Polling shows a huge public consensus that the present government is failing and that Keir Starmer is the centre of that failure. Some Starmer supporters believe that this is the result of systematic media bias, and as always, the sitting government believes that the BBC is biased against them. Is this true?
Analysis of media bias is complicated and can be done in a variety of ways. One recent assessment comes from Russell Jackson, recently retired senior lecturer in communications at Sheffield Hallam University. He decided to look at the output of BBC Political Editor Chris Mason since 30 April 2025. The 95 items published on his BBC topic page included written analyses, interviews, video clips and short posts. Jackson argues that while no single headline was overtly partisan or inaccurate, there were systematic patterns in both subject focus and tone which created a significant cumulative effect.
Its all about Keir
Firstly, there was an overwhelming focus on Keir Starmer and Labour, the subject of four-fifths of the 95 items. In contrast, only around 5-8% focus primarily on the Conservatives, with roughly 8-12% covering Reform UK, other parties and other issues. Although such emphasis is partly explained by the conventions of Westminster politics, where governing parties and prime ministers are seen as the most newsworthy actors, the scale of the imbalance was nonetheless notable.
The underlying message is that most politics is the story of Starmer and Labour.
Tone counts
However, more significant than the distribution of attention, was the tone of that coverage. Among the headlines focused on Labour or Starmer, nearly three-quarters were ‘negatively valenced’. They highlighted setbacks, internal tensions, controversy or political vulnerability. Common words and phrases included “predicament”, “humiliation”, “backlash”, “U-turns” and “fresh concerns over judgement”. Only a small minority of headlines presented Labour in an overtly positive light.
The article does not argue that these headlines are factually wrong or illegitimate. Governments inevitably encounter crises and controversy and reporting these developments is a central function of journalism. However, the author suggests that the proportion of negative framing stands out, especially given the absence of coverage of other parties. Even when events have broader structural or policy contexts, the headline often foregrounds personal judgement, crisis or drama, rather than the real policy issue.
We don’t hear what he was doing or why, we hear about who was angry about it.
The unspoken story
Taken together the headlines tell a consistent story. Setbacks are signs of deeper instability rather than isolated events. Controversies stem from Starmer’s leadership and personal judgement. And internal dissent, manoeuvring and political theatre are more important than concrete policy achievements, legislation passed or social and economic outcomes.
Most people think politics should be about getting things done and making things better. But that is not the focus of this kind of journalism. Political journalism is led by the lobby correspondents whose specialism is Westminster politics, not the policy issues involved. Stories about internal party rows or leadership crises are more immediately engaging than detailed policy analysis.
But when headlines repeatedly foreground instability and misjudgement, they contribute to a story of a perpetually embattled government.
The role of the BBC
Jackson argues that this matters particularly in the case of the BBC. As a publicly-funded broadcaster with an explicit mandate for impartiality and balance, the BBC is expected to behave differently from commercial news outlets. And of course they should hold the government to account and scrutinise those in power.
But while he does not claim that Mason has breached impartiality rules or misreported events, he is concerned at the “balance of emphasis”. When one political actor receives the overwhelming share of attention and the majority of headlines are negatively framed, the overall narrative effect may skew public perception, even if each individual headline is defensible.
We live in a media environment increasingly driven by headlines and rapid attention cycles. Most people skim headlines, and when they do so they will learn that things are really bad, that Keir Starmer is failing to tackle the problems, and is engaged in constant battles for survival. It is no wonder that many people feel we have a failing government and prime minister.
Understanding not just what is reported but how it is framed, the author suggests, is essential for maintaining public trust in journalism and ensuring a healthy democratic conversation.
If it is to do its job properly, the BBC needs to be more careful, not just about facts, but frames as well.
More from East Anglia Bylines
Bylines Network Gazette is out!
The latest Bylines Network Gazette is out now. Become a Friend of Bylines Network or upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, and you will get access to a vital collection of citizen articles and stories.
Journalism by the people, for the people.
