News

Study of Leveson coverage shows press bias

13/05/2013

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

The Media Standards Trust has published the first comprehensive review of the UK press coverage of the Leveson Inquiry.

Here are some of its findings:

1. Over 2,000 articles and over one million words were published on the Inquiry between July 2011 and November 2012 – 73% of them during the period of oral hearings;2. One viewpoint dominated evaluative coverage of the Inquiry. Of those articles that expressed a view, 76% presented one perspective;3. That viewpoint was overwhelmingly negative. Only 18% of articles that expressed or contained a view were positive (6% contained both positive and negative views). Negative coverage increased substantially in the 100 days before publication of the Leveson Report;4. Reporting on proposed regulatory outcomes was virtually non-existent. Of the 3% of articles that dealt substantively with plans for a new system of press regulation, 9 out of 10 were about the newspaper industry’s own plan;5. Negative coverage usually framed the Inquiry as a potential threat to press freedom. 280 stories (64%) of those with evaluative coverage) contained descriptions of the ‘threats’ posed by press regulation. In contrast, there were 103 positive references to the Inquiry in all newspapers across the whole period of study;6. In the 100 days prior to the publication of the report, newspaper leader articles on the Inquiry nearly all contained negative references to the Inquiry or its outcomes. Of 28 leaders in all papers published between 20 August and 27 November 2012, 23 contained only negative viewpoints on the Inquiry. Two contained no evaluative statements at all, while three contained both positive and negative viewpoints. None was purely positive.

The report is published alongside the datasets generated by the project (available here), and the MST has invited the public to analyse the data first-hand for their own research, or to comment on the content of the report.

The author of the report, Dr Gordon Neil Ramsay, said: ‘It is startling to see the lack of diversity of viewpoints in the Leveson coverage, not just in opinion pieces, but also from sources in news articles.

‘It is also striking that, while expressing a clear view of their own, few papers gave the public the information necessary to make their own minds up about the future system of regulation.’

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News
When media abuse of academics becomes the norm in HE
Following the death of Jason Arday, Corinne Fowler writes on the toll of media abuse on academics and what universities must do to protect their staff.
8/19/26
News
IPSO ties itself in knots over Telegraph complaint
Media lawyer Jonathan Coad complained to IPSO about a Telegraph article claiming Hacked Off wants "state control" of the press. IPSO's response contradicted itself within the space of a few paragraphs.
8/14/26
News