Bad news on the cost of living crisis – Review

This timely book is ultimately a call for professional journalists to step up and produce public-facing media, writes Darcy White The post Bad news on the cost of living crisis – Review appeared first

AboutSearchPoliticsSocietyEconomicsJusticeGlobalClimateCultureKey Words SearchSearch AboutSearchPoliticsSocietyEconomicsJusticeGlobalClimateCultureKey Words Partnerships

This timely book is ultimately a call for professional journalists to step up and produce public-facing media, writes Darcy White

Title: Bad News on the Cost of Living Crisis

Editors: Catherine Happer, Alison Eldridge and Paul Reilly

Publisher: Glasgow University Media Group / Palgrave MacMillan

Our media is in an existential crisis – this is the conclusion reached by the latest study from the Glasgow University Media Group (GUMG). For more than fifty years, their investigations of media content have been motivated by a fundamental aim to identify and evidence ‘where power lies’. The group established their impressive reputation through studies of topics such as the UK 1984-85 Miners’ Strike and conflict in Northern Ireland, showing how perceptions of reality are shaped through the selections, inclusions and omissions made by journalists in our mainstream media.

The GUMG have always prided themselves on disseminating their research findings using public-facing language. This fascinating book is for anyone with an interest in the effects of media reporting on public perception and behaviour. Their early work was largely focused on the UK but has since become global in scope. Throughout, they have systematically evidenced a lack of neutrality in media discourses – manifested through the ways in which a given topic or situation is framed – which may then seep into public consciousness, often to become accepted at face value. But now, it appears, we are collectively wising up.

Their most recent study focuses on media representation of the cost of living crisis (COLC) – generally understood to be when the costs of everyday essentials, such as food, energy and housing, rise faster than disposable income. It traces the ways in which mainstream press and TV reporting in the UK shapes how we understand the COLC: its causes and where we think the responsibility lies for fixing it. This is a highly rewarding read; understanding media reporting of the COLC at a granular level is certainly illuminating.

The GUMG’s important analysis, however, reveals issues that reach far beyond this discrete topic to what they describe as ‘a disrupted communications circuit’; a disconnect between mainstream narratives and people’s real-life experiences. This has led to the conclusion that there is an existential crisis at the heart of the relationship between the media and the public. I think it is fair to say that this has been tacitly understood for some time – albeit on an anecdotal basis – by those working and engaging in independent media, but now it is amply evidenced in this compelling study.

The team began by looking at the range of information available to professional journalists, from sources such as government policy documents, NGOs and charities. Second, they analysed reporting on the COLC, in both print and TV media – to identify those perspectives that were amplified and, conversely, any that were silenced. Third, using audience focus groups, drawn from different demographics, they investigated patterns of media usage, audience responses and attitudes to mainstream reporting. The analysis also identified the choices that audiences made when seeking information on the COLC.

In the UK, the term ‘cost of living crisis’ first came into common usage around 2010 during the coalition government’s term of office and continues to ‘dominate the front pages’. The study identified competing explanations. Opposition politicians blamed government austerity policies, whereas subsequent Conservative governments found it expedient to point instead to ‘external shocks’, such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which had led to increased energy prices and inflation. However, NGOs and think tanks of various political stripes agreed that the COLC was essentially created by government policies.

A monthly dose of our best articles direct to your inbox

The GUMG found that mainstream press and TV reporting overwhelmingly upheld the governments’ framing of the COLC as a sudden, unpredictable, and temporary issue caused largely by external shocks. And rather than fundamentally systemic in origin – which governments can do something about – neoliberal narratives by both government and the mainstream press suggested that solutions should be found by individuals, with the onus on better household budgeting. Long-term structural causes were ignored. Moreover, media stories were largely directed at those affected for the first time – the so-called ‘squeezed middle’ – marginalising those experiencing long-term hardship.

Focus groups revealed a ‘new normal’ of relentless, extreme hardship accompanied by deep frustration with the obvious political bias of mainstream journalism and its tendency to employ ‘personal blame narratives’ rather than call for structural change.

This dynamic led to patterns of news avoidance and general disengagement, explained by the ‘emotional toll’ created by stress and feelings of powerlessness. Participants stated repeatedly that such media reporting ‘did not correspond to their own experiences’; leading to a ‘profound disconnect from mainstream media’ and a drift to alternatives.

The study has confirmed that mainstream media is highly focused on representing the interests of politicians and business leaders – whilst under-representing the interests of lower income households. The GUMG argue that the latter are being badly let down. As they note, audiences are more politically astute than journalists give them credit for: they perceive the political agendas of professional journalists and increasingly contest mainstream media narratives, although this varies across age, income levels and educational background.

As a result, disenfranchised audiences in search of reliable information increasingly turn to social media, attracted by the perceived authenticity of influencers, personalities and content creators whose experiences appear closer to their own lived realities. Such platforms mobilise the public through feelings of belonging and solidarity.

This is why the mainstream media is in crisis. Unless it faces up to this reality – earning audience trust by serving the interests of the public – then, in my view, the future looks bleak for political culture in the UK. This GUMG study is important because it strengthens the case for action.

Authors argue that professional journalists have a social responsibility to reconnect with audiences lost to the ‘news alternatives offered by social media’ which can ‘distort, mislead and misinform’. As the real impacts of AI hit, and deep fakes become ever-more prevalent, the ‘need for reliable information will become ever greater’.

There is a tension: whilst social media can usefully challenge the narratives found in legacy media, ‘the alternatives can also amplify and distort political disaffection’, potentially further eroding public trust. To date, right-wing, populist parties ‘have arguably benefitted the most from corporate capture of platforms’.

There is an existential crisis at the heart of the relationship between the media and the public

The researchers have reached some damning conclusions that should concern us all. Yet they argue that there is still time to address the drift towards social media platforms because professional journalists still ‘retain an agenda setting function’ – but they need to step up.

The GUMG have taken the bold step of calling for ‘new ways of doing journalism’; backing this up with a menu of detailed recommendations – from centring the interests of the public, to investment in ‘rigorous evidence-based journalism’. This book is therefore a must read for anyone serious about raising the standard of mainstream journalism.

At the same time, this presents a widening opportunity for independent media outlets – including Red Pepper Media. I suggest that the GUMG’s findings should be understood as a positive indication that at a grassroots level people are demanding positive change in media provision.

The rise of independent media outlets such as Double Down News and Declassified UK are just two examples. It is more important than ever that independent media is supported and that we all continue to challenge mainstream neoliberal narratives whilst centring the interests and priorities of the public.

Darcy White is an editor at Red Pepper Media and author/editor of several books including Visual Activism in the 21st Century (Bloomsbury)

Share on Facebook Share on X Share on Bluesky Share on LinkedIn Email this Page Share on WhatsApp Related Content Making the Kremlin sad – an interview with Ivan Kolpakov

Facebook Twitter Bluesky Instagram LinkedIn Subscribe About usGet involvedContactPrivacy policyArchiveDonate

Instagram Bluesky LinkedIn Facebook Twitter newsletter SIGN UP About usGet involvedContactPrivacy policyArchiveDonate