On Wednesday, you will have 20 minutes to answer one of the following questions:
1. How do cultural contexts shape the way newspapers represent national identity and heritage? Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer. (This encourages students to examine how ideas of Britishness, tradition, or multiculturalism are reflected and constructed by different newspapers.)
2. In what ways do cultural values influence the editorial tone and content priorities of newspapers? Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer. (This invites discussion on how deep-seated cultural beliefs—such as views on monarchy, art, or education—shape what is covered and how.)
Below is an example answer to the following question...
How Do Newspapers Reflect and Negotiate Tensions Between Traditional Cultural Values and Contemporary Cultural Trends?
Newspapers function as both agents of representation and cultural institutions, negotiating between heritage and modernity. The Guardian constructs its identity through a liberal editorial stance and a historical commitment to holding power to account, often encoding progressive values within its content. In contrast, The Daily Mail maintains a populist editorial line, designed to position its largely middle-class, culturally conservative audience to favour tradition and national identity. Through their ideological framings, these newspapers reflect and mediate cultural tensions surrounding Brexit, LGBTQ+ rights, and globalised digital media, offering audiences differing preferred readings and inviting a variety of polysemic interpretations.
Brexit and Cultural Division
The Brexit referendum became a powerful cultural flashpoint, dividing liberal internationalism from nationalist traditionalism. The Daily Mail’s “Enemies of the People” front page (4 Nov 2016), which vilified judges for ruling against the government’s unilateral triggering of Article 50, exemplifies sensationalist encoding. The paper’s representation of legal authority as treacherous reflects a right-wing ideological position, appealing to readers aligned with populist, anti-establishment views. The Guardian, by contrast, offered a counter-hegemonic narrative, upholding legal checks as vital to democracy. Its coverage offered an oppositional reading of the same event, positioning audiences to critique the government’s power grab and defend constitutionalism, while at the same time adopting a sober and matter-of-fact tone. These differences reveal how each paper reflects its ideological standpoint through framing strategies, shaping cultural meaning and reinforcing broader audience positioning within the Brexit debate.
LGBTQ+ Rights and Shifting Morality
The representation of LGBTQ+ identities offers insight into each paper’s values and audience engagement. In April 2025, The Guardian reported on Judge Victoria McCloud’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after a UK Supreme Court ruling defined “sex” as biological in the Equality Act. The article was encoded to affirm legal protections for trans individuals, aligning with the paper’s progressive news values and inviting a preferred reading grounded in inclusion and diversity. The Daily Mail, however, often reinforces traditional moral codes. Its 2018 opinion piece opposing Tom Daley’s surrogacy choice reflects a conservative moral discourse, aligning with heteronormative family ideals. While such content may be read negotiatedly or oppositionally by more liberal readers, it clearly positions its core audience to resist shifting norms. These examples reveal how newspapers both reflect and shape cultural ideologies through mediated representations of gender and sexuality.
Social Media, Globalisation, and Cultural Consumption
The rise of platforms like TikTok marks a shift in how audiences access news and engage with cultural narratives. Ofcom’s 2023 report found that 28% of UK teens aged 12–15 access news primarily via TikTok (ITV, 2023). This shift towards user-generated content and participatory culture (Jenkins) signifies a break from traditional top-down models of communication. The Guardian has adapted by embracing convergent media practices, using interactive tools, live blogs, and mobile-optimised formats to position digitally literate users within a progressive news framework. Its editorial voice remains informed but accessible, encoding authority while encouraging community engagement. The Daily Mail, by contrast, has capitalised on the attention economy through Mail Online’s click-oriented model. Its use of soft news, clickbait headlines, and emotionally charged content reflects tabloid conventions and an emphasis on infotainment. While both papers operate within a globalised, digital culture, their contrasting media language and modes of address continue to reinforce distinct ideological alignments.
Conclusion
The Guardian and The Daily Mail illustrate how newspapers reflect and negotiate cultural tensions through their use of representation, ideology, framing, and audience positioning. Each uses distinctive media language and institutional practices to navigate shifts in cultural values—from Brexit nationalism to LGBTQ+ inclusion and digital globalisation. The Guardian offers a space for progressive, counter-hegemonic narratives, while The Daily Mail maintains a culturally conservative hegemonic discourse, appealing to its core readership. Their divergence not only mirrors Britain’s cultural divide but also highlights the complex role of the press in constructing and contesting meaning in contemporary society.
STUDENT EXAMPLE: NUMBER ONE
Cultural values form the way newspapers construct meaning, frame events and position audiences, the Dail Mail and the Guardian operate as ideological institutions shaped by historically embedded worldviews. These beliefs about the nation, the monarchy, multiculturalism, or Britain’s global role directly influence their tone, story selection, and representational strategies. A comparison of their coverage of Brexit, the death of Queen Elizabeth II, and post-2020 migration debates demonstrate how deeply cultural values inform editorial identity.
The Daily Mails longstanding support of Brexit has reflected the papers conservative values and traditional identity, one of the clearest examples is the “Enemies of the People” front page (2016), which condemned High Court judges for ruling that Parliament, rather than the government alone. The papers Brexit coverage also consistently presented leaving the EU as the choice of “ordinary British people,” encouraging readers to see Brexit as a way of taking back control and standing up. In doing so, the Mail created a preferred reading that linked with patriotism reinforcing a worldview that valued tradition. The Guardian took a very different approach when discussing the subject their coverage consisted of economic risks, rights of EU citizens and threats. The Guardian encoded a message which prioritised global cooperation, using a factual tone appealing to centre left audiences who value openness.
The Death of The Queen in 2022 was another culturally significant moment which presented both papers differently following their ideologies and position. The Daily Mail seemed to focus on nostalgia using the headline ‘Our Beloved Queen’ representing her as an emotional heart of British identity. This is continuing to represent the papers traditional values, using a sentimental tone to pay their respects and loyalty to her majesty. The Guardian covered the event by acknowledging her significance with a tone reflecting mourning, using a small text of her reign dates. The contrasting approaches illustrate how newspapers reflect broader tensions between tradition.
Migration is a cultural subject where editorial values strongly shape language and content. The Mail has been seen to use sensationalist fear-based language and framing and they tend to represent the migrants as ‘swarms’ and ‘waves’, stories prioritise crime, border control, and strain, reflecting a worldview grounded in cultural and social order. The Guardian’s coverage emphasises human rights challenging the rights and policies, their tone is compassionate rather than treating migrants as a single group, it often gives space to individual voices, showing their struggles. This approach allows readers to understand migration as a complex issue.
Overall whether reporting Brexit, the Queen’s death, or migration debates, both newspapers encode ideological positions that reflect wider cultural divisions in the UK. Their contrasting tones and narrative choices position audiences differently, demonstrating how the press actively shapes not just reports cultural meaning.
Why is it good?
It is really clear and uses examples very well. Not too wordy, which means that it is easier to remember. It has three clear sections, which means if it ran out of time it could drop one of them.
What could be improved?
A few more references to the question stem (cultural values) would make it damn near perfect.
STUDENT EXAMPLE TWO
Cultural values shape how newspapers choose stories and set their overall tone. This is clear in how the Guardiam and TDM handled Brexit. TDM reflected nationalist, conservative values through a dramatic/confrontational tone of reporting. The “Enemies of the people” paper in 2016 criticised judges that challenged the government’s article 50 plan and framed said judges as obstacles to the majority’s will. This coverage style reflects the audience, which values national identity and nationalism/traditionalism. The Guardian took an opposing stance, focusing instead on democratic accountabiliy and constitutional checks. Their reporting used more selective language and presented the legal proceses as something to protect citizens rather than weaken the nation.
Cultural values also influence how each paper treats LGBTQ+ Rights. The guardian tends to prioritise inclusivity and social equality, meaning many reports from them often frame LGBTQ issues as matters of protection and fairness. It's 2025 coverage of Judge McCloud's appeal to the ECHR to address unfairness to transgender individuals and invited readers to consider the legal and social consequences. TDM, meanwhile, reflects more traditional values and focuses in stories that defend established norms. Its critical response to Tom Daley’s surrogacy in 2018 positioned non-traditional families as something controversial and encouraged readers to question shifting moral expectations. These choices show the way both news service's beliefs push certain narratives to their reader bases.
Another area where cultural values shape content is seen with both agencies’ reporting on the rise of social media cultures. The guardian tends to treat short-form content platforms like TikTok as part of a changing media, landscape and often reports on them with a focus on digital literacy and public responsoibility. Their coverage of Ofcom’s findings on teens using TikTok as a source of news treats the trend as something that needs careful consideration and encourages readers to think of how younger generations consume information. Meanwhile, TDM takes an alternate angle and often frames social media as a cultural threat or a sign of declining standards. Mail online in particular leans into click-driven stories that treat influencers and viral moments as entertainment over meaningful media. This reflects an underlying belief that traditional journalism is being undermined by online culture and audiences and readers shoud be wary. These contrasting views show how cultural attitudes towards technology and youth behaviour shape how papers present themselves to audiences.
Why is it good?
This essay is a thing of beauty. Again, this is very clear and has three clear sections. It deals with them very well and one could be shed if time was an issue. The final paragraph has really impressive potential.
What could be improved?
There are one or two spelling errors and places where cultural values could be used, but these don't detract from the essay. That said, always try to be perfect. I particularly like the way it deals with Tik Tok content, but there may be space there to use more specific evidence.
