The role –and nature– of news and journalism is constantly evolving, from how it is consumed to which voices are trusted. New platforms, the rise of citizen journalists, and shifting news consumption habits are continuing to reshape the traditional and new media landscapes, creating both challenges and opportunities for PR and communications professionals.
In regions like Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), these challenges are particularly significant due to the unique ecosystem and levels of public engagement. With a relatively small number of major news outlets, the way journalism is practiced and perceived in ANZ carries considerable weight.
And this has a day-to-day impact on how PR & Comms professionals carry out their jobs. What does it mean when trust in journalism fluctuates, or when emerging platforms challenge traditional outlets for influence?
To kick off our study into the state of journalism and news – in both ANZ and beyond – we’ve started by quantifying how the public talk about the media.
Compared to the UK and US, Australia and New Zealand audiences are more likely to label journalism as ‘important’, albeit with a not inconsiderable amount of conversation describing it as “dead.”
What’s behind the difference? Certainly, both countries’ audiences advocate for quality reporting and accountability, as exemplified by New Zealand journalist Jack Tame’s revelation of a gun lobbyist’s lies after the Christchurch attack. At the same time, local journalism faces challenges, with regional outlets shutting down due to lack of government funding, as noted by ACM’s Managing Director Tony Kendall. These in turn lead to spirited defenses of local journalism’s importance.
However, neither of these trends are necessarily unique to the ANZ regions. The answer can potentially be located when we look at how these conversations take place over time.
Clearly, public conversations around journalism – both in ANZ and elsewhere – are not in their nature consistent. This reflects how particular moments in the news cycle can lead to a sudden outpouring of interest and conversation.
So what are those moments in ANZ?
One centres on the recent court cases being mediated between the Australian government and social media organisations. In looking to place a monetary and moral value on news, these proceedings prompt the ANZ public and media to talk about journalism as something ‘important’ and worth protecting.
Another hinges around the return of Julian Assange to Australian soil. This has prompted differing responses across individuals and media outlets – but what’s certain is that it places ANZ at the centre of an important unfolding conversation about the role and responsibilities of the media.
Australia and New Zealand are global outliers in many sectors, from sport to mining & energy. Journalism, it seems, is another that could reasonably be added to that list.
Huh? Journalists are victims of hackers like Assange too? Because his journalism humiliated all our journalists? Isn't that the point? It's hilarious being told how critically important journalism is by uncritical fucks who haven't done any because they don't even know wtf it is!
Companies such as Meta do not respond to undergraduate zingers. They respond to strength. It is well past time that the government acts. The future of Australian journalism is at stake: https://t.co/8OcQt1WnHHpic.twitter.com/aHi00rp9bf
PR and communications strategies must adapt to a landscape where sources of information are more fragmented and where citizens themselves can act as newsmakers. It’s important to understand how attitudes around these vital channels and contacts take shape.
We’ll be exploring the journalist and media landscape through multiple different lenses over the coming couple of months. If you’d like to attend one of the events we’re hosting around the region – or view a webinar recording – please reach out to us at info@isentia.com
Loren is an experienced marketing professional who translates data and insights using Isentia solutions into trends and research, bringing clients closer to the benefits of audience intelligence. Loren thrives on introducing the groundbreaking ways in which data and insights can help a brand or organisation, enabling them to exceed their strategic objectives and goals.
A critical blind spot has emerged in Australia's housing debate. An analysis of news coverage compared to social discussion reveals that the conversation happening in the news media, a calm, 'top-down' discussion of financial strategy for existing homeowners, is dangerously disconnected from the raw, emotional reality unfolding on social media.
While news outlets focus on interest rates and mortgage advice, the public conversation is a volatile, 'bottom-up' outcry over the lived experience of unaffordability and political frustration. This gap between the financial narrative and the public's emotional reality represents a significant strategic risk for any organisation communicating in this space.
In stark contrast, social media is having a "bottom-up" conversation, focusing on the personal pain points of cost, blame, and political frustration. It speaks from within the economy. At its heart, this conversation is driven by the raw, personal impact of an unaffordable market; users aren't debating abstract forecasts, they're lamenting the "exorbitant" cost of "multimillion dollar postage stamp sized tenancies." This personal frustration then quickly seeks a target, splintering into direct political blame over specific tax policies and a deep-seated criticism of the planning bureaucracy, which is seen as a fundamental roadblock.
The core theme is the lived experience of exorbitant real estate prices, with users directly linking high property values to the unaffordability of everyday life and business. There is a strong undercurrent of blame directed at planners, councils, and perceived bureaucratic inefficiency as a primary driver of the housing shortage. The housing discussion is frequently and explicitly politicised, with users tying the crisis to taxation or economic policies.
Analysis shows a public belief that the government is prioritising private developers over vulnerable citizens. The revelation of stakeholder meetings behind closed doors to discuss 'investment models' for public housing towers for example has solidified a narrative of privatisation by stealth. The call for public housing is a direct demand for the government to re-assert its role as a protector of citizens, not a facilitator for private profit. Underpinning all of these solutions is a palpable sense of moral urgency, driven by the visible 'human cost' of the crisis. But this frustration is not passive. With calls for street resistance and construction unions to refuse demolition work, the message is clear: if these concrete actions are not taken, the conversation will move from online forums to the streets and worksites.
Monitoring and identifying these distinct ideological fault lines is crucial. It allows a communications team to understand the specific arguments and trigger words of each camp. Any government announcement will not be received by a single public, but will land on this fractured community and be interpreted through these pre-existing lenses.
A critical blind spot has emerged in Australia’s housing debate. An analysis of news coverage compared to social discussion reveals that the conversation happening in the news media, a calm, ‘top-down’ discussion of financial strategy for existing homeowners, is dangerously disconnected from the raw, emotional reality unfolding on social media. While news outlets focus on […]
Every stakeholder relationship is different, and managing them effectively takes more than a one-size-fits-all approach.
From campaign planning to long-term engagement, having the right tools and strategy in place can make the difference between missed connections and meaningful impact.
This guide covers:
Identifying and understanding your key stakeholders
Mapping and modelling for influence and engagement
Equipping your team to maintain and grow strategic relationships
Across the communications landscape, teams are being asked to do more with less, while staying aligned, responsive and compliant in the face of complex and often shifting stakeholder demands. In that environment, how we track, report and manage our relationships really matters.
In too many organisations, relationship management is still built around tools designed for customer sales. CRM systems, built for structured pipelines and linear user journeys, have long been the default for managing contact databases. They work well for sales and customer service functions. But for communications professionals managing journalists, political offices, internal leaders and external advocates, these tools often fall short.
Stakeholder relationships don’t follow a straight line. They change depending on context, shaped by policy shifts, public sentiment, media narratives or crisis response. A stakeholder may be supportive one week and critical the next. They often hold more than one role, and their influence doesn’t fit neatly into a funnel or metric.
Managing these relationships requires more than contact management. It requires context. The ability to see not just who you spoke to, but why, and what happened next. Communications teams need shared visibility across issues and departments. As reporting expectations grow, that information must be searchable, secure and aligned with wider organisational goals.
What’s often missing is infrastructure. Without the right systems, strategic relationship management becomes fragmented or reactive. Sometimes it becomes invisible altogether.
This is where Stakeholder Relationship Management (SRM) enters the conversation. Not as a new acronym, but as a different way of thinking about influence.
At Isentia, we’ve seen how a purpose-built SRM platform can help communications teams navigate complexity more confidently. Ours offers a secure, centralised space to log and track every interaction, whether it’s a media enquiry, a ministerial meeting, or a community update, and link it to your team’s broader communications activity.
The aim isn’t to automate relationships. It’s to make them easier to manage, measure and maintain. It’s about creating internal coordination before the external message goes out.
Because in today’s communications environment, stakeholder engagement is not just a support function. It is a strategic capability.
Across the communications landscape, teams are being asked to do more with less, while staying aligned, responsive and compliant in the face of complex and often shifting stakeholder demands. In that environment, how we track, report and manage our relationships really matters. In too many organisations, relationship management is still built around tools designed for […]
