Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Peter Black, Christopher Stevens, class and inequality in the Daily Mail

  • Michael Toolan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)
737 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article is part of a larger study of changes in British newspaper representations of wealth inequality in the UK from 1971 to the present-day. Selected findings are reported from a corpus linguistically-based comparative critical discourse analysis of large samples (approx. 55,000 words each) of TV programme reviews that appeared in the Daily Mail, written by the TV critics Peter Black (in 1971) and Christopher Stevens (in 2013). Occurrences of class and their collocates and co-texts are a particular focus of attention. In Black’s reviews, it is a recurrent contemporary concern, and recognised as indicative of inequality of opportunity. In Stevens’s much longer stories, class has largely disappeared from the discursive agenda of contemporary Britain, and is only mentioned in relation to the past, or other countries. By 2013 it seems to have become ‘natural’ not to discuss class and present-day wealth inequality in Mail TV reviews. The part-quantitative, part-qualitative methodology adopted here suggests that the tracing of something as masked as the discursive acceptance of wealth inequality must inevitably be more piecemeal and multi-factorial than other more sharply and overtly categorized forms of discrimination (based in ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, for example).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)642-660
Number of pages19
JournalDiscourse and Society
Volume27
Issue number6
Early online date9 Sept 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2016

Keywords

  • inequality
  • newspaper discourse
  • CDA
  • Daily Mail
  • class

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Arts and Humanities

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Peter Black, Christopher Stevens, class and inequality in the Daily Mail'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this