Political editor
A political editor is a senior journalistic role in newspapers, broadcasters, or online media outlets, tasked with directing the coverage of political affairs, including story assignment, content editing, and analysis of governmental and policy developments.[1] This position demands expertise in political systems, legislative processes, and current events to ensure accurate and strategic reporting on elections, policy debates, and leadership dynamics.[2] Political editors shape public understanding of governance by coordinating teams of reporters and influencing narrative framing, often maintaining close relationships with politicians and official sources for exclusive insights.[3] In practice, they coordinate daily news planning, review drafts for factual rigor and balance, and prioritize stories based on anticipated impact, though their editorial judgments can amplify certain perspectives over others.[2] The role's prominence has grown with the intensification of partisan media environments, where political editors navigate demands for rapid, high-stakes coverage amid evolving digital platforms. Notable characteristics include the position's vulnerability to ideological skew, as empirical surveys reveal that U.S. journalists and editors disproportionately identify as Democrats or liberals compared to the general population, fostering environments where left-leaning viewpoints may systematically influence story selection and tone in mainstream outlets.[4] Quantitative analyses of media content further substantiate slant in political reporting, with outlets cited more frequently by liberal think tanks than conservative ones, underscoring challenges to neutrality.[5] Controversies often center on perceived failures in impartiality, such as uneven scrutiny of policy outcomes or amplification of narratives aligned with institutional priors, prompting calls for greater transparency in editorial processes to align with public demands for causal accountability over partisan framing.Definition and Role
Core Responsibilities
Political editors oversee the planning, assignment, and execution of political news coverage within news organizations, ensuring timely and comprehensive reporting on government activities, elections, policy debates, and related events. They coordinate with reporters to identify key stories, often monitoring wire services, official announcements, social media platforms, and competitor outlets for emerging developments, while making rapid editorial decisions to shape daily output.[6] This role typically involves assigning specific beats or investigations to team members, reviewing drafts for factual accuracy, clarity, and adherence to editorial standards, and collaborating with other departments such as digital or broadcast teams to adapt content across formats.[2] In addition to operational duties, political editors contribute to long-term strategy by pitching enterprise pieces, investigative reports, and in-depth analyses that go beyond breaking news, fostering original content that examines policy impacts and political dynamics. They guide reporters in maintaining journalistic integrity, which includes verifying sources, balancing perspectives where evidence warrants, and avoiding unsubstantiated claims amid partisan pressures.[7] For instance, in larger outlets, they may work closely with lobby correspondents to prioritize stories from legislative sessions or executive actions, generating ideas that align with the organization's resources and audience interests.[8] This oversight extends to upholding ethical guidelines, such as transparency in sourcing and corrections for errors, though practices vary by outlet and can reflect institutional priorities.[9] Political editors also play a supervisory role in team development, mentoring junior staff on sourcing techniques, deadline management, and navigating access to officials, while evaluating performance based on the quality and impact of political reporting. In smaller publications, they may directly report stories or edit on tight deadlines, blending hands-on journalism with leadership.[10] Overall, the position demands constant vigilance over fast-evolving political landscapes, with responsibilities evolving in response to digital demands for real-time updates and multimedia integration.[6]Required Skills and Qualifications
Political editors typically hold a bachelor's degree in journalism, political science, communications, or a related field, with many possessing advanced degrees such as a master's in journalism to enhance competitiveness in the role.[11][12] Extensive professional experience is essential, often starting with roles as political reporters or correspondents covering elections, policy debates, and government affairs, accumulating at least 5–10 years before advancing to editorial positions.[13][9] Core skills include in-depth knowledge of political systems, processes, and historical contexts, enabling editors to contextualize events accurately and identify significant developments amid partisan noise.[13][14] Proficiency in writing and editing is paramount, encompassing concise, clear prose; fact-checking rigor; and adherence to style guides like AP or house standards to ensure grammatical precision and narrative coherence.[15][7] Strong analytical abilities allow for dissecting complex policy issues, evaluating source credibility, and balancing multiple perspectives without succumbing to ideological preconceptions.[13] Management competencies are critical for overseeing teams of reporters, assigning coverage for breaking stories or long-term investigations, and coordinating with other departments like digital or opinion sections to align on deadlines and resource allocation.[9][16] News judgment under pressure—prioritizing verifiable facts over speculation—and familiarity with media ethics, libel laws, and digital tools for multimedia content are also required to navigate high-stakes environments like election cycles.[6][11] Research acumen, including leveraging public records, data analysis, and building networks with policymakers and insiders, underpins effective editorial oversight.[14]Historical Development
Origins in Partisan Press Eras
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, particularly during the United States' party press era spanning roughly the 1780s to the 1830s, newspaper editors functioned as de facto political operatives, with the role of what would later be termed a political editor emerging as the central architect of partisan advocacy. These editors, often party loyalists or appointees, received direct subsidies from political factions through government printing contracts and postal privileges, enabling newspapers to operate as extensions of party machinery rather than independent enterprises.[17][18] In this system, editing entailed curating content to advance specific ideological and electoral goals, such as reprinting favorable speeches, amplifying party correspondence, and suppressing inconvenient facts about opponents, thereby prioritizing persuasion over detached reporting.[19][20] This partisan editing model drew from colonial precedents, where printers like Benjamin Franklin and John Peter Zenger had already blended news selection with political agitation during the lead-up to independence, but it formalized under the First Party System as Federalists and Democratic-Republicans vied for influence. Editors explicitly aligned their publications with one faction—Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, for instance, covertly funded rival presses to counter adversaries—transforming the editor's desk into a hub for strategic narrative control.[18][21] By the 1790s, over 200 newspapers operated under such affiliations, with editors like Noah Webster (Federalist) using their platforms to frame policy debates, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, in overtly combative terms that blurred lines between journalism and propaganda.[17] European influences paralleled this development, as 18th-century British and French gazettes, such as those supporting Whigs or Tories, featured editors who similarly wielded influence through selective reporting and polemics, though without the same degree of state patronage seen in America. In Britain, figures like John Wilkes edited the North Briton in 1762–1763 to assail government policies, establishing editing as a tool for opposition agitation that informed transatlantic practices. The causal dynamic was economic: low literacy and circulation forced reliance on party funding, incentivizing editors to prioritize loyalty over neutrality, a pattern empirical studies confirm persisted until technological shifts like steam-powered presses in the 1830s enabled commercialization.[22][17] This era's political editors thus embodied an unapologetic fusion of editorial authority and partisanship, where decisions on story inclusion, framing, and commentary directly served electoral mobilization; historical analyses indicate that such practices heightened voter engagement but also entrenched factional divisions, setting precedents for modern political desk roles even as ideals of objectivity later emerged.[20][19]Transition to Professional Objectivity
The transition to professional objectivity in political journalism marked a departure from the overtly partisan advocacy dominant in earlier eras, driven primarily by economic incentives for mass appeal and technological necessities for standardized reporting. In the late 19th century, newspapers increasingly relied on advertising revenue rather than political subsidies, prompting a separation of news content from editorial opinion to avoid alienating diverse readers. This shift was accelerated by the telegraph's introduction in the 1840s, which facilitated rapid dissemination but required concise, fact-based dispatches stripped of interpretive bias to suit multiple outlets.[23][24] In the United States, the penny press exemplified this evolution, with publications like the New York Sun launching in 1833 and prioritizing human-interest stories and verifiable events over party-line rhetoric, thereby broadening circulation to non-elite audiences.[24] The formation of the Associated Press in 1846 further institutionalized neutrality, as its cooperative model supplied wire copy to newspapers across the political spectrum, necessitating impartial language to maximize subscriber utility and avoid disputes over slant.[25] By the early 20th century, professional norms solidified through journalism education—such as the University of Missouri's program in 1908—and ethical codes, like the American Society of Newspaper Editors' 1923 statement on fairness and accuracy, transforming political editors from partisan mouthpieces to gatekeepers focused on balanced sourcing and fact verification.[26] In the United Kingdom, the transition was more protracted, with Victorian-era papers like The Times maintaining a reputation for relative independence since 1785, yet many outlets remained tied to party affiliations into the early 20th century.[27] The establishment of the BBC in 1922, under a royal charter mandating impartiality, exerted pressure on print political journalism to adopt similar standards, particularly in broadcast-influenced reporting.[28] Political editors adapted by emphasizing verifiable public records and multiple viewpoints, though full embrace of Anglo-American objectivity ideals faced resistance due to entrenched editorial traditions and less rigid commercial diversification.[28] This era's emphasis on objectivity equipped political editors with tools for discerning signal from noise in coverage, such as reliance on official transcripts and cross-partisan interviews, fostering greater public trust in political reporting until subsequent challenges eroded these gains. However, the norm was pragmatic rather than philosophical, often prioritizing procedural fairness over deeper causal analysis of events.[29]Contemporary Challenges and Partisan Revival
In the early 21st century, political editors have grappled with eroding public trust in journalism, exacerbated by perceptions of institutional bias and the fragmentation of news consumption. Surveys indicate that only 32% of Americans expressed trust in mass media as of 2023, with Republicans showing particularly low confidence at 14%, attributing this to coverage slanted against conservative viewpoints.[30] This distrust stems partly from empirical analyses revealing uneven scrutiny, where mainstream outlets disproportionately amplify narratives aligning with progressive priorities while downplaying counter-evidence, as documented in studies of coverage during events like the 2020 U.S. election.[31] Political editors, tasked with curating balanced political reporting, face internal pressures from ownership structures—often influenced by ideological donors or advertisers—to prioritize clickable content over rigorous verification, amid a 24/7 digital cycle that rewards speed over depth.[32] Economic viability poses another acute challenge, as legacy newsrooms contend with revenue losses from digital disruption and advertiser flight, leading to widespread layoffs and the shuttering of local outlets. Between 2005 and 2020, over 2,000 U.S. newspapers closed, diminishing capacity for on-the-ground political scrutiny and forcing editors to compete with unvetted social media flows rife with misinformation.[33] Political editors must navigate ethical dilemmas in conflict zones or polarized domestic reporting, where physical threats to journalists rose 50% globally from 2019 to 2023, including doxxing and legal harassment for perceived bias.[34] These constraints have prompted some editors to adopt "strategic neutrality," selectively emphasizing facts that align with audience preconceptions rather than pursuing comprehensive causal analysis, a shift critiqued for undermining journalism's role in democratic accountability.[35] Parallel to these pressures, a revival of overt partisanship has emerged, echoing the early 19th-century U.S. press era when outlets served as party organs, driven by audience segmentation in cable and digital media. By 2024, partisan "pink slime" networks—opaque, funded operations mimicking local journalism to push conservative or liberal agendas—proliferated, comprising over 1,000 sites reaching millions via algorithmic amplification.[36][37] Linguistic analyses of U.S. political news from 2000 to 2020 reveal a quantifiable decline in objectivity markers, such as balanced quotatives from opposing sides, with right-leaning outlets maintaining more even sourcing than left-leaning ones amid broader polarization.[38] This resurgence, fueled by viewer loyalty—evident in Fox News averaging 3 million primetime viewers in 2024 versus CNN's 600,000—has led political editors in partisan-leaning publications to integrate opinion into news framing, prioritizing ideological coherence over detached empiricism to sustain subscriptions and engagement.[31] Critics argue this entrenches echo chambers, as Pew data shows consistent liberals relying on nine trusted sources versus three for conservatives, hindering cross-partisan consensus on verifiable events.[30]Biases, Criticisms, and Influence
Evidence of Ideological Slants in Coverage
Surveys of journalists' political affiliations reveal a pronounced left-leaning skew among those responsible for political coverage, including editors, which can influence editorial decisions and story selection. In the United States, a 2022 survey of 1,600 journalists found that only 3.4% identified as Republicans, down from 7.1% in 2013 and 18% in 2002, while 36% identified as Democrats, exceeding the general population's 27% Democratic share; independents comprised 51.7%, but the low Republican representation suggests limited conservative perspectives in newsrooms.[39] In the United Kingdom, a 2023 Reuters Institute study reported that 77% of journalists identified as left-leaning, a sharp increase from 54% in 2015, with younger journalists and those in digital media showing even stronger leftward shifts; this homogeneity, compared to the broader electorate, raises concerns about systemic underrepresentation of right-leaning viewpoints in political editing.[40] Such imbalances, documented across Western countries in a 2021 analysis of 17 nations, correlate with journalists' voting patterns aligning more closely with left-liberal parties than the public at large, potentially fostering an environment where coverage prioritizes narratives sympathetic to progressive causes.[41] Content analyses of political reporting provide empirical evidence of ideological slants manifesting in tone, framing, and source selection. A 2005 study by economists Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo quantified bias by tracking citations to think tanks in major U.S. media outlets, finding that networks like CBS and newspapers like The New York Times exhibited a leftward slant equivalent to the ideology of the average Democratic member of Congress, as they disproportionately referenced liberal-leaning sources over conservative ones.[5] More recent machine-learning-based examinations of 1.8 million headlines from 2014 to 2022 confirmed growing polarization in U.S. domestic political and social issue coverage, with outlets diverging sharply along ideological lines and exhibiting increased bias in language favoring one side.[42] In the UK, while public broadcaster coverage like the BBC's has faced allegations of left bias in EU-related reporting, systematic reviews highlight how editorial slant often emerges through selective emphasis on issues like immigration or economic policy, aligning with journalists' predominant views rather than balanced representation. These patterns persist despite journalistic norms of objectivity, as surveys indicate weakening adherence to universal ethical standards among left-leaning practitioners. This ideological concentration in newsrooms, particularly among political editors who shape coverage priorities, contributes to documented disparities in how events are portrayed, such as more critical framing of conservative policies or figures compared to progressive counterparts. For instance, empirical literature reviews on media bias emphasize partisan slants in election reporting, where supply-side factors like editor preferences amplify demand for ideologically aligned content in urban, liberal-leaning markets.[43] Although some outlets adjust for audience preferences, the overall effect in mainstream political journalism remains a leftward tilt, as corroborated by cross-national data showing media outcomes mismatched with diverse public opinion; this is not merely perceptual but rooted in measurable discrepancies in source usage and narrative construction.[44] Critics from across the spectrum note that while right-leaning media exhibit counter-slants, the dominance of left-leaning institutions in elite journalism amplifies the impact on public discourse.Notable Controversies Involving Political Editors
One significant controversy arose in June 2020 when James Bennet, editorial page editor of The New York Times, approved the publication of an op-ed by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) arguing for federal troop deployment to quell widespread riots and looting following the death of George Floyd.[45] The piece sparked immediate internal revolt, with over 1,000 staffers signing a letter decrying it as "dangerous" and inconsistent with the paper's values, prompting the Times to issue a statement conceding that the op-ed "fell short of our standards" due to insufficient fact-checking and vetting.[46] Bennet resigned on June 7, 2020, amid the uproar, which he later attributed to an "illiberal bias" at the Times that tolerated left-leaning views but reacted with hostility to conservative arguments, even when framed as legitimate policy debate.[47][48] This incident highlighted tensions in editorial gatekeeping, where subjective assessments of "harm" overrode commitments to viewpoint diversity, contributing to accusations of systemic ideological conformity in elite media outlets.[49] In a contrasting example from conservative-leaning media, Chris Stirewalt, Fox News' managing editor for politics, was fired on January 20, 2021, shortly after the network's decision desk—under his oversight—called Arizona for Joe Biden on election night 2020, based on statistical models showing a decisive lead.[50] The call, accurate per final certified results (Biden won by 10,457 votes), provoked backlash from Donald Trump and his supporters, who viewed it as premature and biased against Republican interests, leading to viewer exodus to competitors like Newsmax.[51] Stirewalt testified to the House January 6 Committee that internal pressures prioritized audience retention over data-driven reporting, describing Fox's post-election coverage as succumbing to "hype men" dynamics that amplified unverified claims to retain loyalty, a pattern echoed in the network's $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in April 2023 over knowingly false election fraud assertions aired in political segments.[51] This case underscored how partisan incentives can distort editorial judgments, even when contradicted by empirical vote tallies and court validations. These episodes illustrate broader challenges in political editing, where decisions on story selection and framing often reflect institutional leanings—leftward in outlets like the Times, rightward in Fox—prioritizing narrative alignment over neutral scrutiny, eroding public confidence as evidenced by Gallup polls showing trust in media at historic lows of 32% in 2024.[52]Effects on Public Discourse and Trust
Perceived ideological biases in political editing, often manifesting through selective story selection and framing, contribute to fragmented public discourse by reinforcing existing partisan divides rather than fostering shared factual understanding. Studies indicate that exposure to biased political coverage increases affective polarization, where audiences view opposing groups more negatively, as editors prioritize narratives aligning with outlet ideologies, limiting counter-attitudinal information.[53] [54] For instance, partisan outlets' emphasis on divisive angles during election cycles has been linked to heightened perceptions of societal conflict, reducing incentives for cross-ideological dialogue and promoting echo chambers where audiences consume reinforcing viewpoints.[55] This editorial gatekeeping, while intended to inform, often amplifies sensationalism over nuance, as evidenced by analyses showing that slanted coverage sustains public misperceptions of policy impacts and opponent motivations.[56] The role of political editors in shaping coverage has measurably eroded public trust in media institutions, with empirical data revealing historic lows attributed to audience detection of slant. In the United States, trust in mass media fell to 28% in 2025, the lowest recorded, correlating with widespread perceptions of bias in political reporting that favors one ideological side, particularly in mainstream outlets where conservative viewers report systemic underrepresentation.[57] [58] International surveys echo this, finding that low trust stems from beliefs in editorial manipulation for political ends, prompting audiences to discount news as propaganda and seek alternative sources, further entrenching skepticism.[59] When biases are exposed—such as through comparative analyses of coverage discrepancies—trust declines disproportionately among those perceiving the slant against their views, fostering cynicism toward democratic processes reliant on informed debate.[60] Efforts by political editors to maintain objectivity amid partisan pressures have yielded mixed outcomes, sometimes mitigating but often exacerbating distrust when perceived as performative. Research on newsroom dynamics shows that editorial decisions prioritizing "balance" over accuracy can signal equivocation, alienating audiences who prioritize empirical fidelity and deepening divides as partisan media fills perceived voids with unfiltered advocacy.[61] Consequently, this contributes to a broader crisis in civic cohesion, where diminished trust correlates with reduced engagement in public affairs and heightened susceptibility to unvetted information, underscoring the causal link between editorial influence and societal fragmentation.[62]Political Editors by Region
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, political editors oversee teams of journalists covering Westminster politics, policy developments, and elections, often securing exclusive access through the parliamentary lobby system. Their role involves verifying scoops, shaping narratives on government accountability, and navigating a media landscape where broadcast outlets must adhere to Ofcom's due impartiality requirements, contrasting with the partisan leanings common in print and digital press. This duality reflects historical tensions between regulated neutrality and ideological advocacy, with empirical analyses indicating that while broadcast coverage aims for balance, print outlets amplify distinct perspectives—left-leaning in titles like The Guardian and right-leaning in The Telegraph—potentially skewing public perceptions amid declining trust in media institutions.[63] Political editors' influence peaked during events like the 2024 general election, where their reporting on party manifestos and leadership gaffes reached millions via traditional and social platforms.[64]Broadcast Outlets
Broadcast political editors operate under regulatory scrutiny to ensure factual accuracy and viewpoint balance, yet face accusations of subtle biases in story selection; for instance, a 2013 Cardiff University study found BBC News twice as likely to feature left-wing policy proposals as right-wing ones, though public surveys in 2025 suggest no consensus on systemic slant.[65][66] At the BBC, Chris Mason has served as political editor since September 2022, directing coverage of major stories including the 2024 election and succeeding Laura Kuenssberg; his reporting emphasizes on-the-ground analysis from party conferences.[67] ITV News' Robert Peston, appointed in 2015, hosts the "Peston" program and gained prominence for his 2007 Northern Rock banking crisis scoop, blending interviews with economic policy scrutiny.[67] Sky News' Beth Rigby, political editor since 2019, earned Political Journalist of the Year in 2024 for confrontational interviews with figures like Boris Johnson, amplifying viewer engagement through live debates.[67] Channel 4 News' Gary Gibbon, in the role since 2005, has covered four general elections and received a Royal Television Society award for his 2003 Iraq dossier revelations, focusing on investigative angles within impartiality constraints.[67]Print and Digital Outlets
Print and digital political editors lead partisan-leaning coverage, with outlets like The Guardian prioritizing scrutiny of conservative policies and The Telegraph emphasizing critiques of Labour governance, contributing to polarized readerships as evidenced by 2024 reach data showing right-leaning titles dominating print circulation despite left-leaning digital dominance.[63] The Guardian's Pippa Crerar, appointed in 2022, broke the 2020 Dominic Cummings lockdown breach story, exemplifying the paper's focus on accountability amid its left-of-center editorial stance.[67] The Times' Steven Swinford, political editor since 2021, coordinates Westminster reporting for a centrist-conservative audience, co-hosting "The State of It" podcast that dissects policy impacts with data-driven insights.[67][68] The Telegraph's Ben Riley-Smith, in the position since 2021, covers Brexit aftermath and regulatory reforms, aligning with the paper's right-leaning emphasis on free markets and skepticism toward supranational bodies.[67] Daily Mail's Jason Groves, appointed 2021, and Mail on Sunday's Glen Owen, since 2018, have pursued exclusives like the 2022 Angela Rayner tax controversy, reflecting the titles' conservative populism and scrutiny of left-wing figures, though such stories have drawn bias claims from affected parties.[67] Financial Times' long-serving George Parker, political editor since 2007, provides economically oriented analysis of fiscal policy and trade deals, appealing to business readers with evidence-based forecasting.[67]Broadcast Outlets
The political editors of major UK broadcast outlets oversee coverage of Westminster politics, elections, and policy debates, often leading teams that produce daily bulletins, interviews, and investigative segments for television and radio audiences reaching millions. These roles demand proximity to sources in Parliament and government, influencing narrative framing through selection of stories and questioning styles. Prominent figures include those at the BBC, ITV, Sky News, and Channel 4 News, each affiliated with outlets regulated by Ofcom to uphold standards of impartiality, though enforcement has varied amid complaints over perceived imbalances in airtime or tone.[67] At the BBC, publicly funded and mandated by charter to deliver impartial news, Chris Mason has served as political editor since September 2022, succeeding Laura Kuenssberg; he previously presented BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? and reported for regional and national programs, focusing on in-depth analysis of party dynamics and leadership shifts, such as Labour's internal challenges post-2024 election.[69] His deputy, Vicki Young, handles additional Westminster scrutiny, including on-air debates.[70] ITV News, a commercial broadcaster, appoints Robert Peston as political editor, a position he has held since 2016 after stints at the BBC and as economics editor; Peston hosts the weekly Peston program, known for confrontational interviews with figures like former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and emphasizes economic policy intersections with politics, drawing on his background in financial journalism.[71] Sky News, owned by Comcast and emphasizing rolling coverage, features Beth Rigby as political editor since 2019, the first woman in the role there; she co-hosts the Electoral Dysfunction podcast and gained prominence grilling party leaders during the 2024 general election campaign, with a style blending tenacity and data-driven reporting from her prior roles at The Times.[72][67] Her deputy, Sam Coates, contributes to Sky's on-the-ground election tracking. Channel 4 News, an independent public service broadcaster, relies on Gary Gibbon as political editor since 2005, specializing in insider sourcing from Conservative and Labour circles to break stories on policy U-turns and scandals, such as welfare reforms; his tenure spans multiple governments, providing continuity in investigative focus amid the outlet's reputation for adversarial journalism.[73] These editors collectively shape broadcast discourse, with audience data from BARB indicating high viewership spikes during crises like the 2024 election, where their outputs informed over 20 million viewers weekly across platforms.[63]Print and Digital Outlets
In British print and digital outlets, political editors direct the political reporting teams, focusing on Westminster politics, elections, and policy debates, often leveraging the Lobby system for off-the-record briefings from government sources. These roles emphasize investigative scoops, analysis, and opinion-shaping editorials, with outlets maintaining distinct ideological orientations—such as the centre-left stance of The Guardian or the conservative perspective of The Daily Telegraph—which influence coverage priorities and framing.[67][64] Despite a broader media landscape perceived as left-leaning in editorial hiring and sourcing, print tabloids like The Sun and Daily Mail provide countervailing right-of-centre voices, contributing to polarized public perceptions of bias.[40] Prominent political editors in major print titles include Steven Swinford at The Times, appointed in February 2021 after serving as deputy, known for insider accounts of Conservative Party dynamics.[68] Ben Riley-Smith holds the role at The Daily Telegraph, delivering in-depth reporting on policy and leadership contests.[74] Jason Groves has been political editor of the Daily Mail since 2021, with prior experience at the Daily Express, focusing on populist angles and government accountability.[67] At The Sun, Jack Elsom assumed the position in June 2025, succeeding Harry Cole, emphasizing tabloid-style exposés on Labour policies post-2024 election.[75]| Outlet | Political Editor | Key Details |
|---|---|---|
| The Guardian | Pippa Crerar | Appointed 2022; covers Labour and devolution issues.[76][64] |
| The Times | Steven Swinford | Since February 2021; ex-Telegraph deputy.[68] |
| Daily Telegraph | Ben Riley-Smith | Focuses on cabinet and Brexit aftermath.[77] |
| Daily Mail | Jason Groves | Since 2021; emphasizes immigration and fiscal scrutiny.[67] |
| The Sun | Jack Elsom | Appointed June 2025; rapid rise from reporter.[75] |