When the BBC was established in the 1920s, it set the tone - quite literally - for what "proper" English was supposed to sound like. Received Pronunciation (RP) became the accent of choice for its presenters, a marker of education and authority that dominated British broadcasting for most of the twentieth century. Known variously as the "Oxford accent", "BBC accent", "King’s/Queen’s accent", or "public-school accent", RP was held up as the gold standard for professional speech.

Even in its heyday, RP contained a great deal of personal variation and, like any accent, has been subject to change. Despite this natural evolution, it’s not so easy to shift the idea of a single, “correct” way to speak in the minds of the general public.

Even today, as JournoResources highlights, regional and working-class voices remain underrepresented in UK broadcasting, and accent bias continues to shape who gets heard and who gets ahead. This persistent preference for "standard" speech not only limits career progression for talented journalists but also narrows the perspectives and trustworthiness of news coverage for audiences across the country.

So why do these biases persist? And what can be done to challenge the norm? Valerie Fridland, a professor of linguistics at the University of Reno, sheds some light in her upcoming book, Why We Talk Funny, coming out on 21 April 2026.

The bottom line: there is no single 'right' accent. Accents are not, and have never been, a result of ignorance, indifference or inability. And a journey through history supports this conclusion.

"Accents are universal, we have them whether we hear them or not," Fridland explains. "And they’ve evolved for all sorts of good reasons."

Accent bias in newsrooms: The roots and realities

The problem: Stereotypes about "proper" or "correct" speech still shape who gets hired, who gets promoted, and whose stories are told. Biases are not just social snobbery; they're rooted in centuries-old ideas about class, status, and even evolutionary psychology.

Historical context: Fridland traces the origins of RP to the industrial revolution, when class mobility made accent a new gatekeeping tool. Manuals and elocution guides proliferated, teaching the rising middle class how to "sound right" to blend in with the elite. This legacy persists: even today, a regional or working-class accent can be a barrier to entry in elite professions, including journalism.

Evolutionary roots: She explains that humans are wired to notice accents as a way of identifying in-group and out-group members - a survival mechanism that once helped us distinguish friend from foe. This instinct persists, making us unconsciously gravitate toward people who sound like us and, conversely, judge those who sound different.

Modern consequences: In newsrooms, this means that accent bias can operate both overtly (mockery, exclusion) and subtly (unconscious preference for "neutral" voices). Fridland's own experience - her graduate student being singled out for a US southern accent - mirrors countless stories from UK journalists who feel pressure to "soften" their voices or are overlooked for on-air roles.

Cognitive science: Accent bias isn't just about prejudice; it's about cognitive fluency. When we hear an accent we don’t expect, our brains have to work harder, which can make us feel uncomfortable or even less able to understand the speaker. Simply making people aware of this effect ahead of time can help reduce bias in hiring and evaluation.

So what?

Awareness and training: Newsrooms need to educate staff about the roots and realities of accent bias, including the cognitive science behind it.

Conscious inclusion: Actively seek out and value diverse voices, not just in hiring but in editorial decisions and story selection.

Challenge the myth: Recognise that "standard" speech is a social construct, not a marker of intelligence or professionalism. Everyone has an accent; what matters is clarity, not conformity.

Accents as community-building tools: Trust, belonging, and representation

The Opportunity: Accents are not just markers of difference — they're powerful tools for building community and trust. Fridland’s research shows that when organisations genuinely reflect the voices of their audiences, they can forge deeper connections and repair relationships with groups who have long felt excluded or misrepresented.