How a new type of local journalism is engaging ANZ audiences
It’s become a truism to state that local journalism is in decline. But that story has been complicated by a new form of socially conscious ‘start-up’ publication cropping up across both ANZ and the wider world.
Consumers of local journalism are turning to independent sources, such as CityHub and Westender, that focus on community-driven stories, accountability, and underrepresented voices. This shift is compounded by the decline of traditional outlets, as highlighted in recent articles discussing the closure of regional papers due to rising costs, Meta’s withdrawal of funding, and shrinking government ad budgets. These pressures reinforce the need for meaningful engagement with local journalism, as audiences demand authenticity and transparency in coverage of issues like housing, civil rights, and activism. By examining these independent outlets, we gain insights into how independent journalism continues to shape public discourse and meet the expectations of news consumers today.
Over time, the ANZ media has itself been writing increasingly about local journalism. Some of this laments its decline; elsewhere, it’s cited in national stories as a story source. But over time, we also see some of that attention focusing on publications such as The Westender and Cityside.
The Westender’s content and engagement reveals that local journalism consumption in Brisbane is significantly influenced by timely and relevant political topics, and pressing community issues such as the housing crisis.
Engagement patterns suggest that timely advocacy and local relevance are key draws for the publication, highlighting a community eager for information that resonates with their values and interests.
Barnaby Joyce abstained when voting to bring Assange home. Bridget Archer was the only liberal to cross the floor
Over in Sydney, meanwhile, CityHub amplifies underrepresented voices and promotes accountability by covering issues such as military bases (“We Need to Talk About Pine Gap”), NSW’s anti-protest laws, and housing policies. It offers alternative perspectives that challenge mainstream narratives, fostering civic engagement and activism. With audiences engaging on platforms like X and Reddit, local outlets build credibility through community-driven stories and partnerships with organisations like Australians For War Powers Reform.
This pattern suggests that certain topics resonate more deeply with the audience than others. Stories that receive particular attention advocate for diversity and anti-racism, and frequently call out local councils for failing to act on commitments, such as anti-racism strategies. CityHub highlights the views of prominent local figures and groups, like Greens councillor Dylan Griffiths, who pushed for Inner West Council’s ceasefire call in Gaza, and the Arab Council for Australia, whose frustration led to the mass resignation of the Multicultural Advisory Committee. This type of reporting offers a platform for communities seeking to impact policy—something often underrepresented in mainstream media coverage unless it’s taking place on national scale.
.@tzedekcollectiv says that irresponsible media used the Bondi massacre to further antisemitism & Islamophobia, & circulation of both are expedient to the political goals of Zionism. Read more here: https://t.co/ie3KG46Cz7
I can understand how those who didn't know @AlboMP style of politics well could be bitterly disappointed. But those who've experienced his politics for decades less so. Read my taste of how his exstaffer Mayor Byrne runs #IWC which he controls https://t.co/7oLgJIZDR9
The active sharing of CityHub content on platforms like X and Reddit highlights community engagement around social issues.
CityHub’s audience is most likely to engage with political themes, followed by culture and crime, often focusing on issues that directly impact their lives, values, and beliefs.
Clearly, CityHub and publications like it are fulfilling a need that has been unfulfilled amongst the community – but what influential figures help disseminate these stories amongst willing audiences?
It’s no surprise that advocacy groups are actively sharing and disseminating calls to action. Content creators, particularly those writing for CityHub, effectively communicate the stories they cover, resulting in increased engagement for the local outlet. The reach and influence of these reporters often surpass that of CityHub itself. Additionally, credible community figures, such as university lecturers, further enhance the publication’s coverage.
CityHub and The Westender illustrate the critical role of independent local journalism in shaping public dialogue and accountability. This active participation reflects a community eager for accountability and willing to challenge local authorities on issues like systemic inequalities and inadequate policies. The preference for independent sources indicates growing scepticism towards mainstream media and a trust in alternative narratives that align with their beliefs.
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.
At our Taking Back Trust panel, speakers didn’t just agree that public confidence in media, institutions and messaging is shifting. They challenged long-held assumptions about how trust is earned in the first place.
Some framed the current moment as a genuine “trust crisis”. Others saw something more layered, a redefinition of who and what audiences choose to believe. As Monica Attard OAM pointed out, trust in journalism today is shaped by whether audiences feel respected. Not spun, not lied to, not taken for a ride. When news feels ideologically loaded or out of step with what people know to be true, trust quickly erodes.
The panel made it clear that trust isn’t built through repetition. It’s forged through clarity, transparency and context. Two pillars stood out: accessibility and personal relevance. Trust is no longer just about the messenger. It’s about whether the message feels honest, and whether it meets people where they are.
Transparency isn’t optional.
The rise of polarised news and fragmented information ecosystems hasn’t just affected the public. It has reshaped how media outlets themselves think about trust. As John McDuling of Capital Brief noted, earning trust today requires more than getting the story right. It demands openness about how the story was made.
That means being transparent about where information comes from, clearly attributing sources, and acknowledging mistakes. “Correcting errors is a strength, not a weakness,” he said. Vague or thinly sourced reporting, once more easily accepted, no longer cuts through. Trust is now built through precision, accountability, and the willingness to show your work.
The medium is shifting. So is the audience.
Much of the discussion circled back to how audiences are evolving. Younger generations aren’t just consuming news differently, they’re questioning the idea of shared truth altogether. There’s a growing scepticism toward objectivity as a fixed standard. Instead, content that reflects personal experiences and values tends to resonate more.
This shift is most visible on platforms like TikTok and Reddit, which panellists noted as primary news sources for many younger users. People now engage with information on their own terms, often picking up snippets in their feed before diving deeper through Google searches or podcasts. According to Dr Lisa Portolan, this more autonomous style of consumption is changing how trust is formed, and how communication needs to adapt.
She highlighted a broader transformation in the nature of trust itself. For most of human history, trust was built locally. Institutional trust, in government, media, or politics, only became dominant in the last few centuries. Now, technology is redistributing that trust again. People are more likely to believe a peer or content creator than a traditional source. That shift, Portolan said, represents both a degradation of institutional trust and a redefinition of what trust looks like in a decentralised environment.
From a communications perspective, it also means navigating synthetic and AI-driven research with care. When organisations don’t fully understand their audiences, there’s a risk of being misled by artificial signals. The solution, as the panel noted, lies in truly knowing your audience, not just where they are, but how they decide who and what to trust.
AI is already changing the game
If there was one issue that united the panel, it was the urgency around artificial intelligence.
The conversation went beyond newsroom tools or job losses. The focus was trust. Panellists raised concerns about bias in training data, a lack of transparency from AI providers, and the risk of narrowing information loops shaped by commercial deals.
Monica Attard spoke about the dangers of closed systems, where the same sources are surfaced repeatedly, and the need to keep human values at the centre. Relying on technology alone, she said, won’t solve trust issues.
The panel returned to attribution as a key differentiator. As John McDuling noted, one way to stand apart from AI-generated content is to clearly link to original sources, especially those outside commercial LLM training sets. He wasn’t convinced AI would help build trust, at least not yet. These tools always give an answer, even when it’s wrong.
He compared the emerging response to an organic food movement. “You can trust this was generated by humans.” In a more artificial information environment, that may become the most important signal of all.
What’s next
There’s no silver bullet. But across the board, the panel pointed to consistency, transparency, and nuance as essential tools, even when messages are uncomfortable or contested.
Sometimes trust isn’t about getting everything right. It’s about showing up, being clear about your limits, and staying open to scrutiny.
Ngaire Crawford challenged common assumptions about media literacy, pointing out that the problem isn’t confined to young people. In fact, older audiences are often more vulnerable to misinformation because they struggle to navigate the digital information environments around them. The challenge, she said, is not just media literacy, but informational literacy, knowing how to critically assess and access trustworthy content.
From a communications perspective, that calls for vigilance. People want to feel in control of the information they consume. They want to research for themselves, but often can’t find what they need. That gap creates space for misinformation to thrive, and it raises new questions about how information will be surfaced by AI.
The answer? Over-communicate. Provide written sources, supporting detail, and longer-form content where possible. It’s not just about the message or the sound bite. It’s about making sure people have access to the information they need to come to their own conclusions.
The fragile currency of trust: what the panel unpacked
At our Taking Back Trust panel, speakers didn’t just agree that public confidence in media, institutions and messaging is shifting. They challenged long-held assumptions about how trust is earned in the first place. Some framed the current moment as a genuine “trust crisis”. Others saw something more layered, a redefinition of who and what audiences […]
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 […]
This was not an election won or lost on policy alone. While political parties released detailed plans around cost-of-living relief, energy, healthcare and education, the battle for attention played out across a different terrain. One shaped by identity, digital influencers and polarised media narratives.
1. Policy set the agenda, but didn’t hold it
At the start of the campaign, traditional media focused on familiar priorities. The Labor government’s May budget led with cost-of-living relief, fuel excise changes and increased rental support. The Liberals responded with proposals for nuclear energy and a plan to cut 40,000 public service jobs. While these issues framed the early weeks, they were quickly overtaken in online discussions by stories with more cultural weight.
On social media, a video comparing Peter Dutton to Donald Trump circulated widely, while Anthony Albanese’s “delulu with no solulu” moment during a Happy Hour podcast interview was picked up by national outlets and widely shared on social platforms. Personality often generated more interest than policy.
2. Messaging strategy went beyond the platforms
Both major parties tried to engage younger voters where they spend their time. Albanese’s appearance on podcasts and his interviews with influencers like Abbie Chatfield reflected a values-driven approach. Dutton’s appearance on Sam Fricker’s podcast targeted young men through a more casual, conversational format.
Mainstream media covered these appearances but often through the lens of political tactics rather than substance. When Abbie Chatfield’s pro-Greens posts attracted AEC scrutiny in early April, the story became more about influencer regulation than her political message.
3. Polarisation dominated public debate
The second leaders’ debate on 10 April marked a turning point, with stark contrasts on energy, education and immigration. Dutton's focus on crime and border control drew backlash, while Albanese was seen as calm but cautious. Instead of clarifying party differences, the debate intensified existing divides.
Online commentary quickly split along ideological lines. Audiences did not just debate the leaders’ points but used the debate to reinforce partisan views, highlighting how polarised public discourse has become.
4. Influencers reshaped election storytelling
Influencers became central to election storytelling. Abbie Chatfield faced strong support and criticism after posting about the Greens and questioning the Liberal Party’s media strategy. The Juice Media released satirical videos targeting defence and energy policies, resonating with disillusioned younger audiences.
Even incidents unrelated to official campaigns became flashpoints. In February, a video from an Israeli influencer alleging antisemitic comments by NSW nurses went viral, triggering political statements and shifting media attention to broader issues of hate speech and accountability online.
5. Culture wars outpaced policy in the final stretch
As the election neared, cultural tensions gained traction. On 12 April, media attention turned to Peter Dutton after reports emerged that his Labor opponent Ali France was leading in Dickson. Around the same time local authorities dismantled a tent encampment in the area while Dutton was campaigning in Perth. This raised questions about leadership and visibility on local issues.
Across social and news media, themes like Gaza, curriculum debates and identity politics took centre stage. Slogans such as “Get Australia back on track” were interpreted as echoes of US political rhetoric. Jacinta Price and Clive Palmer were both linked to similar messaging, fuelling memes and commentary about the Americanisation of Australian politics.
Rather than rallying around shared policy concerns, audiences engaged with content that reflected deeper anxieties about national identity and international influence.
What stood out the most wasn’t necessarily the policy itself, but the moments, memes, and messages that tapped into cultural tensions. The freedom for media and social media users to connect with and amplify these narratives created an arena where some politicians struggled to engage effectively. While some stuck to party lines without fully understanding the patterns driving media and social discourse, others embraced the shift, adapting to the rhetoric that was emerging online. The lesson is clear: in today’s media environment, ignoring what people are saying or the patterns of conversation isn’t an option.
Media and social highlights from the election campaign 2025
This was not an election won or lost on policy alone. While political parties released detailed plans around cost-of-living relief, energy, healthcare and education, the battle for attention played out across a different terrain. One shaped by identity, digital influencers and polarised media narratives. 1. Policy set the agenda, but didn’t hold it At the […]
