7.1 Introduction

This chapter explores UK journalists’ perceptions of their editorial autonomy, the extent of freedom in UK news media, and the factors influencing their work. Journalistic autonomy is the freedom journalists have to independently perform their duties, such as informing the public, scrutinising governments, promoting social values, and fulfilling other responsibilities (Sjøvaag 2013; Tong 2022a). It includes both editorial autonomy and media freedom. A good level of journalistic autonomy is crucial and often a requirement for journalism of high quality that can fulfil its democratic function (Obermaier et al. 2023). However, many contextual factors can influence journalists’ work and limit their journalistic autonomy (Shoemaker and Reese 1996). Some of these factors may be at the individual level, such as personal values or perspectives on social issues. But others may come from within news organisations or externally, including editorial policies, regulations, financial pressures, and relationships with news sources. In theory, to achieve journalistic autonomy, it is important for individual journalists and journalism as a social institution to be free from restrictions (Örnebring and Karlsson 2019). In this chapter, we explore UK journalists’ perceptions of media freedom in the UK, their editorial autonomy, and the impact of various influences on their work.

Overall, the survey finds that more than half of UK journalists believed they had a good level of editorial autonomy in choosing stories (63%) and selecting story angles (67%), and that the UK news media has a great deal of freedom (54%). They did not perceive political and commercial influences as strong. For them, the strongest influences came mostly from news production and editorial processes. For example, 61% of respondents saw government censorship as having no influence at all, with 55% feeling the same about government officials, 62% the police, 51% politicians, and 41% businesspeople (see Figure 7.1).¹ By contrast, the factors the largest numbers of journalists felt to be ‘extremely influential’ were ethics (26%), followed by access to information (22%), media laws and regulation (22%), editorial supervisors/higher editors (22%), and time limits (20%) (see Figure 7.2). The following sections will discuss these findings in detail.

Figure 7.1

Figure 7.2

7.2 Perceptions of editorial autonomy and media freedom in the UK

Journalists were asked to assess UK news media’s level of freedom (see Figure 7.3).² Their views on this topic were polarised, with some perceiving good levels of media freedom and others seeing it as insufficient. Most frequently, journalists thought the UK news media enjoy ‘a great deal of freedom’ (54% of respondents hold this view). The proportions of respondents who thought the UK news media has either ‘complete freedom,’ ‘little freedom’, or ‘no freedom’ are all small: 3%, 6%, and 0.1%, respectively. However, 37% of respondents thought there is only ‘some’ media freedom. It is worrying that, in total, 43% of respondents considered the UK news media to have only ‘some’, ‘little’, or ‘no media freedom’ at all. The divided views on media freedom echo the recent warnings signalled by observer groups such as Index on Censorship that the UK has already slid down to be only ‘partially open’ (Index on Censorship 2023). The UK government, political parties, and politicians have been reported to have posed restrictions on journalists’ access to information, with politicians such as Boris Johnson attempting to prevent journalists from attending press briefings (Reporters Without Borders 2020) and an investigative journalist being barred from attending the Labour Party’s annual conference (Miller 2024).

Similarly polarised opinions can be found in relation to editorial autonomy. Journalists were asked about the amount of freedom they had in selecting the news stories they worked on and deciding which aspects of a story should be emphasised. In general, the more respondents thought they had freedom in selecting stories, the more freedom they considered they had in deciding which aspects to emphasise. It was most common for journalists to say they had ‘a great deal of freedom’ in selecting stories and deciding which aspects to emphasise, with around 50% holding these views. Only small proportions of respondents considered they had ‘complete freedom’ in selecting stories (15%) and in deciding which aspects to emphasise (17%). Considerable proportions of respondents thought they had ‘no freedom’ or only ‘little’ or ‘some’ freedom in selecting stories (37%) and in deciding which aspects to emphasise (33%). This polarised picture reveals a workplace culture where a significant proportion of the news industry workforce lacks decision-making power over their reporting.

The survey also shows the higher the respondents’ rank, the more editorial autonomy they felt. The associations between the rank of respondents³ and their perceptions of both freedom in selecting stories and in deciding which aspects to emphasise are both positive and moderately strong.

7.3 Influences journalists perceive on their work

7.3.1 Personal values, beliefs, and journalistic ethics

News production does not happen in a vacuum. It can be influenced by numerous factors both within and outside the newsroom. In the survey, respondents were given a list of potential sources of influence and asked how influential each of them was on their work as a journalist (from ‘extremely influential’ to ‘not influential’).

Personal values and beliefs are one of these potential influences and in some contexts can have a strong impact on journalistic work (Rupar and Seizova 2017; Papathanassopoulos et al. 2021). In the UK, however, just over one third of respondents considered this influence either ‘extremely’ (13%) or ‘very’ (25%) influential. A further 27% of journalists thought that their personal values and beliefs moderately influenced their work (see Figure 7.4). However, the percentage of respondents who believed personal values and beliefs were an ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ strong influence (38%) was less than the 52% found in this survey’s predecessor in 2015 (Thurman et al. 2016). This finding may be in part driven by the changes in personal values and beliefs of the respondents. For example, in the 2023 survey, 71% of respondents had no religious affiliation, up from 61% in 2015.

Figure 7.3

Figure 7.4

The changes in personal values and beliefs as an influence may be a result of demographic change in UK journalists since 2015, as older respondents perceived personal values and beliefs to have more influence. Although, in 2023, the survey had a higher proportion of respondents who were aged 60 plus (15%) than in 2015 (8%), it also had much higher proportions of respondents in their thirties (23%) and forties (24%) and a lower percentage in their fifties (23%) than in 2015 (when the proportions were 13%, 11%, and 27%, respectively).

UK journalists perceived journalism ethics to be one of the most influential factors on their work. Indeed, we see evidence for this perception in how the more influential respondents considered journalism ethics, the less they thought accepting a free product or service was justifiable. (See Chapter 10 for more on UK journalists’ ethical beliefs). However, journalism ethics was perceived as less influential than it was in 2015. The proportion of respondents considering it either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ influential has fallen from 77% to 64%. This significant decline may indicate that ethical considerations are being overshadowed by other priorities.

7.3.2 Professional and social relationships

Another important type of influence was perceived to come from journalists’ professional and social relationships, ranging from relationships with editorial supervisors and higher editors to friends, acquaintances, and family. Of these, the influence of editorial supervisors and higher editors was perceived as being strongest, followed by that from peers on the news staff, relationships with news sources, and colleagues in other media (see Figure 7.5). Most respondents considered the influence of editorial supervisors and higher editors ‘extremely’ (22%) or ‘very’ (45%) influential. This finding aligns with the earlier discussion on editorial autonomy: with (perceived) strong influence from editorial supervisors and higher editors, lower-level journalists would naturally experience less autonomy. However, those in top management roles who believed they had greater autonomy to select and frame stories than those in lower ranks also felt slightly more influenced by editorial supervisors and higher editors. This finding suggests that editorial influence may be exerted more on those at the top, as they likely have greater autonomy in making editorial decisions and, consequently, more impact on the outcome.

Although literature suggests media owners influence journalism (McNair 2003; Franklin 2012), UK journalists in the survey did not see media owners and the business managers of their organisations as having a strong influence on their work. A large proportion of respondents considered owners as only ‘slightly’ (23%) or ‘not’ (39%) influential. Only a small proportion regarded them as ‘extremely’ (7%) or ‘very’ (14%) influential. The same patterns can be found for business managers: most frequently, UK journalists saw them as ‘not influential’ (32%), followed by ‘slightly influential’ (25%).

How can we square claims that media ownership influences journalistic work (see, e.g., Deuze 2011) with the perceived low influence journalists felt from news media owners and business managers? It may be that media owners and business managers exert influence through the editorial supervisors and higher editors who most journalists considered ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ influential, as discussed above.

Beyond their own newsrooms, colleagues in other media can also impact UK journalists’ work, although such influence tends to be most frequently considered as moderate (42%), with about another 40% considering it as only either ‘slightly’ (25%) or ‘not’ (17%) influential. Less than 20% of respondents thought it was ‘extremely’ (2%) or ‘very’ influential (14%). The relatively strong perceived influence of colleagues in other media on journalists’ work may be indicative of the enduring competitive culture in the news industry in which journalists feel pressured to keep up with or outperform colleagues in other news organisations (Williams and Clifford 2008).

News sources often strongly influence journalistic work, with the journalist–source relationship being at the centre of journalistic practice (Fisher 2023). However, the rise of digital platforms has changed – or, more precisely, weakened – this interdependence. News sources no longer largely depend on news media to get messages out (Fisher 2023). Meanwhile, journalists can also get information from other sources, such as the internet (see, e.g., Van Leuven 2018), rather than relying on news sources to provide information. In these circumstances, how have UK journalists’ perceptions of the influence of news sources changed?

The 2023 survey shows that, most frequently, UK journalists considered the relationship with news sources as having a ‘moderate’ influence on their work (30%). Compared with the 2015 survey, this factor was perceived as less influential, with the proportion of respondents seeing this relationship as ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ influential dropping from 43% to 35%.

Figure 7.5

Figure 7.6

7.3.3 Editorial policy, media regulation, and censorship

Editorial policy and media laws and regulations were seen as strong influences, but respondents mostly did not feel influenced by government or self-censorship (see Figure 7.6).

Most frequently, UK journalists considered editorial policy to be ‘very influential’ (41%), with around 19% of respondents believing it ‘extremely influential’. Only around 4% of respondents regarded it as ‘not influential’.

Likewise, UK journalists saw media laws and regulations as influencing their work greatly: half of respondents considered them as either ‘extremely’ (22%) or ‘very’ (31%) influential. Only around 8% regarded them as ‘not’ influential.

Most frequently, UK journalists saw government censorship as ‘not influential’ (61%), a rise from 34% in the 2015 survey. Around 18% regarded this factor as ‘extremely’ (3%), ‘very’ (5%), or ‘moderately’ (10%) influential on their work.

Respondents viewed self-censorship as more influential than government censorship. However, most frequently UK journalists saw it as ‘not influential’ (28%). They considered it to have a slightly stronger influence on their work than government censorship, with 6% considering it as ‘extremely influential’, 15% ‘very influential’, and another 24% as ‘moderately influential’.

Freelance and self-employed journalists thought government and self-censorship had a slightly stronger influence on their work than those on full-time permanent contracts. This suggests that freelancers may feel less able to report freely, perhaps due to having less institutional support.

7.3.4 Economic factors and the audience

Journalists were asked the extent to which economic factors – such as advertising considerations and profit expectations – and the audience had an impact on their work. Although the UK news media have been experiencing financial pressures for decades (Curran 2010; Franklin 2014; Tong 2022b), the respondents did not perceive that economic factors were as influential as other factors, such as media laws and regulation and relations with news sources.

Around one third of respondents thought economic factors were ‘not influential’ (40% for advertising considerations and 35% for profit expectations). Only around 5% of respondents regarded advertising considerations as ‘extremely influential’, and around 11% considered it as ‘very influential’. Only around 7% of respondents regarded profit expectations as ‘extremely influential’, with 16% considering it as ‘very influential’ (see Figure 7.7). These findings suggest that they generally believed their work was largely uninfluenced by commercial pressures – surprising, perhaps, given the market conditions.

Figure 7.7

UK journalists regarded competing news organisations as having more influence on their work than advertising considerations and profit expectations. However, such an influence has grown weaker since 2015. Most frequently, they considered it as ‘moderately influential’ (41%, a fall from 47% in the 2015 survey).⁴ Only a small proportion (4%) of respondents saw competition from other news organisations as ‘extremely influential’, with 19% regarding it as ‘very influential’ (reduced from 6% and 27% respectively in the 2015 survey). This decline may be attributed to the growing shift towards online news consumption (Ofcom 2024b), reducing reliance on traditional news media and potentially diminishing the influence of competing (traditional) news organisations.

Overall, the influence of the audience on journalistic work was perceived as strong, although less so than in the 2015 survey(see Figure 7.8). Most frequently, the respondents viewed audience research and data – for example, ratings, circulation, and web metrics – and feedback from the audience as having a ‘moderate’ influence (28% and 38%, respectively). Only a small proportion regarded feedback from the audience and audience research and data as having ‘no’ influence on their work (9% for the former and 11% for the latter, which were 3% and 8% respectively in the 2015 survey). Feedback from the audience was considered by 29% of respondents as either ‘extremely’ or ‘very influential’ (the proportion was 44% in the 2015 survey). The proportion of respondents regarding audience research and data as either ‘extremely’ or ‘very influential’ was 41%, which is the same as found in 2015. The finding that UK journalists and editors appeared to feel less influenced by audience feedback than they did in 2015 is somewhat unexpected and worthy of further investigation.

7.3.5 Information access, the availability of news-gathering resources, and time limits

In journalism practice, information access, the availability of news-gathering resources, and time limits are three key factors that directly influence journalistic work. The survey suggests they are all perceived as having a strong influence. Of the three, ‘Access to information’ was viewed as the strongest influence by UK journalists, with 91% considering it ‘extremely’ (22%), ‘very’ (43%), or ‘moderately’ (26%) influential (see Figure 7.9).

The influence of time limits was also a strong influence on journalists’ work. Some 86% of respondents regarded it as either ‘extremely’ (20%), ‘very’ (38%), or ‘moderately’ (28%) influential.

UK journalists’ work can also be greatly influenced by the availability of news-gathering resources, such as communication technologies. Most frequently, the respondents considered this as ‘very influential’ (34%). However, compared with the 2015 survey, the proportion of respondents who saw it as either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ influential dropped from 60% to 48%. This may be due to the wider availability of cheaper, smaller, and easier-to-use information and communication technologies.

These three influences come directly from the news production process. Journalists experience them firsthand. This is probably why respondents found them so influential. Other factors, such as commercial and political influences, are more distant from daily journalism practices. Their presence may not have been experienced directly by many respondents for various reasons, including their roles and ranks within their organisation.

Figure 7.8

Figure 7.9

Figure 7.10

7.3.6 News actors

Overall, UK journalists most commonly viewed news actors as not having a strong influence over their work. Among news actors, scientists or health experts were considered the most influential, followed by public relations, issue advocacy groups, and businesspeople. Health-related events such as the COVID-19 pandemic may have boosted the influence of scientists or health experts. Even so, only 28% of respondents held the view that scientists or health experts were either ‘extremely’ (9%) or ‘very’ (19%) influential (see Figure 7.10). Most frequently, 27% of respondents saw this group of news actors as having a ‘moderate’ influence on their work.

UK journalists considered politicians, government officials, and the police as largely not influential. Only 9% of respondents saw politicians as either ‘extremely’ (2%) or ‘very’ (7%) influential. Most of them felt ‘no’ (51%) or ‘little’ (27%) influence from politicians on their work. Similar patterns can be found for government officials and police. Most frequently, UK journalists regarded the police (62%) and government officials (55%) as having no influence. Only very small proportions of the respondents were political or crime reporters. Therefore, most respondents to the survey were not directly reliant on this group of news actors.

7.4 Conclusion

This chapter has described UK journalists’ perceptions of their editorial autonomy, media freedom in the UK, and the extent to which they felt various influences on their work. Our analysis has shown participants’ divided views on editorial autonomy and media freedom. Although over half of journalists perceived the UK to have a good or excellent level of media freedom, a substantial proportion disagreed. A similar, polarised position is evident in their perception of editorial autonomy. While the majority considered they had good levels of editorial autonomy in selecting and framing news stories, a significant proportion were not positive. While the perceptions of relatively high levels of media freedom and editorial autonomy in the UK by most journalists are encouraging, it is concerning that a considerable proportion of journalists did not share these views. The influences that UK journalists perceived most strongly were those they directly experienced via news production processes and editorial procedures. Political and economic influences were mostly not perceived as strong, which is somewhat surprising given the current environment, which has become more politically restrictive and financially challenging for UK news media. This may be because these influences are exerted indirectly, for example, through editorial supervisors. The decrease in the perceived influence of news sources and information access since 2015 may be due to technological change, while the decrease in the perceived influence of personal values and beliefs and journalistic ethics may be due to cohort replacement. These later changes raise questions about the consequences for journalistic content, which we would encourage the academy to investigate.

Footnotes