Blog post
April 9, 2025

How labor and the liberal party are campaigning and communicating differently 

In a world where social media amplifies every move, both parties face intense scrutiny. From policy pledges to personal attacks, how these leaders communicate shapes how Australians perceive them. But how is media coverage, and in turn, social reaction, driving the conversation with voters? Dive into the data that shows how social conversations reveal a stark disconnect between the political narratives and voters’ concerns.

Social and news discussions have converged since the election was called on March 28th, with both major parties ramping up their campaign strategies. However, Isentia’s tracking since January shows that media coverage and social discussion have been substantially focused on the Labor Party, where media and social volumes have been consistently elevated. 

The past two weeks have also seen sharply contrasting approaches to communications between the two parties. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pledged $150 million for the Flinders University healthcare hub on March 31, with the Coalition quickly matching the offer. While some praised the investment, others questioned the Liberals’ motives—reflecting a growing desire among voters for original policy ideas, as both parties compete for support on healthcare.

In the following days, social media discussions centred on two main issues for the Liberal Party: the controversy over a volunteer removing opposition posters, which sparked accusations of unfair tactics, and a candidate’s comments against women in combat roles, which drew further criticism against the party.  

Social chatter then shifted to the AEC’s dismissal of complaints about Abbie Chatfield’s interviews with Anthony Albanese and Greens leader Adam Bandt, finding no evidence of political bias. Despite significant announcements leading into the weekend, social discussion focused on the ABC’s coverage of Peter Dutton inadvertently injuring a camera operator, in comparison to covering Anthony Albanese’s fall off a stage. Social media claimed the coverage focused on Dutton’s accident was a double standard in the ABC’s reporting on Labor. 

The last fortnight has shown Labor adopting a policy-focused narrative, presenting itself as the party of economic responsibility and social equity. Labor is focused on offering modest tax relief and emphasising long-term reforms to Medicare and the health system. In contrast, the Liberal Party seems to be trying aggressive, headline-grabbing tactics, focusing on cultural issues and personal attacks to generate momentum.

Media and social coverage over the past month show that both Dutton and Albanese have focused their communications on positioning themselves against each other. Albanese frequently criticises Dutton’s policies as “lazy,” calling the former work-from-home policy “borrowed from the Trump administration” and accusing him of stoking division with his “shambolic” ideas. 

In contrast, Dutton targets Albanese’s economic management, labelling him “weak and incompetent” for his handling of U.S. tariffs and national debt while criticising Labor’s energy policies and spending. Dutton has accused Labor of running “scare campaigns,” and Albanese seems to counter this by calling Dutton and the Liberals dishonest, even accusing them  of trying to “rewrite history.” Peter Dutton’s proposal to leverage Australia’s defence alliance with the US, akin to NATO-style cooperation in trade negotiations over Trump’s tariffs, also sparked controversy. Labor labelled it “reckless”, warning it could jeopardise national security.

While Labor looks to be trying a more measured tone, they’ve still faced backlash from the public, with voters dismissing the government’s $5-a-week tax cut as symbolic rather than substantial. Post the Federal Budget, Albanese’s media appearances were also criticised across social channels as lacking empathy and authenticity. 

Albanese’s terse response to a journalist’s question was widely shared as an example of poor media engagement and the growing perception that Labor may be on the defensive. External narratives such as claims about foreign influence and immigration-based voter strategy complicate the party’s messaging, creating doubt over integrity and intent.

When we look at the social posts from the parties over the past week, the Liberals’ top-performing posts feature personal stories, like Dutton’s son becoming a tradesman, highlighting values that resonate with construction and small business audiences. Posts that focus on cost-of-living frustrations under Labor also drive strong engagement.

By contrast, Labor’s content had the greatest engagement when commenting on the party’s leadership on global issues. Albanese’s post on the government’s steady response to Trump’s tariffs had high engagement, with many rejecting Trump-style politics and supporting Albanese’s stance. Labor also looks to be gaining traction online after the Liberal Party backtracked on scrapping the public service’s work-from-home policy, with Labor framing themselves as defending flexible work.

As Dutton and Albanese outline their campaign points on social media, audiences are reacting strongly. Dutton’s focus on trade skills and home-ownership, aimed at younger Australians, resonates with some, but is met with widespread frustration and cynicism from others. 

Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie was featured in news coverage and shared on feeds after she hinted on ABC’s 7.30 that there would be federal education department budget cuts under a coalition-led government—again, a policy adopted in the US. Meanwhile, reactions to Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor’s comments on inflation and wage rises were broadly disparaging, with social media users ridiculing his data and questioning his competence. 

Healthcare is a key focus for Labor, especially mental health support and health infrastructure. Social media users, particularly Gen Z and millennials, are demanding free mental health services, yet skepticism about government promises remains widespread. 

After examining how the parties are positioning their campaign pledges and analysing how political leaders are framing each other, it’s clear no amount of rhetoric or spin will reduce the levels of skepticism from audiences, especially among young voters.

Data from the Pulsar platform shows that audiences from Australian Instagram and Facebook  are reflecting trends seen amongst American voters in 2024. Interestingly, younger people aged 25-44 seem to be leaning more towards right-wing politics in the content across these platforms. 

Reaction to top-performing election content online reveals a potentially bleak outlook for the major parties and growing disillusionment. With security, sustainability, energy, and local politics being key concerns for online audiences, will the parties look to address these core concerns in the next three weeks?

On education, Dutton’s stance to remove “woke” ideologies from schools has divided social media. Supporters back his position, while others criticise it as politically charged and divisive, raising concerns about political interference in education. Dutton’s proposal to cap international student numbers to ease the housing crisis has also drawn criticism. Pundits have pointed out that international students only account for 4% of rental demand, calling the policy a distraction from real solutions. At the same time, Coalition spokesperson for migrant services Jason Wood faced criticism over his financial ties to a migration agency that helps overturn visa refusals, prompting accusations of a conflict of interest amid the immigration debate. 

Meanwhile, social media reactions to the government’s handling of inflation highlight significant frustration, particularly with the RBA’s interest rate decisions. Social media commentary accused Albanese of misleading the public by linking government spending to rate hikes. However, many expressed disbelief over claims that government actions were directly tied to inflation, dismissing them as “lies” or “political spin.”

While the Labor and the Liberal campaigns sharpen their communication strategies to sway voters, social media responses suggest a mixed reception. Labor’s policy-driven approach often comes across as cautious, while the Liberals’ more combative tactics spark division. Despite their efforts, neither party has fully managed to align their messaging with voter expectations, leaving room for continued debate and shifting sentiments.

Discover more of our political news services

Share

Similar articles

object(WP_Post)#8470 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(40427) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "36" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2025-06-25 23:15:57" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-06-25 23:15:57" ["post_content"]=> string(2105) "

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

Get your copy now

" ["post_title"]=> string(40) "The fundamentals of stakeholder strategy" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(128) "A practical guide to tailored stakeholder management, offering strategies and tools to identify, map, and nurture relationships." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(40) "the-fundamentals-of-stakeholder-strategy" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-06-25 23:17:05" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-06-25 23:17:05" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=40427" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
The fundamentals of stakeholder strategy

A practical guide to tailored stakeholder management, offering strategies and tools to identify, map, and nurture relationships.

object(WP_Post)#8465 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(40542) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "36" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2025-06-23 00:53:25" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-06-23 00:53:25" ["post_content"]=> string(9542) "

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.

Missed the panel?

Watch Taking back trust on demand. 

" ["post_title"]=> string(54) "The fragile currency of trust: what the panel unpacked" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(53) "the-fragile-currency-of-trust-what-the-panel-unpacked" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-06-23 00:53:30" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-06-23 00:53:30" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=40542" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
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 […]

object(WP_Post)#8245 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(40160) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "36" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2025-05-26 02:54:37" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-26 02:54:37" ["post_content"]=> string(3706) "

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.

Interested in how other teams are managing their stakeholder relationships? Get in touch at nbt@isentia.com or submit an enquiry.

" ["post_title"]=> string(52) "SRM vs CRM: which is right for PR & Comms teams?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(44) "srm-vs-crm-which-is-right-for-pr-comms-teams" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-06-02 02:39:21" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-06-02 02:39:21" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=40160" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
SRM vs CRM: which is right for PR & Comms teams?

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 […]

object(WP_Post)#10832 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(39776) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "36" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 01:03:57" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 01:03:57" ["post_content"]=> string(8358) "

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.

" ["post_title"]=> string(59) "Media and social highlights from the election campaign 2025" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(58) "media-and-social-highlight-from-the-election-campaign-2025" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 15:58:16" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 15:58:16" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=39776" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
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 […]

Ready to get started?

Get in touch or request a demo.