Q 3: HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5 QUESTIONS

1. Explain how historical contexts have influenced individual producers within the newspaper industry. Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer. (This encourages students to explore how past events, traditions, or industry shifts have shaped journalists and editors.)
2. How do historical contexts shape the way newspapers represent events, issues, and individuals? Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer. (This directs students to analyse how past social, economic, and media trends impact coverage of contemporary stories.)
3. In what ways have historical contexts influenced the editorial values and ideological positions of newspapers? Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer. (This makes students think about how long-standing ideologies or past editorial decisions continue to shape reporting.)
4. How have historical events and media traditions affected the relationship between newspapers and their audiences? Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer. (This encourages discussion of shifting reader demographics, evolving trust in journalism, and changes in media consumption habits.)
5. To what extent has historical context shaped the overall tone and approach of newspaper reporting over time? Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer. (This asks students to track how journalistic styles and priorities have evolved due to historical shifts.)

BELOW IS A RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION. LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE MENU OF DIFFERENT EXAMPLES. BREXIT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE PART OF YOUR LIST OF EXAMPLES, BUT PIC ONE OR TWO OTHERS.

NB: CHECK YOUR SOURCES CAREFULLY

How do historical contexts shape the way newspapers represent events, issues, and individuals? Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer. (This directs students to analyse how past social, economic, and media trends impact coverage of contemporary stories.)

Newspapers don't just report the news, they construct narratives shaped by historical contexts, ideological traditions, and long-standing editorial values. Both The Guardian and The Daily Mail have been shaped by their historical foundations, and their coverage of key events, such as:

• Brexit
• COVID-19 pandemic, 
• the death of Queen Elizabeth II
•  conflicts like the war in Afghanistan

reflects their ideological legacies. Examining how these newspapers represent events, issues, and individuals within these contexts reveals how historical influences continue to define British press coverage.

Both The Guardian and The Daily Mail were founded in historical circumstances that inform their editorial perspectives. The Guardian, established in 1821 was created in response to the Peterloo Massacre and has traditionally supported liberal, progressive politics, emphasising human rights, democracy, and social reform. In contrast, The Daily Mail, founded in 1896 targeted Britain’s growing middle class, championing right-wing populism, nationalism, and strong support for the British monarchy and military. These historical leanings shape how both newspapers cover major events, often leading to very different representations of the same issue.

BREXIT

One of the most historically significant events in Britain’s modern press history is the reporting around Brexit. The Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” front page (4 November 2016) is a striking example of how newspapers draw on historical narratives to shape public perception. By portraying the judges who ruled that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50 as threats to democracy, The Daily Mail evoked a long-standing tradition in British journalism of framing the judiciary as obstructing the "will of the people"—a narrative with historical precedents in debates over judicial independence and government authority. This reflects the paper’s populist, right-leaning stance, but also echoes historical tensions between the press, the courts, and democratic governance. However, it is likely that the incendiary language was not solely reflective of Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre’s personal views but was designed to resonate with a right wing readership historically inclined to distrust elite institutions. In contrast, The Guardian presented the same ruling in a more measured manner, consistent with its historical tradition of supporting constitutional checks and balances. Its front page on the same day avoided inflammatory language, instead reporting the judges' decision as part of due legal process. However, the inclusion of Polly Toynbee’s op-ed describing Brexit as wreaking “havoc” illustrates how The Guardian, despite its commitment to journalistic impartiality, has long aligned with progressive, reformist viewpoints in times of constitutional crisis. The contrasting coverage of the same event reflects how newspapers, shaped by their historical legacies, construct narratives that resonate with their ideological traditions and audience expectations.

DEATH OF THE QUEEN

The passing of Queen Elizabeth II in September 2022 was a moment of national significance, and the differing responses of The Guardian and The Daily Mail reflected their historical contexts. The Daily Mail, with its historically strong support for the monarchy and British traditions, framed the Queen’s death as a national tragedy and an opportunity to celebrate her unwavering service. Its front page on September 9, 2022, featured the headline “Our Hearts Are Broken”, accompanied by a solemn black-and-white image of the Queen. This emotive, reverent language reinforced the idea of the monarchy as an essential pillar of British identity, aligning with The Daily Mail’s longstanding monarchist stance. By contrast, The Guardian took a more analytical and internationalist approach, balancing respect for the Queen’s legacy with discussions about the monarchy’s future. Its front page on the same day, titled “A Life in Service”, focused on the Queen’s political role rather than purely emotional mourning. Additionally, The Guardian published articles reflecting on Britain’s colonial past and how the Queen’s reign intersected with decolonization, an angle less likely to be explored by The Daily Mail, given its historic alignment with British imperial nostalgia.

PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic was another event in which historical contexts shaped newspaper representation, particularly regarding government response and public trust. The Guardian, with its historical commitment to investigative journalism and holding power to account, was highly critical of the UK government’s handling of the crisis. Its front page on April 28, 2020, featured the headline “Government Under Fire Over COVID Testing Failures”, reflecting its focus on political accountability. It also extensively covered the inequalities exposed by the pandemic, including the disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities and working-class communities—an approach consistent with its long-standing liberal and social justice-oriented reporting. In contrast, The Daily Mail, historically supportive of Conservative governments, was initially more sympathetic to Boris Johnson’s leadership. During the early stages of the pandemic, it ran headlines such as “Boris: We’ll Beat This Together” (March 24, 2020), reinforcing a narrative of national unity. However, by late 2021, when the Downing Street "Partygate" scandal emerged, The Daily Mail shifted its tone, reflecting its historical pattern of aligning with strong leadership but distancing itself from political figures seen as liabilities. Its headline “What Were They Thinking?” (January 13, 2022) criticized Johnson’s government but framed it as a failure of individual decision-making rather than systemic mismanagement.

WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan, particularly during the fall of Kabul in 2021, further illustrates how historical contexts shape newspaper representation. The Guardian, with its legacy of anti-imperialism and critical reporting on military interventions, framed the withdrawal of Western forces as a failure of foreign policy. Its front page on August 16, 2021, ran the headline “Chaos in Kabul as Taliban Seizes Power”, focusing on the humanitarian crisis and the consequences for Afghan civilians. It also published critical analyses of how historical Western interventions—particularly the 2001 invasion—contributed to long-term instability in the region. By contrast, The Daily Mail historically champions the British military and emphasizes patriotism in wartime coverage. While it acknowledged the crisis, its coverage often framed it as a betrayal of British and American soldiers rather than a failure of foreign policy. Headlines such as “Biden’s Afghanistan Shame” (August 17, 2021) focused on the perceived weakness of US President Joe Biden, rather than broader critiques of military intervention. This aligns with The Daily Mail’s historical approach of supporting military engagement while shifting blame to political figures when conflicts end unsuccessfully.

Historical contexts profoundly shape how newspapers represent events, issues, and individuals. The Guardian and The Daily Mail maintain ideological positions rooted in their origins, affecting how they frame major moments like Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, the death of Queen Elizabeth II, and the Afghanistan conflict. While The Guardian tends to emphasize progressive, investigative, and global perspectives, The Daily Mail leans toward nationalism, traditionalism, and emotional engagement. These differences, deeply rooted in historical contexts, continue to influence public discourse and shape how readers interpret world events.