Skip to content
1981
Media, Poverty and Inequality
  • ISSN: 2001-0818
  • E-ISSN: 2049-9531

Abstract

The UK-wide Equality Act 2010 forbids discrimination based on age, sex, race, religion/belief, disability, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity – yet no such protections apply to people experiencing poverty and/or class-based inequalities. This legislative ‘blind-spot’ extends to UK media regulation, with most industry ethical codes prioritizing the same ‘protected characteristics’ as the law. As a result, legacy print news outlets and their audiences can freely publish statements about people in poverty that would be defined as hate speech; ruled in breach of ethical codes; and liable for potential prosecution if directed at protected groups. This article explores the prevalence of povertyist hatred on comments published on two conservative-leaning news-sites (www.telegraph.co.uk and www.dailymail.co.uk) in response to articles about rising labour shortages and ‘economic inactivity’ rates during the post-COVID-19 ‘cost-of-living crisis’. It exposes serious gaps in the legal and regulatory framework(s) around protected characteristics, while also posing difficult questions for editors and moderators about the (in)adequacy of their existing policies for safeguarding groups already protected by law.

© 2024 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/ajms_00149_1
2024-08-31
2026-04-18

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Awan, Imran (2014), ‘Islamophobia and Twitter: A typology of online hate against Muslims on social media’, Policy & Internet, 6:2, pp. 133–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Paul and McEnery, Tony (2015), ‘Who benefits when discourse gets democratised? Analysing a Twitter corpus around the British Benefits Street debate’, in P. Baker and T. McEnergy (eds), Corpora and Discourse Studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 244–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Binns, Amy (2012), ‘Don’t feed the trolls! Managing troublemakers in magazines’ online communities’, Journalism Practice, 6:4, pp. 547–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Boberg, Svenja, Schatto-Eckrodt, Tim, Frischlich, Lena and Quandt, Thorsten (2018), ‘The moral gatekeeper? Moderation and deletion of user-generated content in a leading news forum’, Media and Communication, 6:4, pp. 58–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bresnahan, May, Chen, Yinging and Fedewa, Kevin (2018), ‘Extinguishing Lady Liberty’s torch? Online public responses to the US executive order to ban immigrants from 7 countries’, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 47:6, pp. 564–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruns, Axel (2007), ‘Produsage, generation C, and their effects on the democratic process’, in MIT5: Media In Transition: Creativity, Ownership and Collaboration in the Digital Age, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruns, Axel (2008), Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Burnap, Pete and Williams, Matthew L. (2016), ‘Us and them: Identifying cyber hate on Twitter across multiple protected characteristics’, EPJ Data Science, 5:11, pp. 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Canter, Lily (2013), ‘The interactive spectrum: The use of social media in UK regional newspapers’, Convergence, 19:4, pp. 472–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Castaño-Pulgarín, Sergio A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, Luze M. T. and López, Harvey M. H. (2021), ‘Internet, social media and online hate speech: Systematic review’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58, p. 101608.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chandra, Mohit, Pailla, Dheeraj, Bhatia, Himanshu, Sanchawala, Aadilmehdi, Gupta, Manish, Shrivastava, Manish and Kumaraguru, Ponnurangam (2021), ‘“Subverting the Jewtocracy”: Online antisemitism detection using multimodal deep learning’, Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021, University of Southampton, online, 21–25 June, Southampton: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 148–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. cps.org.uk (2024), ‘Hate crime’, https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime. Accessed 12 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Daily Mail (n.d.), ‘House rules’, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-1388145/House-Rules.html. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Daniels, Jessie (2013), ‘Race and racism in internet studies: A review and critique’, New Media & Society, 15:5, pp. 695–719.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Deacon, Alan (1978), ‘The scrounging controversy: Public attitudes towards the unemployed in contemporary Britain’, Social Policy & Administration, 12:2, pp. 120–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dias, Dulan S., Welikala, Madhusi D. and Dias, Naomal G. (2018), ‘Identifying racist social media comments in Sinhala language using text analytics models with machine learning’, 2018 18th International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer), University of Colombo, Sri Lanka, 27–28 September, Colombo: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp. 1–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ekman, Mattias (2019), ‘Anti-immigration and racist discourse in social media’, European Journal of Communication, 34:6, pp. 606–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Farkas, Johan and Matamoros-Fernández, Ariadne (2019), ‘Racism on social media: A critical review of methodological challenges’, in Critical Digital and Social Media Research 2019, Umeå, Sweden, 6–8 March, Umea: Umea University.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Garthwaite, Kayleigh (2011), ‘“The language of shirkers and scroungers?”: Talking about illness, disability and coalition welfare reform’, Disability & Society, 26:3, pp. 369–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. ‘gimmegrant’ (2023), Urban Dictionary, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gimmegrant. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Golding, Peter and Middleton, Sue (1982), Images of Welfare, Oxford: Mark Robertson.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hardaker, Claire and McGlashan, Mark (2016), ‘“Real men don’t hate women”: Twitter rape threats and group identity’, Journal of Pragmatics, 91, pp. 80–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. help.x.com (2023), ‘Hateful conduct’, April, https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hines, Sally (2019), ‘The feminist frontier: On trans and feminism’, Journal of Gender Studies, 28:2, pp. 145–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hughey, Matthew W. and Daniels, Jessie (2013), ‘Racist comments at online news sites: A methodological dilemma for discourse analysis’, Media, Culture & Society, 35:3, pp. 332–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. IMPRESS (2024), ‘Discrimination: Guidance on Clause 4’, https://www.impressorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Impress-Standards-Code.pdf. Accessed 19 April 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Institute for Government (2022), ‘Cost of living crisis’, 7 February, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/cost-living-crisis. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jackson, Lauren M. (2017), ‘We need to talk about digital blackface in reaction GIFs’, Teen Vogue, 2 August, https://www.teenvogue.com/story/digital-blackface-reaction-gifs. Accessed 26 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Jensen, Tracey (2014), ‘Welfare commonsense, poverty porn and doxosophy’, Sociological Research Online, 19:3, pp. 277–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2016), Reporting Poverty: A Guide for Media Professionals, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, file:///C:/Users/james/Downloads/reporting_poverty_guide_for_media_final%20(3).pdf. Accessed 6 June 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Laub, Zachary (2019), Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons, New York: Council on Foreign Relations, https://indianstrategicknowledgeonline.com/web/Hate%20Speech%20on%20Social%20Media_%20Global%20Comparisons%20_%20Council%20on%20Foreign%20Relations.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. lawcom.gov.uk (2023), ‘Hate crime’, https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lilley, Peter (1992), ‘Speech to Conservative Party conference’, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOx8q3eGq3g. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. MacDonald, Robert, Shildrick, Tracy and Furlong, Andy (2014), ‘In search of “intergenerational cultures of worklessness”: Hunting the Yeti and shooting zombies’, Critical Social Policy, 34:2, pp. 199–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Malmasi, Shervin and Zampieri, Marcus (2017), ‘Detecting hate speech in social media’, arXiv, arXiv:1712.06427, 26 December, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06427.pdf. Accessed 15 September 2023.
  36. Matamoros-Fernandez, Ariadne (2018), ‘How the use of emoji on Islamophobic Facebook pages amplifies racism’, The Conversation, 12 November, https://theconversation.com/how-the-use-of-emoji-on-islamophobic-facebook-pages-amplifies-racism-105285. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mayring, Philipp (2000), ‘Qualitative content analysis’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1:2, pp. 159–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Meta.com (2023), ‘Hate speech’, 25 May, https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-standards/hate-speech/. Accessed 6 June 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Morrison, James (2018), ‘Online news audiences as co-authors? The extent and limits of collaborative citizen-professional journalism on newspaper comment threads’, in J. Visnovsky and J. Radosinska (eds), Journalism and Social Media: New Trends and Cultural Implications, London: IntechOpen, pp. 13–33, https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/61257. Accessed 15 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Morrison, James (2019), Scroungers: Moral Panics and Media Myths, London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Morrison, James (2021), ‘“Scrounger-bashing” as national pastime: The prevalence and ferocity of anti-welfare ideology on niche-interest online forums’, Social Semiotics, 31:3, pp. 383–401.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Mudde, Cas (2004), ‘The populist zeitgeist’, Government and Opposition, 39:4, pp. 541–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Murray, Charles (1990), The Emerging British Underclass, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Nortio, Emma, Niska, Miira, Renvik, Tuuli A. and Jasinskaja-Lahti, Inga (2021), ‘“The nightmare of multiculturalism”: Interpreting and deploying anti-immigration rhetoric in social media’, New Media & Society, 23:3, pp. 438–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Obermaier, Magdalena (2022), ‘Youth on standby? Explaining adolescent and young adult bystanders’ intervention against online hate speech’, New Media & Society, 0:0, n.pag.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ofcom (2024), ‘Section three: Crime, disorder, hatred and abuse’, 22 February,https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-three-crime-disorder-hatred-abuse. Accessed 6 June 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Office for National Statistics (2023), ‘People not in work’, May, https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork#:~:text=Economic%20inactivity,within%20the%20next%202%20weeks. Accessed 6 June 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Osborne, George (2013), ‘Speech on benefits’, 28 November, https://www.ukpol.co.uk/george-osborne-2013-speech-on-benefits/. Accessed 15 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Oz, Mustafa, Zheng, Pei and Chen, Gina M. (2018), ‘Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes’, New Media & Society, 20:9, pp. 3400–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pearce, Ruth, Erikainen, Sonja and Vincent, Ben (2020), ‘TERF wars: An introduction’, The Sociological Review, 68:4, pp. 677–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Posetti, Julie, Aboulez, Nermine, Bontcheva, Kalina, Harrison, Jackie and Waisbord, Silvio (2020), Online Violence against Women Journalists, Paris: UNESCO.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Price, Catherine, Barons, Martine, Garthwaite, Kayleigh and Jolly, Andrew (2020), ‘“The do-gooders and scroungers”: Examining narratives of foodbank use in online local press coverage in the West Midlands, UK’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 28:3, pp. 279–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Rego, Richard (2018), ‘Changing forms and platforms of misogyny: Sexual harassment of women journalists on Twitter’, Media Watch, 9:3, pp. 472–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Reich, Zvi (2011), ‘User comments: The transformation of participatory space’, in J. B. Singer, A. Domingo, D. Hermida, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, Z. Reich and M. Vujnovic (eds), Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers, London: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 96–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Rheault, Ludovic, Rayment, Erica and Musulan, Andreea (2019), ‘Politicians in the line of fire: Incivility and the treatment of women on social media’, Research & Politics, 6:1, p. 2053168018816228.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Riley-Smith, Ben and Gutteridge, Nick (2023), ‘Sick note crackdown to get more people back into work’, 14 February, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/14/sick-note-crackdown-get-people-back-work/. Accessed 6 June 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Ruiz, Carlos, Domingo, David, Micó, Josep L., Díaz-Noci, Javier, Meso, Koldo and Masip, Pere (2011), ‘Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16:4, pp. 463–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Schutter, Olivier de (2022), ‘Presentation to the UN General Assembly: Povertyism’, 28 October, https://www.srpoverty.org/2022/10/25/presentation-to-the-un-general-assembly-28-october-2022/. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sobieraj, Sarah (2018), ‘Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: Patterned resistance to women’s visibility in digital publics’, Information, Communication & Society, 21:11, pp. 1700–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Ștefăniță, Oana and Buf, Diana-Maria (2021), ‘Hate speech in social media and its effects on the LGBT community: A review of the current research’, Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations, 23:1, pp. 47–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Suzor, Nicolas, Dragiewicz, Molly, Harris, Bridget, Gillett, Rosalie, Burgess, Jean and van Geelen, Tess (2019), ‘Human rights by design: The responsibilities of social media platforms to address gender‐based violence online’, Policy & Internet, 11:1, pp. 84–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. ‘swing the lead’ (2024), Collins Dictionary, Glasgow: Collins,https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/swing-the-lead. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Taylor-Gooby, Peter and Taylor, Eleanor (2015), ‘Benefits and welfare: Long-term trends or short-term reactions?’, in J. Curtice and R. Ormston (eds), British Social Attitudes: The 32nd Report, London: National Centre for Social Research, https://bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38977/bsa32_welfare.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. The Telegraph (2023), ‘The Telegraph community guidelines’, 21 December, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/about-us/community-guidelines/. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Tyler, Imogen (2013), Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain, London: Zed Books Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Tynes, Brendesha, Lozada, Fantasy T., Smith, Naila and Stewart, Ashley M. (2018), ‘From racial microaggressions to hate crimes: A model of online racism based on the lived experiences of adolescents of color’, in G. C. Toriso, D. P. Rivera, C. M. Capodilupo, K. L. Nadal and D. W. Sue (eds), Microaggression Theory: Influence and Implications, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 194–212.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. United Nations (2013), ‘Understanding hate speech’, https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Van Der Bom, Isabelle, Paterson, Laura L., Peplow, David and Grainger, Karen (2018), ‘“It’s not the fact they claim benefits but their useless, lazy, drug taking lifestyles we despise”: Analysing audience responses to benefits street using live tweets’, Discourse, Context & Media, 21, pp. 36–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Vasterman, Peter (ed.) (2018), From Media Hype to Twitter Storm, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Vidgen, Bertie and Yasseri, Taha (2020), ‘Detecting weak and strong Islamophobic hate speech on social media’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17:1, pp. 66–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Volunteering Matters (2023), ‘Equity, diversity, inclusion and anti racist approach’, https://volunteeringmatters.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Edia-Approach-Final-Version.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Warner, William and Hirschberg, Julia (2012), ‘Detecting hate speech on the world wide web’, in S. Owsley-Sood, M. Nagarajan and M. Gamon (eds), Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language in Social Media, Montreal, June, Stroudsburg, MA: Association of Computational Linguistics, pp. 19–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Watts, Matt and Davis, Barney (2023), ‘March, Budget 2023: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to deliver “back to work” package amid push for growth’, Evening Standard, 15 March, https://standard.co.uk. Accessed 16 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Welshman, John (2007), From Transmitted Deprivation to Social Exclusion: Policy, Poverty and Parenting, Bristol: Policy Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Williams, Zoe (2013), ‘Strivers and skivers: The argument that pollutes people’s minds’, The Guardian, 9 January, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/09/skivers-v-strivers-argument-pollutes. Accessed 15 September 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Wodak, Ruth (2001), ‘The discourse-historical approach’, in R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage, pp.63–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Zannettou, Savvas, Finkelstein, Joel, Bradlyn, Barry and Blackburn, Jeremy (2020), ‘A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism’, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 14, 8–11 June, Washington DC: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 786–97.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/ajms_00149_1
Loading
Abusing the unprotected ‘poor’: The prevalence of povertyist stigma and hate speech on unmoderated newspaper comment threads
Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies 13, 237 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1386/ajms_00149_1
/content/journals/10.1386/ajms_00149_1
/content/journals/10.1386/ajms_00149_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): comment threads; economic inactivity; hate speech; poverty; povertyism; protected characteristics; social class; welfare

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test