Leading News Outlets Criticized for Mislabeling Far-Right Movements as “Hard-Right”

A groundbreaking new study published in the journal European Political Science has exposed a concerning trend in major English-language media: the frequent misuse of the term “hard-right” when describing far-right political movements. This linguistic shift, according to researchers, may be inadvertently softening the extremist image of these groups while simultaneously enhancing their appeal to mainstream voters.

The comprehensive analysis, conducted by Dr. Georgios Samaras from King’s College London’s School for Government, examined 140 articles published between 2022 and 2025 across seven prominent international news outlets. The findings reveal a systematic pattern of terminology that could have significant implications for public perception and democratic discourse.

The Terminology Problem

Dr. Samaras’ research identifies a troubling conflation between “hard-right” and “far-right” terminology in contemporary journalism. While these terms might seem interchangeable to casual readers, they carry distinctly different connotations in political science. “Far-right” traditionally refers to extremist movements that reject democratic principles, promote authoritarianism, and often embrace ideologies rooted in racism, nationalism, or fascism. “Hard-right,” conversely, typically describes more conventional conservative positions that, while staunchly traditional, generally operate within democratic frameworks.

The study found that major outlets including The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Times, The Telegraph, Financial Times, and Reuters frequently applied “hard-right” labels to parties and movements that political scientists would more accurately categorize as “far-right.”

How Language Shapes Perception

The implications of this terminological shift extend far beyond semantics. Dr. Samaras argues that describing extremist movements as “hard-right” rather than “far-right” creates a normalization effect that could influence electoral outcomes. “Hard-right” sounds like a more palatable version of conservatism—a position that might be extreme but remains within the bounds of legitimate political discourse. “Far-right,” however, carries stronger associations with extremism, historical fascist movements, and anti-democratic ideologies.

This linguistic softening potentially makes extremist positions more accessible to moderate voters who might otherwise reject far-right platforms. When voters encounter “hard-right” rhetoric framed as simply “conservative principles taken to their logical conclusion,” they may be more willing to engage with ideas that would typically fall outside their political comfort zone.

Case Studies in Mislabeling

The research provides several striking examples of this phenomenon. Articles describing Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, and various European parties with neo-fascist roots consistently employed “hard-right” terminology. Similarly, coverage of anti-immigration movements and parties promoting ethnonationalist policies frequently defaulted to “hard-right” descriptors rather than the more accurate “far-right” classification.

Even when these movements explicitly reject core democratic principles—such as judicial independence, minority rights, or electoral integrity—the study found that journalists often defaulted to softer terminology. This pattern persisted even in outlets generally considered to have progressive editorial stances, suggesting the issue transcends political bias in newsroom culture.

The Historical Context

This linguistic shift represents a departure from earlier journalistic practices. Historical analysis shows that major outlets more consistently used “far-right” terminology when covering extremist movements in previous decades. The gradual replacement of “far-right” with “hard-right” appears to have accelerated in recent years, coinciding with the global rise of populist and nationalist movements.

Media scholars suggest several factors driving this change. The increasing polarization of political discourse has made traditional left-right distinctions less useful, pushing journalists toward more nuanced terminology. Additionally, the mainstream success of previously fringe movements has created pressure to describe them in ways that acknowledge their electoral viability while still signaling their extremist nature.

The Research Methodology

Dr. Samaras’ study employed rigorous content analysis techniques to examine how terminology evolved across different contexts. The research team coded each article for explicit and implicit characterizations of political movements, tracking how often various descriptors appeared and in what contexts. They also analyzed reader comments and social media reactions to assess how different terminology affected public perception.

The temporal scope—2022 to 2025—captured a period of significant political upheaval across Europe and North America, providing a rich dataset for understanding how media outlets adapt their language during times of democratic stress. The selection of seven diverse outlets ensured the findings weren’t limited to publications with particular editorial biases.

Expert Reactions

The study has generated significant discussion among media critics and political scientists. Dr. Sarah Thompson, a media studies professor at Columbia University who was not involved in the research, noted that “language choices in political reporting aren’t neutral—they shape how audiences understand political reality.”

Some journalists have pushed back against the findings, arguing that “hard-right” more accurately captures the complexity of contemporary political movements that don’t fit neatly into traditional categories. However, most experts agree that consistency in terminology matters, particularly when covering movements that explicitly reject democratic norms.

Implications for Democracy

The potential consequences of this terminological confusion extend beyond academic debate. When extremist movements receive softer labels, it may reduce public vigilance about genuine threats to democratic institutions. Voters might underestimate the seriousness of a party’s anti-democratic intentions if they’re consistently described using terminology that suggests legitimate political participation.

Furthermore, this linguistic shift could affect how political movements strategize their public communications. If “hard-right” terminology proves more electorally advantageous than “far-right” labels, extremist parties may deliberately moderate their public messaging while maintaining radical positions in practice.

Recommendations for Journalists

The study concludes with several recommendations for improving political coverage. First, journalists should use “far-right” when describing movements that explicitly reject democratic principles, regardless of their electoral success. Second, news organizations should develop clear internal guidelines about political terminology to ensure consistency across coverage. Third, reporters should provide context about why certain labels are applied, helping readers understand the distinction between different positions on the political spectrum.

Dr. Samaras emphasizes that responsible journalism requires precision in language, particularly when covering movements that pose potential threats to democratic institutions. “Words matter in political reporting,” he states. “They shape public understanding and can influence the health of our democracies.”

The Way Forward

As political landscapes continue evolving globally, the need for accurate, consistent terminology becomes increasingly critical. The study serves as a wake-up call for media organizations to examine their own practices and ensure their language choices serve the public interest rather than inadvertently normalizing extremist positions.

The research also highlights the broader challenge facing modern journalism: how to accurately describe complex political phenomena in an era of rapid ideological change and democratic backsliding. As traditional political categories become less useful, journalists must work harder to develop terminology that accurately captures political reality without sacrificing clarity or precision.

The findings from King’s College London suggest that this work is far from complete—and that the stakes for getting it right have never been higher.

Tags & Viral Phrases

Hard-right vs Far-right media bias
How news language shapes elections
Media normalization of extremism
Political terminology matters
Democracy at risk from media mislabeling
Far-right movements get softer coverage
Journalistic responsibility in democracy
Language shapes political reality
Media’s role in far-right rise
Terminology that changes elections
News outlets softening extremism
Political science meets journalism
The power of words in politics
Media literacy and democracy
How headlines influence voting
Far-right or hard-right debate
News coverage affects political outcomes
Responsible political reporting
Media bias in political coverage
The terminology trap in journalism
How news labels affect perception
Political movements and media framing
Democracy needs accurate reporting
The hidden influence of news language

,