Jim Ratcliffe and the Normalisation of Racism in British Media

Racism in British media has become so embedded and routine that it increasingly passes without meaningful challenge. While overt slurs are rare, the underlying narratives (fear of the “other,” suspicion of immigrants, and the framing of minority communities as social threats), run deep. Recent controversies, including the comments made by Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe, illustrate how racialised rhetoric is not only tolerated but amplified across mainstream platforms. The media’s willingness to reproduce and legitimise such narratives reveals a broader cultural shift: racism is no longer an exception in British media, but a feature.

Ratcliffe is a striking example. In a recent interview with Sky News, Ratcliffe claimed that Britain had been “colonised by immigrants”,  suggesting that newcomers were “draining resources from the state.” His remarks sparked immediate condemnation from politicians and anti-racism organisations. Manchester United’s own fan collective, The 1958 Group, have criticised the hypocrisy of commenting on British social issues while living in Monaco for tax purposes, as well as organising protests against the part-owners comments.

The backlash was swift enough that Ratcliffe issued a public apology, stating he was “sorry that my choice of language has offended some people”. Yet the apology itself underscores the problem: the issue was framed as a matter of “offence,” not the deeper racial implications of describing immigrants as colonisers. The Football Association even intervened, reminding Ratcliffe of his responsibilities as a participant in English football, though it declined to take further action.

What is most revealing is just Ratcliffe’s comments, but that they were platformed uncritically in the first instance. Major broadcasters aired the interview without contextualising the historical weight of the term “colonised,” nor did they challenge the factual basis of his claims. This pattern of inflammatory racial rhetoric being presented as legitimate political commentary reflects a broader trend in British media, that racism is no longer shut down, but debated.

This normalisation is not new. The treatment of Meghan Markle by the British press remains one of the most widely discussed examples of racialised media hostility. Analysts have documented how tabloids repeatedly deployed stereotypes and dog-whistle narratives, regularly attacking her background and upbringing.  

But the problem extends far beyond high-profile individuals. Structural racism within newsrooms continues to shape how stories are produced and whose voices are heard. Research by the Ethical Journalism Network highlights how black journalists face exclusionary processes, as well as persistent inequality in hiring, promotion, and editorial influence, with journalists of colour reporting marginalisation and limited opportunities to shape coverage. When the people crafting the news overwhelmingly come from similar racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, the resulting narratives inevitably reflect those biases.

The media’s treatment of immigration, crime, and protest movements further illustrates how racialised narratives have become embedded in everyday reporting. Mental Health UK notes that sensationalist coverage of immigration contributes to a “culture of fear and exclusion,” reinforcing the idea that migrants pose a threat to social stability. Headlines routinely frame asylum seekers as burdens, criminals, or invaders, language that echoes Ratcliffe’s own claims and helps explain why such rhetoric can be aired without immediate challenge.

This is not a sudden development. British media has long relied on racialised narratives, from colonial-era justifications of empire to post-war anxieties about immigration. These narratives have simply evolved, adapting to new political contexts and digital platforms. The continuity is striking; from Powell to Farage now and the Windrush Generation of the 1950s to Syrian refugees in the 2010s, the media repeatedly returns to themes of threat, disorder, and cultural incompatibility.

What makes the current moment particularly troubling is the media’s defensive posture when confronted with accusations of racism. Critics are often dismissed as overly sensitive or hostile to free speech, while media organisations insist they are merely reflecting public concerns. This rhetorical manoeuvre allows institutions to avoid accountability while continuing to profit from sensationalist, racially charged content.

The Ratcliffe controversy encapsulates this dynamic. His comments were widely condemned, yet the media ecosystem that platformed them remains largely unexamined. The issue is not simply that one billionaire expressed racist views; it is that the media treated those views as legitimate political commentary rather than racist rhetoric.

To challenge the normalisation of racism in British media, structural change is essential. This includes diversifying newsrooms at senior levels, implementing stronger accountability mechanisms, and adopting editorial standards that recognise racism as a systemic issue rather than isolated offenses. Without such reforms, the media will continue to reproduce narratives that marginalise minority communities and distort public understanding.

Racism in British media is not an accident, it is the product of institutional choices, historical legacies, and editorial priorities. Until those choices change, racism will remain a normalised and damaging force in British public life.