established mainstream political consensus around issues ranging from welfare to war. Television news also has a uniquely wide reach across the more fragmented and partisan readership of the press. It remains not only by far the most widely consumed news medium but also, importantly, the most trusted.3 Flagship and prime time bulletins by public service broadcasters are especially important in this context, and play an overarching role in reflecting and reinforcing the mainstream news agenda. This in turn may have a potentially powerful influence in shaping the contours of public opinion and debate. The internet is often said to offer another counterweight to dominant newspaper owners and editors. Previous research suggests that even the online editions of newspapers tend to be more sensitive to a social media-led agenda compared to their print counterparts. Online news is also relatively free of the time and space constraints of traditional platforms, enabling them to cover a much more diverse range of issues and perspectives on any given topic. This provides an important benchmark against which we can examine the particular angles that achieve salience on the television news agenda. Above all, this research is concerned with the integrity and vitality of the fourth estate. Functioning democracies depend on journalists to scrutinise those in positions of power, and to examine the contesting agendas and narratives that underlie political controversies. This study therefore presents an opportunity to test not only the independent performance of broadcast and online news during an acute political crisis, but also the health and integrity of our media system as a whole. Mindful of the heightened political tensions and inflamed rhetoric produced by this crisis, we started our research from a much more modest and cautious position. We recognised the right and duty of journalists to report on legitimate concerns raised both within and outside of Westminster about Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, about the future of the Labour Party and, by extension, the future of the British political system. This produced a debate which, in its simplest form, revolved around the question of whether or not Jeremy Corbyn should resign. Each side of this debate was populated by a range of active sources – people seeking to talk to the media and influence the agenda on a daily and even hourly basis – be they MPs, party members or activists, trade unions, etc. Each side also mobilised a range of issues and arguments in support of their cause. Critics of Corbyn, for instance, routinely sought to highlight what they considered to be his leadership failings, his unelectability and detachment from the broad swathe of public opinion. Supporters on the other hand tended to emphasise his grassroots and populist mandate from party members and supporters, the wider popularity of his anti-war and anti-austerity views, and what they considered to be his leadership qualities. For the purposes of this research, we considered arguments on either side of this debate as equally legitimate and newsworthy. We also adopted an especially cautious approach in coding news texts according to the types of sources and issues covered. We analysed a total of 465 articles and reports drawn from eight online news sites, as well as 40 television news bulletins on BBC One and ITV. Our sample also covered a range of professional news institutions including two public broadcasters; four national newspapers spanning the broadsheet-tabloid and left-right political spectrum; and three online-only news sites (including one former print newspaper). This reflects the full-breadth of 3 See Ofcom’s latest research on news consumption in the UK http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv- research/news/2015/News_consumption_in_the_UK_2015_report.pdf 4 what is generally considered ‘mainstream’ news – outlets that provide consistent generalised news coverage that reaches critical mass audiences. Main Findings What we found overall was a marked and persistent imbalance in favour of sources critical of Jeremy Corbyn, the issues that they sought to highlight, and the arguments they advanced. This was the case across both the online and television sample. Online news stories overall were almost twice as likely to be written by, or focus on sources critical of Corbyn compared to those that were supportive. The BBC evening news bulletins gave nearly twice as much unchallenged airtime to sources critical of Corbyn compared to those that supported him (an imbalance that was not matched by ITV which gave considerably more equal attention to opposing voices). All four newspapers within the online sample favoured sources opposed to Corbyn’s leadership along with associated issues. This was to be expected given that even the Labour-supporting Guardian and Mirror newspapers had both declared an official editorial position calling for Corbyn to resign. The most balanced outlets overall were those that do not or no longer operate on legacy platforms: the Independent, International Business Times (IB Times) and Huffington Post. Of these, both the Independent and Huffington Post exhibited a slight tendency to favour sources critical of the Labour leadership and the issues they tended to highlight, whilst the IB Times was the only outlet in the sample to give relatively greater prominence to Corbyn’s supporters and associated issues. It was also the smallest outlet in the sample in terms of both audience reach and volume of coverage. These three outlets are further distinguished by their relatively non-partisan editorial stance. Two of them also accounted for over half of all the coverage across the sample focused on Corbyn’s response to the Chicot report. The more balanced reporting found in these outlets was not matched by the BBC, especially on its main evening TV bulletins. In view of the dominant reach of television news, as well as relatively high levels of audience trust attached to it, this sample was also subjected to a qualitative analysis in order to identify more nuanced themes and patterns in the language and imagery used. What was particularly striking here was the degree to which the Labour leadership and its supporters were persistently talked about in terms that emphasised hostility, intransigence and extreme positions. Given that pro-Corbyn sources were, in most cases, responding to attacks and critiques by members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, this suggested an underlying editorial slant that is out of step with at least the spirit of the Broadcasting Code and the BBC’s own guidelines on news impartiality and balance.