Media Narratives Protecting Elite Interests in Britain’s Right-Wing Press
The British right-wing press, epitomized by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, has long been accused of using disinformation, distortion, and editorial framing to shield powerful elites.
The British right-wing press, epitomized by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, has long been accused of using disinformation, distortion, and editorial framing to shield powerful elites.
These outlets often advance ideological narratives that protect concentrated wealth and corporate power. From climate change denialism to scapegoating migrants for economic woes, their coverage frequently deflects blame from systemic structures onto convenient targets.
Daily Mail narratives align with the interests of four key sectors:
Fossil Fuels
Property,
Finance
Defense
Thereby insulating those industries and wealthy stakeholders from accountability.
This report will highlight examples of headline framing and campaigns that illustrate coordination between media owners (like the Rothermere family), right-wing politicians, and corporate lobbyists.
Fossil Fuel Industry: Climate Denial and “Anti-Green” Propaganda
The Daily Mail has emerged as a vocal critic of climate action, often echoing fossil fuel industry talking points. A recent analysis found that nearly one-third of Daily Mail editorials in 2023 carried climate-skeptic messages . Every single one of the paper’s 37 editorials on environmental topics that year was hostile to green policies undermining net-zero targets, mocking environmental protesters, or downplaying the impacts of global warming . For example, the paper attacked “the ‘true’ cost of reaching net zero” warning of exorbitant expenses yet conspicuously ignored the far greater costs of climate inaction . When the UK government approved new North Sea oil and gas licenses, the Mail derided the “predictable outpouring of hysteria from the green lobby” rather than scrutinizing the oil companies set to profit . The paper even celebrated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s rollback of clean-car mandates as a “stunning victory” for the Mail’s own campaign against those regulations . Such framing shifts the focus away from fossil-fuel profiteers and instead portrays climate advocates and policies as the real threat to ordinary people.
Behind these narratives lies a deeply ideological agenda. In 2024, as Britain anticipated a new government committed to climate action, Daily Mail columnists published polemics riddled with falsehoods to discredit decarbonization plans. One Stephen Glover column brazenly claimed Labour would “achieve Net Zero by 2030” a completely untrue distortion of Labour’s actual pledge to decarbonize only the electricity grid by that date . The Mail eventually ran a small correction, yet left Glover’s alarmist argument intact, effectively admitting that the piece was “propaganda, not journalism” . Another Mail columnist, Andrew Neil, has been a chief propagandist on energy, with a “long history of promoting misinformation” about climate science . In summer 2024 he penned strident articles “absolutely stuffed with inaccurate and misleading claims” about renewable energy and net-zero policy . Neil’s pieces smeared clean-energy advocates and spread debunked myths, for instance, insisting that renewable power would “increase fuel bills” and kill jobs, despite evidence that renewables lower costs and boost growth . By offering no evidence for such claims, the Mail turned its platform into an amplification tool for fossil-fuel lobby rhetoric .
This editorial stance directly serves fossil industry interests by attacking the regulations and public investments that might hold oil and gas companies accountable. It is no coincidence that the Mail’s parent company, DMGT, profits from fossil-fuel business: a DMGT subsidiary (dmg events) specializes in organizing oil and gas industry conferences . (Indeed, DMGT’s biggest events include the world’s largest petroleum expo, ADIPEC .) The Daily Mail’s relentless campaign against climate policies aligns perfectly with these commercial ties. Throughout 2023, the paper’s editorials cast climate protesters and regulators as public enemies, implicitly shielding Big Oil from scrutiny . To be clear, DMGT denies any formal link between its lucrative oil events and the Mail’s editorial line . Yet the Mail’s “anti-green” crusade dismissing scientific consensus and savaging emissions targets unquestionably helps protect fossil capital. It feeds public doubt about renewable energy, undermines support for carbon taxes, and delays the transition away from oil and gas. In short, the Daily Mail uses misinformation to inoculate the fossil fuel industry against demands for accountability and change.
Property and Real Estate: Scapegoating and Wealth Protection
Coverage of housing and property in the Daily Mail exhibits a structural bias that favors landlords, developers, and wealthy homeowners. Systemic crises like housing shortages and unaffordable rents are routinely recast as the fault of marginalized groups deflecting blame from the real estate elites and policies that drive these problems. A telling example came during the 2016 Brexit debate: the Mail warned that “mass migration will put increasingly intolerable pressure on jobs, housing, schools, healthcare and other public services” . In one breath, the paper shifted responsibility for Britain’s housing crisis onto immigrants, rather than speculators and decades of underinvestment. The narrative of a “migrant housing crisis” was heavily pushed by right-wing media at the time, with headlines alleging Britain must build “two million new homes just for EU arrivals” . This messaging, echoed by anti-immigration think-tanks conveniently exonerated property developers, landlords, and government deregulation for the housing shortage, and instead vilified foreign workers and refugees. By reinforcing the idea that outsiders were “taking homes,” the Mail helped discredit calls for deeper reforms (such as rent controls or affordable housing programs that powerful landlords oppose). It’s a classic strategy: blame society’s least powerful for a crisis caused by the most powerful.
In a similar vein, the Daily Mail has consistently opposed measures that would regulate or redistribute property wealth. One of its long-running crusades has been against inheritance tax a levy that primarily affects the richest estates (often swollen by real estate gains). As property values skyrocketed over recent decades, the Mail fanned middle-class anxiety that ordinary families would be “sucked into” the death tax. In early 2020 the paper loudly endorsed a proposal to slash inheritance tax from 40% to just 10%, arguing that “soaring property prices since the 1980s mean more people are crossing the payment threshold” . By framing inheritance tax as an unfair burden on the middle class, the Mail effectively campaigned to shield dynastic wealth (including that of its billionaire owners) from taxation. The same pattern emerges with other property-related levies. The Mail has railed against a proposed “mansion tax” on multi-million-pound homes, and it routinely paints council tax or stamp duty hikes as oppressive even though such measures mostly affect the wealthy. Whenever a policy threatens to rein in property speculation or funnel some housing wealth back to the public, the Mail primes its readers to see it as a socialist attack on homeowners. This relentless editorial angle undermines the very ideas of redistribution or stronger regulation in housing, thus protecting real-estate fortunes.
Crucially, Mail coverage often omits or obscures the role of elite actors in property crises. The paper publishes countless stories on “red tape” blocking house-building or local councils wasting funds, yet offers little scrutiny of big developers land-banking property or charging extortionate rents. Instead of examining how property tycoons and financiers inflate the housing market, the Mail prefers culture-war distractions e.g. blaming environmental rules, immigrants, or even young people’s spending habits for housing woes. This editorial framing serves the interests of the property sector: it shifts public anger away from landlord lobbyists and towards scapegoats with minimal power. Even social ills like homelessness or estate mismanagement are sometimes attributed to personal failings or “bureaucracy,” rather than profiteering. Overall, the Daily Mail’s treatment of housing issues systematically protects the asset-rich. By fighting taxes on property, resisting tenant protections, and demonizing perceived outsiders, the paper acts as an ideological shield for Britain’s property elite – a group that notably includes the Mail’s own proprietors. (Viscount Rothermere, the paper’s owner, is heir to a vast real estate fortune, including a 220-acre estate, yet has historically avoided UK taxes via offshore trusts and non-domiciled status .) Little wonder that Mail editorials reflect the worldview of landlords over tenants.
Financial Sector: Austerity Narratives and “Enemies of the Economy”
The Daily Mail also plays a key role in defending the interests of the financial sector and the wealthy elite at large. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash, for instance, the paper steered public fury away from bankers and toward more convenient targets. It enthusiastically backed the era of austerity, endorsing the Conservative narrative that Britain’s budget crisis was due to excessive welfare and public spending (rather than reckless banks or tax cuts for the rich). To make this case, the Mail employed classic scapegoating and dubious claims. One infamous headline declared: “400,000 ‘were trying it on’ to get sickness benefits: 94% of incapacity benefits claimants can work” . This lurid front-page story – later debunked by fact-checkers as wildly misleading suggested that virtually all disabled or ill claimants were frauds who cost the taxpayer billions . By pushing the false impression that “welfare cheats” and the “bloated” welfare state were to blame for economic pain, the Mail helped manufacture consent for harsh benefit cuts . The real beneficiaries of this narrative were Britain’s financial and corporate elite: austerity measures after 2010 slashed social spending and public investment (hurting the poor), while leaving bankers’ bonuses, corporate profits, and low tax rates for the rich largely intact. The Mail’s editorial drumbeat that “there is no government money, only taxpayers’ money” – provided the moral cover to shrink the state and let the City of London escape serious re-regulation or taxation.
This ideological alignment is often reinforced through coordination with right-wing policy institutes and lobby groups. A notable example is the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), a lobby group that advocates low taxes and spending cuts on behalf of wealthier interests. The Daily Mail has given the TPA enormous coverage quoting TPA spokespeople hundreds of times and even partnered with them on campaigns. In 2020, the Mail teamed up with the TPA for a “War on Waste” investigation that claimed to have uncovered £5.6 billion in “profligate” public spending . Splashy Mail headlines publicized findings of money spent on civil servants’ perks, foreign aid projects, or local council salaries all with the intent to outrage readers over “taxpayers’ money” being misused . While exposing government waste is valid, the thrust of this campaign was clearly to delegitimize the public sector and bolster calls for austerity. Nowhere did the Mail/TPA emphasize the flip side: massive corporate tax avoidance, bank bailouts, or inequality exacerbated by austerity. This selective focus serves the financial sector by justifying limited government intervention in markets. It casts regulation, redistribution, or higher taxes as unnecessary if only “waste” is trimmed thereby preserving a status quo of light-touch oversight and low contributions from the wealthy.
Moreover, the Daily Mail actively undermines those who challenge financial elites. When progressive politicians propose taxing the rich or reigning in the City, they can expect Mail hostility. For instance, in 2015 Labour’s Ed Miliband pledged to end the archaic non-domiciled tax loophole (which allows wealthy residents to avoid UK taxes on overseas income). Rather than welcome a move toward tax fairness, the Mail and its sister paper cast the plan as dangerous and likely to drive “wealth creators” out of Britain neglecting to mention that the Mail’s own owner, Lord Rothermere, enjoyed non-dom status and paid virtually no UK income tax on his vast fortune . This is emblematic of how the Mail shields financial power: by portraying any attempt to make the rich pay more (or to impose stricter banking rules) as an attack on prosperity itself. The paper frequently gives voice to City commentators who warn that taxing bankers or regulating finance will “kill the golden goose.” During EU debates, the Mail fulminated against Brussels regulations on bankers’ bonuses or financial transactions, arguing such rules threatened London’s competitiveness. In sum, through calculated news angles and op-eds, the Daily Mail works to delegitimize regulation, taxation, and redistribution that the financial sector opposes. It amplifies the worldview of hedge-fund managers, offshore billionaires, and free-market politicians a worldview in which austerity is virtuous, and any economic woes are the fault of society’s lower rungs (never the wealthy). By misdirecting public anger toward immigrants, benefit claimants, or public servants, the Mail protects City institutions and corporate boardrooms from scrutiny and reform.
Defence and Arms Industry: Fearmongering and Militarist Cheerleading
On national security and war, the Daily Mail consistently adopts narratives that enable profit-making from conflict and surveillance while sanitizing those driving forces. The paper has a long history of fervent patriotism and deference to the military-industrial establishment. In practice, this translates into coverage that glorifies Britain’s armed forces and demonizes those who question war all of which benefits defense contractors and hawkish politicians. A recent case in point is the Mail’s reaction to UK airstrikes in the Middle East. When Britain joined U.S. forces in bombing Yemen’s Houthi rebels in late 2023, the Daily Mail website prominently ran Ministry of Defence footage of jets taking off, looped alongside a fear-inducing headline: “West will pay heavy price” . The videos showed “dramatic… huge explosions” from British airstrikes, while the accompanying text featured images of “young, brown-skinned men waving Kalashnikovs,” implicitly casting Muslim fighters as menacing barbarians . The clear message to readers was be afraid – Britain is under dire threat, and bold military action is the answer. Such framing not only whips up public support for war (aiding defense officials and arms suppliers eager for operations), but it also sidesteps moral questions. By sensationalizing the “daring mission” and enemy savagery, the Mail avoided asking whether bombing Yemen a country already devastated by war was justified or who truly benefits from prolonging conflict.
This “war fever” journalism is typical of the Mail. Observers note that UK tabloids like the Sun and Daily Mail seem “war-horny” eager to “stir up enthusiasm for Britain’s time-old tradition of bombing Arabs”, as one media critic put it . The Mail in particular often aligns with the government’s militaristic posture. During the 2003 Iraq invasion, it was a staunch supporter of the war effort; more recently, it routinely lambasts politicians or activists who advocate diplomacy over force. Those calling for restraint (for example, protesters against the bombing of Gaza or Yemen) find themselves smeared as unpatriotic or sympathetic to “terrorists.” In late 2023, when hundreds of thousands in Britain marched to urge a Gaza ceasefire, the Conservative government and its supportive press – Mail included – painted the protesters as “dangerous… radical left outsiders” who supposedly side with extremists . This deliberate conflation of humanitarian protest with extremism serves to delegitimize dissent and keep the public rallying behind military interventions. It protects the defense establishment from accountability by suggesting that any criticism of “our boys” (or of arms sales to allies like Israel/Saudi Arabia) is essentially traitorous. Indeed, the Mail has campaigned vigorously to shield British soldiers and arms deals from scrutiny. It led calls to end “vexatious” legal investigations into alleged war crimes by UK troops in Iraq and Northern Ireland, terming them a “witch-hunt” against heroes. The paper also downplays civilian casualties caused by British-made weapons abroad, preferring to highlight the jobs and exports generated by arms contracts. This narrative sanitizes profit-making from war: arms manufacturers like BAE Systems are rarely villainized in the Mail’s pages; instead, the villains are anti-war lawyers, peace activists, or international watchdogs “undermining” Britain’s defense industry.
The Daily Mail’s editorial lineage reveals an entrenched alignment with militaristic elites. Historically, the paper even endorsed fascist paramilitaries in the 1930s infamously cheering “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” as its owner Lord Rothermere befriended Mussolini and Oswald Mosley . While today’s Mail does not praise blackshirts, it maintains that instinct to side with strongmen and security hawks. Its editors frequently argue for higher defense spending, echoing talking points of the arms lobby that Britain’s military is “underfunded” or “hollowed out.” Any government proposal to trim defense budgets is met with Mail outrage about putting the nation at risk – a stance welcomed by defense contractors eager for more procurement contracts. Similarly, the paper is a champion of expansive surveillance powers for security services. It strongly backed the sweeping “Snooper’s Charter” (Investigatory Powers Act) and chastised civil libertarians as caring more about privacy than stopping terrorists. By cultivating public fear of enemies within and without, the Daily Mail creates a permissive environment for the surveillance state and arms industry to thrive. The winners are the companies selling weapons or spy technology, and the political figures whose authority grows during wartime. The losers – ordinary citizens facing erosion of civil liberties or blowback from endless wars – rarely find a sympathetic hearing in the Mail. In essence, the paper’s framing of defense issues shields the elite drivers of war from criticism, while mobilizing popular support (through fear and jingoism) for policies that enrich arms dealers and fortify authoritarian power structures.
Alignment of Media, Political, and Corporate Interests
Underlying these sector-specific narratives is a broader pattern: the Daily Mail’s proprietors and editors share a class interest and ideological camaraderie with the politicians and corporate actors who benefit from its coverage. The newspaper’s owner, Viscount Rothermere, exemplifies this nexus of media and elite power. As a billionaire heir, Rothermere has a vested interest in low taxes and minimal regulation – and indeed he has long enjoyed non-dom tax status, holding his DMGT empire through offshore trusts in Jersey and Bermuda to avoid UK taxes . This financial arrangement mirrors that of many oligarchs and Tory donors. It is therefore unsurprising that the Daily Mail often champions policies (like preserving the non-dom loophole or cutting inheritance tax) that directly benefit its owners and their wealthy peers. In 2022, the Mail’s hypocrisy was on display when it demanded transparency about the tax affairs of then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife, yet ignored the fact that its own proprietor is a non-dom tax exile . Such selectivity suggests the Mail uses “tax justice” rhetoric only when it targets political opponents, not the elite class it is part of. As Private Eye editor Ian Hislop quipped on the BBC, “the current Lord Rothermere’s father loved Great Britain so much he went to live in France as a tax exile… [The Rothermeres’ paper] is owned through various companies in Bermuda” . This inherent conflict of interest – a paper loudly patriotic yet structured to avoid contributing to Britain’s tax base – speaks volumes about whose interests it ultimately serves.
Beyond ownership, the Mail’s editorial leadership maintains close ties to right-wing politicians and industry lobbies. Longtime editor Paul Dacre was so influential in Conservative circles that Boris Johnson reportedly sought to reward him with a peerage (an honor that ultimately fell through amid public objections) . Dacre’s 26-year reign at the Mail saw the paper act as an unofficial attack dog for the Conservative Party savaging Labour “threats” to the status quo and bolstering Tory government agendas. His legacy, in the words of one commentator, was to “channel and shape the conservatism of middle-class Britain” in alignment with establishment interests . That influence has often been exercised in coordination with political and corporate actors. For instance, when the Cameron-Osborne government pushed austerity, the Mail provided the emotional narratives (of welfare scroungers and patriotic belt-tightening) that helped sell it. When pro-Brexit financiers and think tanks needed a megaphone to stoke anti-EU sentiment, the Mail obligingly printed headlines about Brussels “meddling” and mass migration (even when based on dubious data) . And as noted, when lobby groups like the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Migration Watch, or the Global Warming Policy Foundation circulate reports aligning with elite interests (low taxes, anti-immigration, climate denial), the Mail amplifies them relentlessly – essentially laundering corporate-funded narratives into public discourse. The paper quoted TaxPayers’ Alliance figures over 500 times in a single year , pushing stories of “government waste” that conveniently buttressed calls for privatization and cuts. The line between independent journalism and coordinated advocacy blurs as these campaigns unfold. It’s often the same network of right-wing politicians, wealthy donors, think-tank propagandists, and media executives working in tandem – and the Mail sits at the center, crafting headlines that resonate emotionally while serving its allies’ material goals.
In conclusion, the Daily Mail exemplifies how a mass-circulation media outlet can systematically prop up structures of power and wealth through strategic storytelling. Across the fossil fuel, property, finance, and defense sectors, the paper’s narrative playbook is consistent: protect the powerful, blame the powerless. Whether it’s casting climate regulations as lunacy to shield oil barons, or demonizing immigrants to distract from landlord greed, the Mail’s coverage favors the worldview of its owners and their elite friends. This is not merely sensationalism or “populism” it is, as critics have noted, a form of propaganda that persistently defends concentrated wealth. The evidence ranges from fabricated facts in editorials , to coordinated campaigns with lobbyists , to historical episodes like the Mail’s flirtation with fascism when it suited the interests of the British aristocracy . Understanding these media narratives is crucial, because they shape public perceptions of who is to blame for societal problems and what solutions are possible. When the press scapegoats refugees for housing shortages, or claims “green hysteria” is a bigger danger than climate change, it warps democratic debate in favor of those already at the top. The Daily Mail’s immense reach and emotive style give it a special ability to do this to persuade millions of readers to look away from “greedy elites” and instead fear their neighbors or the vulnerable. Ultimately, the alignment between the Mail’s editorial agenda and the interests of elite power is neither accidental nor subtle. It is structural. And it serves as a stark case study in how disinformation and framing can be wielded by media magnates to uphold an unequal status quo.
Sources:
Ward, Bob & Sethi, Pallavi. Grantham Institute, LSE – analysis of Daily Mail’s misleading climate coverage .
Bright, Sam & Cooke, Phoebe. DeSmog UK – report on DMGT’s fossil fuel interests and Daily Mail’s climate-sceptic editorials .
Crawley, Heaven et al. IPPR & KCL – media reports blaming migrants for housing pressures .
7IM finance briefing – quoting Daily Mail on cutting inheritance tax due to property prices .
Full Fact – debunking Daily Mail’s false “94% on sickness benefits can work” claim .
TaxPayers’ Alliance – description of joint “War on Waste” investigation with Daily Mail exposing public spending (campaign context) .
Mellor, Joe. The London Economic – noting Lord Rothermere’s non-dom status and Mail history (Hislop quote) .
Garside, Juliette. The Guardian – details on Rothermere family’s offshore trusts and non-dom tax avoidance .
Ramsay, Adam. openDemocracy – critique of UK tabloids (Sun, Mail) cheerleading Yemen airstrikes and using fear framing .
The Week, BBC, etc. – background on Paul Dacre’s influence and attempted peerage .
Ward, Bob. “Daily Mail still not taking climate change seriously.” Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics, 2023.
“Mapped: The Tory Network of Climate Denial and Fossil Fuel Funding.” DeSmog, 12 June 2024.
Property, Housing, and Migration
“Migrants must not be blamed for housing crises, says Special Rapporteur on Housing.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 7 March 2025.
“THE FUTURE OF INHERITANCE TAX.” Demos, July 2024.
“Daily Mail corrects ‘fit for work’ benefits story.” Full Fact, 3 February 2012.
“The Beginner’s Guide to Government Waste.” TaxPayers’ Alliance, 2020.
“Comedian Russell Brand doorsteps Lord Rothermere over his non-dom status.” Tax Justice Network, 17 April 2015.
“A third of Scotland’s newspapers owned in US tax haven.” The Ferret, 24 April 2025.
“SELLING ENGLAND BY THE OFFSHORE POUND.” Private Eye, Special Report on Tax Havens, 2024. Defence, War, and Surveillance
“How Media Obscure US/Saudi Responsibility for Killing Yemeni Civilians.” Common Dreams, 31 August 2017.
“Protests continue in defiant call for Gaza ceasefire.” Morning Star, 26 November 2023.
Moore, John. “BAE systems - vital to British state interests.” The Socialist Correspondent, 23 February 2023.
“‘Lord Dacre’? Does Richard Sharp know something we don’t?” New Statesman, 2023.
“Daily Mail has attacked the Human Rights Act whilst also seeking to shelter behind it.” Press Gazette, 2023.
“Paul Dacre: ‘last of his kind’ tabloid heavyweight snubbed for a peerage.” The Week, 19 October 2022.
“TaxPayers’ Alliance.” TaxPayers’ Alliance (official site), 2024.
“TaxPayers’ Alliance.” Wikipedia entry, 13 February 2025.
(Note: Factual details such as media mentions and campaign activities are corroborated by primary and secondary sources.)