Australia’s energy problem: Fossil fuels power lingering debate
As public awareness of renewable energy grows, debates around fossil fuels—particularly coal and gas—remain strong, given their role in essential household functions like cooking and heating. On social media, audiences are sharing money saving tips to reduce electricity bills, while news reports on Australia’s slow progress in reducing emissions invoke strong political reactions across the political spectrum. By showing how media narratives shape public perceptions and the impact of policy, we can unearth key insights in how information and messaging spreads—insights that can assist in planning communication strategies, understanding sector-specific dynamics, and anticipating public reactions to energy-related issues.
Political agendas are clearly steering much of Australia’s energy debate. Climate change dominates the environmental narrative when fossil fuels are discussed. While political and societal themes are fairly balanced in news coverage, the latter edges ahead as both the energy transition and inflation account for a greater share of space within news feeds.
Media stories on industrial fossil fuel and gas usage bring to light the delicate balance between reducing emissions and meeting energy demands. These reports often reveal the frustration in the industrial and manufacturing sectors, with representatives arguing for policies like the Future Gas Strategy to expedite new gas project approvals. A prevailing narrative suggests that gas providers are leveraging their market power, leading to strained relationships between the government and energy companies over the allocation of gas for domestic use versus export, particularly to countries like Japan. Western Australia’s domestic gas policy is often cited as a successful example of securing supply and avoiding shortages through export control.
Meanwhile, in a more everyday capacity, Australians are cutting energy costs by using gas heaters less and switching from gas cooktops to induction stoves, yet many still rely on gas for heating and cooking. The growing frustration over rising bills and energy provider guesstimations has sparked debate: Do lower costs outweigh the push for cleaner energy?
Many on social media criticise government policies, citing increasing energy prices, inadequate subsidies, and scepticism over whether renewables will truly reduce costs. Personal stories of exorbitant bills and poor customer service reflect a broader dissatisfaction with both energy providers and government efforts.
Radio and online news spotlight key organisations in the fossil fuel energy sector. AEMO is frequently in the media for managing the energy systems, forecasting gas shortages, and facing criticism over the feasibility of its recommendations. CSIRO often appears for its expertise, particularly reports like the GenCost report. Origin gains notable radio attention for its domestic power profits, while online news focuses on the government’s reliance on gas and energy companies’ investments in lowering emissions, such as Woodside’s low-carbon ammonia project and its widely covered 70th-anniversary campaign on ABC’s Media Watch airing on TV followed by online publication.
The varying approaches across media platforms highlight how differently energy issues are framed. Television dominates fossil fuel reporting, especially during key moments like Peter Dutton’s proposal to reveal nuclear power costs. TV and radio capitalise on prominent figures, such as David Littleproud on Insiders, where he pushes for Australian energy production while opposing taxpayer-funded subsidies. ABC RN Breakfast featured Bill Hare from Climate Analytics, discussing how fossil fuel exports jeopardise Paris climate goals. Meanwhile, online news offers broader coverage, tackling everything from gas projects’ environmental impact to gas use in MasterChef, giving niche brands and stakeholders a platform without competing as heavily with political headlines.
Peter Dutton draws attention to his support of nuclear power and coal, alongside his stance on the Paris Climate Agreement. Somewhat surprising media coverage even focused on his choice of Rossi Boots, a Gina Rinehart-owned brand. Ted O’Brien , meanwhile, warns Australia may miss its Paris targets, while Madeleine King defends gas as essential in the transition to renewables. Chris Bowen garners frequent coverage for his renewable energy rollouts, as the opposition accuses him of undermining gas supplies.
Prominent figures like Andrew Forrest, and former Liberal Treasurer, current Climate Change Authority Chair Matt Kean add to the debate on nuclear energy’s role, reflecting the current debate across media in which fossil fuels are framed as either a critical bridge or else a roadblock to clean energy. This media polarisation underscores a broader tension: public concerns over energy costs versus environmental commitments. Expert voices, however, remain scarce, leaving room for political and corporate interests to shape the narrative. With news media portraying different facets of Australia’s energy transition, the focus shifts between economic security, environmental responsibility, and the future of stakeholder relationships in shaping the country’s energy policies.
With differing approaches across media platforms, the conversation around Australia’s energy future remains highly charged, highlighting the need for balanced communication strategies and clearer public engagement.
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.
The biggest influence on public perception of the 2025 election campaign was not policy. It was identity, culture wars, and a growing fear of Australia 'becoming America'. What began as a focus on easing the cost of living quickly widened into a broader debate about national identity. Media coverage and social media feeds revealed a tug of war. On one side was policy messaging. On the other, gaining considerable ground, were culture and identity narratives fuelled by anxiety over external influence.
At the start of the election cycle in early March, news coverage centred on cost of living pressures and tax cuts. The Labor government's budget announcement and the Liberal Party’s response cemented the agenda, with topics like supermarket price gouging, fuel excises, and nuclear energy proposals striking a chord with voters. Early discussion on social media showed a clear focus on making life more affordable for families. But in the background, frustration around Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs and concerns about Australia–U.S. relations began to surface. Peter Dutton’s early promise to cut 40,000 public service jobs and push for a return to office work further fuelled comparisons between Dutton and Trump among Australian audiences.
As the election cycle progressed, international events and conflicts moved to the forefront. Trump’s presence in global headlines alongside Canada's similarly timed election, intensified comparisons between Australian and Canadian public attitudes toward American influence. Media narratives shifted from domestic cost-of-living concerns to broader conversations about defending the Australian way of life and protecting national interests particularly in education, reshaping the battleground on which voters made their decisions.
On March 28, coverage and discussion spiked as Anthony Albanese officially announced the election date. Earlier, on March 10, a surge in conversation centred on new polling that suggested a potential hung parliament, sharpening media focus on Labor. Albanese’s appearance on Today, where he responded to frustrations about delayed campaigning with, “We’re just about helping people, because that’s what people expect,” reinforced his image as a community-focused leader and contrasted with how past prime ministers were criticised during disasters. Meanwhile, Peter Dutton’s social media attention rose on April 12, as reports surfaced of his opponent Ali France leading in Dickson while a local tent encampment was demolished by Moreton Bay Council. Dutton, campaigning in Perth during the demolition, attracted criticism. A few days later, a compilation of clips linking Dutton to Donald Trump circulated widely. These moments highlighted the distinct leadership styles that shaped voter perceptions throughout the campaign.
Although Labor drew the most attention overall, Dutton and the Liberals gained momentum across social media. The Liberal Party’s early use of trends, AI tools, and memes attracted conversation, but the involvement of influencers and podcasts proved polarising. Coverage also highlighted a generational divide, with young women leaning left and young men leaning right. Influencers played a key role in shaping these dynamics, from Albanese’s Happy Hour podcast appearance on March 26, where his “delulu with no solulu” challenge dominated news cycles, to Dutton’s interview on Sam Fricker’s podcast aimed at young male voters. As the campaign progressed, news increasingly focused on character attacks and gaffes at the expense of policy debate. Issues like housing, supermarket competition, HECS relief, and energy bills remained core to party platforms, but many audiences were drawn into yarns covering personality clashes and culture wars.
The most shared news items from the beginning of the campaign to recently underline this shift of attention to cultural conflict. Posts about the mobilisation of Muslim voters around Gaza, criticism of Liberal candidates campaigning in military uniforms, warnings about public service job cuts, and debates over the political leanings of young male voters all reveal how specific cultural flashpoints and niche group appeals dominated discussion. Instead of broad policy debates, election discourse was fragmented into controversies that inflamed identity-driven tensions, polarised audiences, and heightened distrust.
Whether leaders spoke about getting Australia back on track, building a better Australia, or even making Australia great again, these slogans signalled clear messages to voters. More often than not, the public expressed a desire to distance Australia from the United States, particularly in defending healthcare and education systems that set Australia apart. Early in the campaign, when a journalist suggested Anthony Albanese’s use of "build back better" echoed Joe Biden’s slogan, the comment was quickly dismissed. Though not officially endorsed, the slogan’s use by Jacinta Price and Clive Palmerquickly eclipsed party lines, fuelling memes and comparisons to US Republicans across social media. This did little to help the Liberals distance their official slogan, 'Get Australia back on track,' from US political parallels. As Trump’s influence became a talking point, glimpses of Trump-style messaging were eagerly picked up by news outlets and social media alike, often overshadowing Labor’s campaign messaging and limiting its cut-through.
As the campaign unfolded, it became harder to separate policy from personality or promises from the cultural narratives surrounding them. Media and social media attention did more than reflect public interest. They helped shape it, steering the election conversation toward identity, values, and questions about Australia's place in a changing world. Whether that influence outweighed policy in swaying voters is still up for debate, but it clearly changed how the campaign was seen, shared, and remembered.
Did culture wars cut through more than policy on the election trail?
The biggest influence on public perception of the 2025 election campaign was not policy. It was identity, culture wars, and a growing fear of Australia ‘becoming America’. What began as a focus on easing the cost of living quickly widened into a broader debate about national identity. Media coverage and social media feeds revealed a […]
With social media platforms becoming central to political engagement, figures like Abbie Chatfield, Friendlyjordies, and The Juice Media are amplifying progressive causes and challenging traditional political narratives. But how significant is their impact? Are they genuinely influencing the election conversation, or is their influence more about their ability to capture attention and drive engagement? This evolving trend raises important questions about the role of influencers in modern elections and how they are reshaping the way political messages are communicated to younger, digital-savvy voters.
As the 2025 Australian federal election nears, influencer involvement has gained attention, with social media leading the charge while news coverage initially lagged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton are tapping influencers to connect with younger voters—Albanese engages with Abbie Chatfield’s audience through values-driven storytelling, while Dutton targets young men with Sam Fricker's relatable podcasts. This reflects a broader shift from traditional media to platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Journalists are increasingly covering these influencer-driven moments, often focusing on the viral spread and political fallout. For instance, a viral February 13 video from an Israeli influencer accusing two NSW nurses of hateful comments dominated Australia’s news cycle, prompting swift political reactions. Coverage generally focuses on political responses, not the influencers themselves. This trend was also seen with Greens Leader Adam Bandt’s DJ event in Melbourne, where media noted his attempt to engage younger voters. The Australian Electoral Commission cleared Chatfield’s posts featuring Albanese and Bandt, highlighting the growing regulation of influencer political content. This focus towards viral moments over policy discussions raises questions about the impact on undecided voters and the evolving role of journalists in political engagement.
Influencers like Abbie Chatfield, The Juice Media, and Friendlyjordies are becoming central to the election rhetoric ahead of the 2025 Australian federal election. Chatfield, who faced scrutiny from the AEC, used her platform to rally support for the Greens, positioning herself against what she described as a Liberal media strategy to discredit influencers. Her posts, particularly defending her political involvement, have garnered strong support, with hashtags like #abbieisinnocent and #freeabbie dominating her comment sections. In contrast, some critics dismiss her political role, questioning her credibility. The Juice Media, known for its sarcastic takes on government policy, continues to challenge political narratives with irreverent content, resonating with younger, disillusioned voters. However, their approach also faces backlash from those who see it as too cynical or divisive. Similarly, Friendlyjordies critiques both major parties, particularly Labor’s stance on progressive issues, while encouraging followers to unite against corporate greed. His platform sparks heated debates, igniting both support and criticism.
Overall, these influencers are becoming polarising figures, amplifying political engagement while intensifying the ideological divide on social media, ultimately shaping the growing influence of social media figures in the election discourse.
Chatfield, a vocal supporter of progressive causes like Palestinian liberation and women's rights, has gained a strong following but faces criticism for oversimplifying political issues and for her perceived naivety, especially regarding preferential voting. Ferguson, who critiques colonialism and supports Palestinian liberation, is praised by supporters but criticised for lacking depth in her activism, with some accusing her of ignoring intersectionality. Friendlyjordies, known for satirical commentary, is admired for calling out political corruption, but his critics accuse him of bias towards Labor and oversimplifying complex issues. The Juice Media, using sarcasm to critique government policies, resonates with disillusioned young voters but alienates others who find their approach too cynical. These influencers contribute to a growing divide in Australian politics, mobilising progressive movements while deepening ideological rifts, as their content both challenges traditional politics and fuels polarisation.
Key issues like defence, the cost of living, and education are dominating political discourse and social media conversations. Global events, including Trump’s influence on international relations and trade, have sparked strong reactions, with Albanese facing backlash over Australia’s stance on Gaza and its defence ties with Israel. Meanwhile, Dutton’s comments on Ambassador Kevin Rudd and allegations of election interference have stirred tensions. On social media, debates over defence—highlighted by Indonesia’s denial of Russia’s military presence near Darwin—and cost of living concerns are intensifying. Education remains a key point of contrast, with Albanese’s Free TAFE policy gaining support while Dutton faces criticism for prioritising fossil fuel subsidies. Influencers are driving much of this engagement, but their role in amplifying already polarised narratives raises questions about whether they are truly reflecting voters’ concerns or deepening divides as the election approaches.
These conversations play out against a landscape in which social and news media have different - but overlapping - priorities. They’re driving debates on everything from education and nuclear energy to Trump-style politics and renewable energy. With the 2025 federal election on the horizon, stories sparked by creators — whether through critique, leaks, or commentary — are becoming part of the political media mix. It’s a shift that’s unfolding in real time, and one that’s reshaping how narratives break, spread, and gain momentum. But as these voices grow louder, one thing is clear: Are they truly amplifying the concerns of everyday Australians, or are they pushing further divides in a landscape already ripe with fragmentation?
The rise of influencers in the 2025 Australian federal election landscape
With social media platforms becoming central to political engagement, figures like Abbie Chatfield, Friendlyjordies, and The Juice Media are amplifying progressive causes and challenging traditional political narratives. But how significant is their impact? Are they genuinely influencing the election conversation, or is their influence more about their ability to capture attention and drive engagement? This […]
In Singapore, the rise of podcasting has shifted from entertainment and lifestyle into a new arena – public discourse and politics. As the 2025 General Election draws near, podcasters are making waves across online news and social media. To kick things off, we used Narrative AI, the first search engine for public opinion, to identify how large the global narrative on podcasts and their influence on audiences is in the last 6 months, using data from X.
We subsequently narrowed the focus of this global trend to Singapore and analysed on Pulsar TRAC more than 7k mentions across platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, TikTok, podcasts, Online News, blogs and forums to understand where the discourse is coming from, which channels are capturing the podcasters’ content and how audiences are responding to this content.
Mentions of podcasts in news and social media are growing
Social media is where the larger chunk of podcast conversation is taking place, specifically those episodes that feature a political figure, journalist or those that include healthcare-related discussions. The audiences that engage with these videos, majority being on YouTube, search for political credibility that resonates with them. Young Singaporeans watching these podcasts expect to see leaders who don’t just uphold the image of being a politician, but also someone who is grounded and trustworthy.
Youth and politicians' lives dominate podcast narratives
The audiences that consume these podcasts the most are young Singaporeans looking to participate in the conversation as much as they can. These audiences are being more proactive than ever.
With younger voters consuming media differently, these appearances are efforts by political candidates to connect with the public. Lawrence Wong, Josephine Teo, Indranee Rajah, and Desmond Tan, have used podcasts to communicate directly with the public – sidestepping traditional media filters.
Top podcasters on election-related content
When we focus on who the most mentioned podcasters around election content are, the Straits Times’ podcasts, the Daily Ketchup and Yah Lah BUT emerge on top. These podcasts have figured that the most discourse happens around content that’s either educational or controversial around elections. The public is actively responding to political content shared via podcasts, particularly those by The Straits Times and independent shows like Yah Lah BUT.
Satire and irony are key strategies to make politics palatable, especially for younger, digital-native audiences. The Daily Ketchup and Yah Lah BUT are blending serious topics like the GE2025, party agendas, healthcare, and opposition voices with humour that make them almost meme-worthy. Posts such as “PAP really said: ‘Trust me, bro’” TikTok clips show that these are genuinely made for content to go viral while retaining serious undertones too.
What’s interesting to note is that The Common Folks, with content in Malay and Indonesian, is tapping into a cross-border Southeast Asian audience and has some of the highest engagement on its content. Local slang, cultural jokes, and casual festive content like Raya greetings and songkok jokes have generated thousands of views, at times outperforming English-language political pods. This suggests a large, under-acknowledged appetite for vernacular podcast content that has a blend of humour and relatability.
Podcasts are no longer just background noise – they’re becoming one of the most relevant ways Singaporeans engage with politics. With high engagement on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, a wide spread of topics from youth issues to party politics, and growing presence in both mainstream and social media, podcasters are carving out a key role in shaping the GE 2025 conversation.
What is making podcasts stand out ahead of the Singapore GE2025?
In Singapore, the rise of podcasting has shifted from entertainment and lifestyle into a new arena – public discourse and politics. As the 2025 General Election draws near, podcasters are making waves across online news and social media. To kick things off, we used Narrative AI, the first search engine for public opinion, to identify […]
As the federal election campaign reaches its midpoint, patterns in media coverage and public attention are beginning to shift. Early social engagement was driven by cost-of-living pressures, energy policy, and political point-scoring, but has waned following the first leaders debate, despite this forum providing leaders the opportunity to set the agenda and strategies of the major parties. So how has coverage focus evolved since the first debate and are audiences still engaging with the campaign or switching off?
Social media engagement ahead of the federal election has been sharp and personal. It focused less on policy and more on identity and representation. From debates on topics such as immigration to housing stress and culture, social media has driven a values-first narrative. But while early attention was strong, both media coverage and social engagement have started to wane in the weeks since the campaign launched. The first leaders debate briefly reignited attention—trust, identity, and media—but coverage patterns suggest a shift away from daily blow-by-blow reporting towards broader social and cultural tensions.
As the federal election campaign nears its halfway mark, last week’s media highlights show a contest still struggling to cut through. Key moments included the first leader’s debate, the Treasurers Debate, the energy showdown at the National Press Club, and Senator Jacinta Price’s Perth appearance with Peter Dutton, which drew attention for its MAGA-style rhetoric. The first leaders debate was billed as a chance to reset the race—but for many viewers, it reinforced existing divides. Media attention around the debate momentarily lifted visibility for all major parties—but the spike was short-lived. The only party that has seen continued increases in social media engagement is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party’s sustained rise in social media engagement may be linked to its digital-first strategy, including an AI-generated campaign ad spruiking a fuel excise cut and a meme-style diss track targeting Anthony Albanese—tactics designed to capture online attention and drive shareability.
The Liberals also pitched a $1200 tax cut, Labor attacked their WFH backflip, and the Greens pushed housing and tax reform. Meanwhile, Dutton warned of a Labor-Greens-Teal alliance. Coverage suggests public engagement is driven more by polarising moments and political theatre than detailed policy.
When the election campaign officially kicked off, cost-of-living pressures dominated the news agenda. Fresh off the back of the federal budget, it’s no surprise that affordable healthcare, lower gas and energy prices, and tax cuts were the key messages party leaders wanted to land with voters. But coverage quickly pivoted. In the past week, foreign diplomacy—particularly how each leader would manage Donald Trump—has surged in prominence. While Trump’s role in tariff threats has made headlines, his influence on the broader election narrative goes beyond trade. Media reporting has increasingly centred on Albanese and Dutton’s capacity to navigate a potential Trump presidency, with ideological alignment, national security, and economic fallout all in play. The first leaders’ debate was expected to refocus the campaign on domestic issues. However, it briefly touched on international concerns, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese addressing the potential economic impact of Trump's proposed tariffs. Albanese described these tariffs as an "act of economic self-harm" that would dampen global growth, highlighting the intertwining of foreign policy with domestic economic concerns. This suggests that sustained attention is more likely when domestic issues are reframed through the lens of foreign diplomacy, and national identity.
In the social media landscape, Trump was a flashpoint in election-related conversation. His influence—real or perceived—was quickly linked to the Liberal Party, with MAGA-style rhetoric and Trumpian policy cues gaining traction online. These narratives tend to escalate on platforms where ideological alignment and cultural grievance amplify engagement. But it wasn’t all imported culture wars—the federal budget, and the Liberal Party’s fuel excise rebuttal, also drove significant social chatter. In recent weeks, comparisons between major party messaging and Trump-era policy—from international student caps and nuclear energy to debates about school curricula—have continued to dominate discussion.
The first leaders’ debate briefly touched on foreign policy, with Albanese warning Trump’s tariffs could hurt global growth, while Dutton framed it as a test of strong leadership. Domestically, Dutton’s renewed push for nuclear power reignited social media debate—drawing comparisons to Trump-era policies and fuelling discussion about Australia’s energy future. At the same time on social media, promises like HECS cuts, free TAFE, and more funding for public schools sparked genuine engagement, especially among younger voters and education workers, showing that practical, future-focused policies can still cut through. Compared to the start of the campaign, where cost-of-living dominated as a top-line concern, the conversation has expanded: audiences are now weighing both hip-pocket issues and the national values shaping Australia’s future.
While the debate itself tended to be overshadowed by frustrations about access and media control, a few political undercurrents still surfaced. Anthony Albanese drew some positive mentions, but reactions were far from policy-focused. The Liberal Party’s early claim of victory became a point of humour, with several users likening it to Trump-style misinformation tactics. Disillusionment with the major parties ran deep, with repeated calls to “break the donor-fuelled duopoly” and shift support toward independents or smaller parties. Still, these reactions seem more like a symptom of broader voter cynicism than a sign of energised political engagement, reflecting broader themes around the declining trust.
The leaders' debate didn’t reset the race—it refracted it, spotlighting how media coverage is now shaped less by policy detail and more by polarising symbols and cultural cues. As election day nears, the contest for attention is revealing just as much about media strategy and voter fatigue as it is about party platforms.
Did the leaders debate reignite voter interest or just stoke the culture wars?
As the federal election campaign reaches its midpoint, patterns in media coverage and public attention are beginning to shift. Early social engagement was driven by cost-of-living pressures, energy policy, and political point-scoring, but has waned following the first leaders debate, despite this forum providing leaders the opportunity to set the agenda and strategies of the […]
