Misuse, mislabelling, and the broken path of the 'hard-right': Challenging nonscientific political discourse

Abstract

While 'hard-right' has gained traction in scholarship and newsrooms, its conceptual vagueness and practical effects have remained underexamined. Drawing on Framing Theory and Agenda-Setting Theory, this article offers the first systematic, crosspublication study of how seven leading English-language outlets-The Guardian, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Politico, The New Statesman, The Economist, Reuters, and The Financial Times-employed the term between 2022 and 2025. A qualitative content analysis of 140 articles demonstrates that 'hard-right' functions as an umbrella label that conflates distinct far-right currents, while framing devices selectively highlight certain traits and agenda-setting practices that elevate the term's prominence in headlines and summaries. Although outlets vary in their use of contextual qualifiers, all exhibit comparable patterns of misclassification, label inflation, and strategic ambiguity. It can be argued that the strategic use of vague terminology can soften the far-right's image and bolster their electoral appeal. The findings demonstrate the urgency of adopting established political science typologies and clearer editorial guidelines to safeguard analytical precision and democratic accountability in media coverage.