I think what needs to be explained further is the relationship between the actual "elites" (i.e., upper-echelon corporate and political leaders) and groups that don't necessarily grab the same share of the money but reap a more diffuse set of benefits (urban living, Warby Parker glasses, the occasional overpriced cocktail or five, whatever). This article discusses "[e]stablishment journalistic outlets" as being "fully integrated into elite institutions." If that integration is obvious at some levels (ownership of media outlets and concomitant pressure to publish or not publish certain things), it's also more complex at others (why journalists who don't get paid much still think of themselves as having some sort of cultural prestige nonetheless). Obviously, those of us who are academics play a similar role--not getting super rich, but benefitting nonetheless (both materially and in some more nebulous cultural sense) through our "integration" with elite global capital or whatever.
I think the cases of both journalists and academics suggest that the discourses of the elite are being disseminated by people who are both invested in those discourses but also skeptical, critical, and resentful of those same elite interests. Maybe this pattern of critical-but-doing-it-anyways goes even further in revealing why something like Brexit support gets reported the way it does. If the link between economic interests and cultural sensibilities is already distorted in the lives of the people disseminating the dominant discourse, then that distortion is fun-house-mirror-projected in accounts of other groups.