Joan Pedro, Toby Miller, Andrés Suárez López [1]
Beyond mythology: who’s who in the Anglo-Saxon press
Many people say traditional media no longer matter, that social networks have changed the rules of the game and citizens are informed directly through so-called ‘content creators’, AKA people not educated to be reporters. But conflating the transformation of how some information is consumed with a purported disappearance of the established media’s influence would be hasty.
Across the EU, people trust traditional media – both audiovisual and print – more than online news platforms and so-called social networks. In the US, 2026 saw a significant rise in the population’s trust in actual journalism, to over 75% in local outlets, versus a third believing in so-called ‘social’ media. There are implications for knowledge and democracy: a survey of 18 countries in the global North confirms what the academic literature points out: “consumption of traditional media, such as television and newspapers, is generally associated with higher levels of knowledge”.
The major international media continue to set news priorities and influence how events are interpreted. Two hundred million people regularly visit CNN’s website. The BBC’s weekly news audience is close to half a billion, and its World Service boasts 364 million listeners a week, a third of whom are aged between 15 and 24.
This three-part series will analyze coverage of the 2026 Spanish elections across seven outlets: The New York Times, CNN, BBC, The Guardian, The Economist, Financial Times, and Politico. By way of historical background, the Real Instituto Elcano’s analysis of Spain’s presence in the international press shows that during the first half of 2015, extensive coverage (98,792 articles) focused on politics and economics, with special attention to the emergence of then-new, now-exhausted parties in Podemos and Ciudadanos.
To understand what foreigners say about Spanish elections, we must understand their vantage points. The political economy of communication emphasizes that journalism does not occur in a vacuum of technical, empirical observation and reporting: ownership, finance, business interests, access to sources, and dominant ideologies condition production. They do not determine each news item, but they help explain priorities and limitations.
The New York Times
Founded in 1851, The New York Times is one of the main references of American journalism and influences international agendas. Its prestige does not protect it from the industry’s contemporary pressures. For example, the paper’s 2014Innovation Report ended the once-uncrossable boundary between editorial and advertising.
It has been criticized for not denouncing Donald J Trump’s proposal that nonwhite congresswomen should live in “the crime-infested places they came from”. And its coverage of Palestinian wars and genocide is instructive. For example, the Times instructed staff to limit the use of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing”, and “avoid” the terms “occupied territory”, “refugee camps” and “Palestine”, other than in “very rare cases”.
CNN
CNN became the first dedicated 24 hours a day cable news channel in 1980. The company’s fact sheet discloses its size and international reach. Less obvious is that its continuous information model involves competition for attention, heavily-weighted opinion, and simplification of complex debates.
Consider the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 by the U.S. and its lapdogs. CNN’s then-president, Walter Isaacson, ordered that 9/11 and the Taliban be mentioned when discussing Afghan suffering, calling it “perverse to focus too much on casualties or hardship”. Similarly, the network refused to air billboards and ads opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Douglas Kellner has shown how official discourse and national security priorities influenced coverage of these disastrous wars.
Since October 2026, CNN has been owned by David Ellison’s Skydance Corporation, a close ally of Trump. The consequences are yet to be clear.
BBC
The BBC combines a public service mission over a century with an important international presence. Its institutional structure differentiates it from commercial outlets, but does not exempt it from controversies about impartiality and relationship with political and economic powers.
It supported the invasion of Iraq based on falsehoods and leans to the right, due to a dependence on political, business, and conservative sources and personnel, despite unfounded claims from reactionaries. And thousands of BBC employees have been screened by the security services to exclude those they consider radical.
The Guardian
The Guardian has been a voice of liberalism for two centuries, with a non-corporate ownership structure and commitment to editorial independence. Its editorial identity is often associated with progressive positions and pays attention to issues such as civil rights, inequality and the environment.
However, as Des Freeman writes, “The Guardian is not a left-wing newspaper. It publishes left-wing columnists, is read by left-wing people, and has a reputation for identifying with left-wing positions. But it is not a left-wing newspaper; it is not affiliated with left-wing movements nor did it emerge from them. It has never been a constant ally of socialist or anti-imperialist voices”.
Financial Times and The Economist
Both titles were founded in the 19th century. They stand out for attention to the economy, markets and public policies. Each follows a (neo)liberal approach favourable to so-called free trade. The self-presentation of The Economist within The Economist Group allows us to understand its business position.
The paper’s audience is made up in part of managers, investors, and institutional decision-makers. That makes it especially important to observe how it covers taxation, debt, regulation, and governmental stability. Because The Economist’s journalists write for elites, their information must be reliable, but framed by what is beneficial to capital. A distinction must be made between news, analysis, editorials, and columns. For example, its correspondents are often more progressive than its columnists.
This does not automatically make either paper mere spokespeople for big business. They oppose dictatorships, authoritarianism, environmental degradation, corporate abuse, and excessive inequality, which are detrimental to the stability of the system. For example, the FT has criticized the “colonialism of American AI”, while The Economist has demystified AI and warned of the huge energy consumption of data centres.
POLITICO
POLITICO is a 21st century operation that has established itself as a reference for following political institutions, especially in the United States and the European Union. Its European edition pays special attention to Brussels, EU negotiations, and relations between governments. Its orientation towards political professionals and institutions favours coverage of negotiations, internal sources, and elite movements. This approach is useful for understanding decision-making.
Since its acquisition by Axel Springer in 2021, the editorial line has been subject to ideological control. The owner has imposed unconditional support for the State of Israel and the board of directors has publicly attacked the newsroom, calling it “Woke” for providing information on the high number of civilian casualties in Gaza after previously ordering the minimization of Palestinian deaths. In the face of newsroom unrest, CEO Mathias Döpfner hardened his stance, explicitly urging the resignation of any journalist who questioned the company’s pro-Israel agenda.
The conglomerate is facing international pressure following allegations by Law for Palestine, accusing its Yad2 property listing site of profiting from the sale of illegal colonial settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Looking at Spain
In the next instalments, we will study the selected topics and frames used to present the campaign, sources, and protagonists. Each media outlet has its own priorities and its own way of understanding journalism, and we hope to indicate where they coincide and they differ.
[1] Toby Miller is a Distinguished Professor at Tecnológico de Monterrey’s Guadalajara campus in Mexico and a Research Professor at the University of California, Riverside (UCR). He taught at UCR for a decade and at New York University for twelve years. He has authored and edited more than 50 books and edits the journals “Society” and “Open Cultural Studies”. His recent books include “Why Journalism? A Polemic and Violence”.
Joan Pedro-Carañana is a permanent faculty member in the Department of Journalism and New Media at the Complutense University of Madrid. He co-edited “Political Economy of Media and Communication: Methodological Approaches” and co-authored “Global Sports Go Green—Or Do They?”. He is a member of the Spanish chapter of the Latin Union for the Political Economy of Information, Communication and Culture (https://ulepicc.es/).
Andrés Suárez López is a journalist and doctoral candidate at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM). He holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism and a master’s degree in advanced studies in political communication from the same university. He specializes in political reporting and communication. His main research interests include investigative journalism, political communication, and media discourse analysis.