The Overton Window decides what can – and cannot – be said in politics.
But who builds this “window of acceptability”? In this video, I argue it's not the public and not politicians – it's the billionaire-owned mainstream media.
I explain:
-
How news agendas are framed.
-
Why radical ideas are kept out of debate.
-
The role of BBC, Sky and ITV in amplifying media bias.
-
How we can push back.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
If you are a politics nerd, or if you are just interested in politics and how it is framed by the media, then something called the Overton Window will be of interest to you, and in this video, I want to explain what the Overton Window is, who creates it, and how it affects the way in which we understand the news stories that we are presented with day in, day out by the media that is all around us.
My fundamental point that I'm going to make in this video is that the Overton Window - and I'll explain where the name came from, very soon - is created by the owners and funders of the mainstream media in this country, and not by us as the people of the UK, and not even by our politicians. We are being fed an agenda that is shaping politics before even politicians get to the subject.
So what is this Overton Window? It was named after a man called Joseph Overton, who created the idea of there being a range of acceptable ideas within politics at any point in time, and he said this in the 1990s.
He wrote an academic paper, and in it, he suggested that there were six categories of ideas at any point in time within the political domain.
There were the unthinkable ideas: those things that were so extreme with regard to the mainstream that nobody talked about them.
And then there were the radical ideas: those things that were just considered to be impossible, even though they could be understood.
Then there were the acceptable ideas: things that could at least be discussed, and which were looking as though they could enter the mainstream.
After which, there were sensible ideas: those things that politicians were happy to embrace and adopt because they were, and this is the fifth category, popular as a consequence of which those items became policy. Which is the sixth category of ideas that Joseph Overton talked about.
So he went from unthinkable to radical, to acceptable, to sensible, to popular, to policy. That is the direction in which the Overton Window moves. And the idea of an opinion creator is to move something from being unthinkable, and maybe radical, into being acceptable and then sensible, and popular, and so into policy. And I have in fact done that in my career with regard to something called country-by-country reporting, which is how large multinational companies are now taxed. But the point is that normally, most things that get within the Overton Window, which are those ideas which are sensible and popular, so they become policy, are there because the mainstream media has decided that this is the case.
The politicians follow where the window is, by and large. They very rarely set it. Although, and I have to be honest about this, Nigel Farage is an exception here. He has dragged the Overton Window in his direction with regard to immigration, but that makes him an exception that proves the rule rather than the person who proves the rule doesn't work.
So the fact is that many ideas never get an airing in our media. They therefore never get the chance to become either acceptable or popular because the mainstream media owners decide that they don't like them.
Let's take an obvious example of this, and that is the taxation of wealth. The owners of our media do not like the taxation of wealth, so they treat it as radical, or even unthinkable, and suggest that this is impossible, and therefore it should never become acceptable and shouldn't be talked about: it must be dismissed at source and therefore politicians are deeply disinclined to engage with this very obviously necessary idea.
And what we're up against is the fact that these mainstream media owners frame their stories in their newspapers and on their radio programmes - because, remember, there are both radio stations and television broadcast channels, which are now owned by billionaires - and they use these to shape public opinion. That's why they're willing to lose money on things like owning GB News, which is obviously a sink into which large amounts of money are always going to be poured, but which lets its owners shape the news agenda.
And the reason why they want to do that is that politicians then detect and adopt the positions that are framed by these billionaires and their media.
And we can see this day in, day out, although newspapers are declining in their significance in terms of their number of sales, just listen to the morning news on the BBC, ITV or Sky, or listen to the BBC news agenda on Radio Four, for example.
Every single one of those morning news programmes is dominated by discussion about what is in the morning's newspapers. They feature the papers. They review the papers. They talk about the papers. They show the headlines from the papers. They discuss the stories in the papers. It's as if the only news agenda that people in the BBC, Sky and ITV could notice is the one that is created for them by the newsprint media. Excepting some cases, like The National newspaper that I write for in Scotland, which is totally ignored by the BBC, which is pro-unionist , and which therefore ignores a newspaper which talks about independence for Scotland.
But by and large, the newspapers - the right-wing newspapers, the papers which are owned by right-wing moguls - are what frame the news stories that the public hears, and they therefore create what is called the Overton Window of Acceptability, which gives rise to policy.
And it is this dominance by the news media that suppresses alternative perspectives and discourages dissent from it. The neoliberal consensus is kept safe by these people because they ensure that it is their stories that get out from them through their papers into the BBC, ITV, Sky and from there into the debates that we have in our homes and on social media, and everywhere else.
So, this is a fact, and if we don't recognise it, we are not realising that the news that we hear is biased before we ever get to hear it.
We only hear it with certain spins attached, and that is my point.
That is why things like this channel and other channels that you might watch on YouTube are so important.
It is why Twitter, or X, or Blue Sky, or wherever else you might follow the news, are also important, because there you will hear independent views. There are unfettered sources of information which are not controlled by those who seek to demand that it is only their opinion that is heard within this so-called Overton Window of political acceptability.
It is those who do not play by those rules who do, however, create the change.
So remember that if you watch the mainstream media, you're getting a distorted view of the world. And that is really important, because if you are to have political understanding, you've got to understand the bias within it because the whole basis on which we understand politics is by understanding the relationships of power which create the stories that we are told, which in turn therefore inform our opinions, which in turn inform our actions, which in turn lead to our decisions, which in turn have consequences in the real world. And that's what these people want you to not understand because they want you to blindly follow their instructions to be a good neoliberal, and shut up.
If you are interested in economic justice, or the future of democracy, or reform that will deliver for our well-being, including with regard to providing the young people of this country with the jobs that they deserve for a lifetime ahead of them, and to preserve the planet on which we live so that there is a chance of life for everybody, then you've got to shift the Overton Window yourself.
So what do you think? We've put forward a poll on this issue, and it's an unusual poll for us because you can, in fact, answer every single question on it. There is no restriction on the choices you can make.
We're asking, do you think that the mainstream media does frame the news agenda through what is called the Overton Window, so that what we get is biased news?
And do you think that, as a consequence, the BBC, Sky and ITV deliberately promote those biased views on their news channels?
And do you, as a consequence, think that they are participants in this promotion of the billionaire owners' agendas?
What is more, do you think that we have a duty to promote alternative views, and do you support us in doing so?
Let us know because what we get as news shapes our future, and therefore, this thing called the Overton Window is really important because shifting it in the direction of a future for everyone is absolutely, fundamentally important now.
Poll - you have four votes
Do you think that the mainstream media frames the news agenda?
- Yes, I do (26%, 297 Votes)
- And I think the BBC, Sky and ITV promote those biased views (25%, 284 Votes)
- As a result, I think they promote the billionaires' news agebda (24%, 272 Votes)
- Do channels like this have a duty to promote alternative views? (24%, 269 Votes)
Total Voters: 305
Loading ...Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There was an insightful Guardian article recently on how “border spectacles” – such as the UK’s ‘small boats’ reporting – lead directly to mob violence – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/30/europe-refugees-border-control-militarise-human-northern-ireland
There is a pernicious pincer squeezing the truth out of mainstream media. On the one hand, the dramatic televisual scenes on beaches (as opposed to the routine reality of people with the right documentation arriving at airports, or indeed the slow legal processing that eventually establishes that the vast majority of ‘small boats’ arrivals are not, in fact illegal) and on the other hand the meek and mindless following of the news agenda set by right-wing politicians and media.
By any reasonable, impartial criteria, what should be top of the news are climate-ecological breakdown stories, ongoing wars (and not just Gaza and Ukraine) and in the UK the economic hardship faced by millions, the UK’s deteriorating standards in human rights, etc…
Left journalists do write about these issues, and about the fact that the focus on immigration is a deliberate distraction from the real issues – but their good sense is ignored in mainstream media.
The survey results seemed to be presented in a misleading manner. When I submitted my votes I saw that 66 votes had been cast, the first item showed (26%, 65 Votes). What does the 26% percent relate to? It is clearly not 100* 65/66.
Yes, I do (26%, 65 Votes)
Great video and great work Richard. When are you going to talk about the need to return within the biophysical limits of Earth and ideas for equitable Degrowth?
https://poemsforparliament.uk/demystifying-degrowth
People could vote in all four categories in this poll, and that is why the percentages look odd.
BBC in particular from having public funding should be standing more against bias.
Commercial media generally needs to have stronger rules about honesty and integrity in reporting.
It is ones like GB News that are rapidly shifting the balance of discussion, with them and the Daily Mail being,.by far, the most viewed UK political YouTube accounts as well as influential in their respective TV and Print offerings. No politician (even Farage).comes close to their views.
Is GB News the largest UK political YouTube account? Is that because nobody watches it in any other way?
Richard, I would argue that Farage has only been able to move the Overton Window with the explicit assistance of the MSM. The BBC, in particular, has platformed him to an obscene degree and has helped his politics of hate to become mainstream.
I agree that it is not Farage, but bias in the media that gives him the opportunity. I found this report which suggests analysis of BBC QT guests. A look at the last table is rather enlightening.
https://theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-guests-over-nine-years-suggests-an-overuse-of-rightwing-voices-232315
It seems to me that the overriding purpose of the mainstream media is to brainwash the public to protect the interests of the wealthy elite. There is more than enough evidence to demonstrate this. Look at the behaviour of the owners of the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Times etc throughout the 20th century and, in particular, the causes that they promoted and how they framed the headlines. This was brilliantly parodied by Private Eye at the time of the Falklands with its spoof headline “Kill an Argie and win a Metro”. I sometimes wonder whether the tabloid hostility to university media studies courses is, in part, down to a fear that too many students might start to critically analyse how news is selected and reported on and how the mainstream media manipulates the public. Your video is essential viewing and deserves a wide audience.
The thing I note is that the Overton window exists because of media input for sure that creates extremist views.
But it would be unfair to Hannah Arendt not to also consider the other uncomfortable factor: that societies are already latently fascist/discriminatory anyway – there are always (Arendt argued) a certain amount of people who will approve of such extremism. This is why evil can be so banal.
If we took this more seriously, we would not have this problem. But we’ve been skipping around it since the end of WWII.
Accepted
I used to read Robert Fisk’s excellent articles in The Independent on the Middle East and, in particular, the mis-reporting of events in Syria. I wondered why, compared to most popular journalists of the day (c.2010-2020) he alone seemed excluded from any platform. He was, after all awarded British Press Awards’ International Journalist of the Year seven times. Yet his only ever appearance on the BBC was on ‘Desert Island Discs’. That alone convinced me that we have a biased media when it comes to uncomfortable truths.
Correct
I mention Robert Fisk whenever anyone is talking about honest, impartial journalism.
He knew all about Netanyahu and his cronies and what Israel were up to since they became an independent state. They were born of terrorism against the UK, which is now forgotten. He was a thorn in their side. I’m sure certain people are glad he’ no longer with us. I won’t forget his work.
When the people were arrested for demonstrating and holding placards saying they support Palestine Action, I looked at the Daily Mail comments. One said all the demonstrators should be sent to the West Bank and it had four THOUSAND ‘upticks’.
One of my family quotes the Mail and it is apparent that the paper gets much of its message across by innuendo. It phrases thing in a way that people can draw an impression without the ‘fact’ actually being stated.
Once committed to that view, other opinions can seem to be perverse and can be dismissed.
The right wing press are a power in the land.
Sorry to post again on this topic but I find it rather curious that, apart from the BBC and the Guardian who feature brief articles on this, most of the main stream media have not picked up on the fact that a Singaporean firm, Woodford Investment Pte Ltd, using law firm Withers and Sir Geoffrey Cox KC MP, are suing the British government for damages following the quashing of planning permission for the West Cumbria coal mine. They can do so through the pernicious and controversial Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism. The best reporting on this can be found in the Byline Times. I wonder why the MSM, who love to bang on about Britain “taking back control” appear to be keeping quiet about this even though it could cost the country billions if it succeeds?
This also touches upon a wider issue, namely the practice of arbitration where private justice is administered behind closed door but then relies on the public courts to enforce awards. Whilst arbitration is long established there are some lawyers who question its integrity. It is an ideal justice system for the neoliberal age.
This legal action is staggering, and an outright disaster for the UK, and an indication of the absolute crass stupidity that has been built into international trade agreements based upon the ideas implicit within the Washington consensus, which places more emphasis upon the importance of free trade then it doesupon the power of the state to protect the environment or the population of a country from risk. I should, perhaps, make a video on this, looking not just at this particular case, but the broader issues involved and why are they are so dangerous to the idea of democracy. Thanks for mentioning it. I have noticed this in by Byline Times, to which I do subscribe.
Also written up by ‘EuropeanPowell’ in his substack, at https://europeanpowell.substack.com/p/geoffrey-cox-freeports-and-the-shadow – as a whole, it says a lot about Freeports, Special Economic Zones and Free Zones generally. Perhaps also relevant to this post is his piece ‘The Great Free Zone Swindle: How Parliament Was Bypassed and the Public Kept in the Dark’, at https://europeanpowell.substack.com/p/he-great-free-zone-swindle-how-parliament – not so much outside the Overton Window, as ensuring the curtains are drawn before saying/doing anything.
Thanks
I wrote a letter to the i newspaper recently which included, “ the dearth of understanding of government finance among the public at large, which is hardly surprising as this is not addressed within the education system and misinformation is perpetuated by the mainstream media.” Would you believe the last eight words of that sentence were edited out. I also made the point that when the government spent it was with newly created money not from a pot of taxation. Needless to say that wasn’t printed either.
The Guardian was also guilty of such crimes, frequently, when I used to bother to write to them. I do not anymore.
I once endured a horrific (but eye-opening) train journey from Cambridge to London, seated across from two earnest-looking gentlemen. It gradually transpired that they were engaged in the planning of an episode of a religious affairs programme. Their conversation went something like this:
“If we ask the Bishop [this], he will answer like [this], and if we then interview so-and-so and ask them [that], they will answer [thus]. So, if we cut the two answers together it will look like they disagree”
Even religious affairs reporting is full of lies. And they don’t even realise how much they are betraying the values of the fourth estate, as is attested by the fact that they were comfortable having such a conversation in public.
Reminds me of a story from my grandfather, from a long time back, about a leading captain of business and a leading trade union leader (of the day), who never agreed on anything, and who refused to have anything to do with each other (like be in a debate together) – until the BBC (radio) edited their seperate interviews together, and broadcast the resultant ‘debate’. At which they descended on the BBC together, both in a white hot rage. This was long before anybody would have thought that the BBC would do such a thing….
This is a disgusting and painfully transparent attack by the current US administration on the UK, reported by the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqjyeeke7qko
They make no attempt to challenge it for what it is, the export of American culture wars to Europe via Putin style warping of reality. It frames the Southport riots as protests and claims their rights to protests were supressed, but makes no mention of Palestine Action. They are dog whistling to the “right people”, and the BBC are complicit or unable to react. America is a threat, plain and simple.