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 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.
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.
What’s the Albanese government’s real game plan for its second term, and how will it play out in the media? Isentia recently brought together three of Australia's top political journalists to pull back the curtain: Peter Gearin, Editor in Chief atThe Mandarin, Jason Koutsoukis from The Saturday Paper, and acclaimed broadcaster Virginia Haussegger AM, for a panel with our partners CPRA at the Government Communications Forum, held at the National Press Club
For communications pros, the conversation was packed with clues about what to expect next from Canberra.
A smart strategy or a wasted opportunity?
The panel honed in on the government’s positioning since its “monumental election victory” an “oddly quiet return to political normality.” It’s a question every political operator is asking: is this a calculated, smart and stable approach, or is the government squandering a chance to be “bold and progressive”?
Peter Gearin suggested the caution is deliberate and here to stay. His take? The government learned a huge lesson from the Voice referendum, when Labor bit off too much, meaning the Government now wants to occupy the political centre and won’t risk getting caught out like that again. Expect the cautious approach and the first-term playbook to continue.
What sits behind this posture is a desire to move beyond being a party in power to being seen as the party of government. While critics argue this looks like stagnation, supporters see a measured style that prioritises trust over spectacle.
What’s on the agenda? Policy and Parliament
So, what are the key issues the government needs to nail this term? The panel highlighted several areas to watch closely:
Economic messaging: The recent Economic Roundtable was seen as the government’s attempt to carefully make the case or test the waters for change. How this translates into actual policy will be a major test.
The public sector: The Mandarin’s editor pointed to the ongoing agenda for Australia’s public servants and the government’s plans for improving the sector. Katy Gallagher is driving a vision of “evolution, not revolution” with a focus on strengthening in-house capability and reducing reliance on consultants.
Parliamentary chess: With the new makeup of parliament, will the government keep trying to find consensus with the opposition, or will it work with the Greens to drive a more progressive agenda? This strategic choice will define the term. The Greens are repositioning to be more pragmatic at the federal level, while the Coalition remains fragmented. A weak opposition could make the government’s path smoother, but it also risks reducing contestability and scrutiny in the system.
Leadership and cabinet confidence
Much of the government’s steadiness comes from its internal team. Albanese is viewed as a strategic operator with deep Labor roots, and his confidence is backed by a cohesive cabinet. Ministers like Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher have emerged as key players, bolstering the sense of stability. This team-based strength underpins the government’s cautious but deliberate style.
Balancing foreign policy and national interest
While domestic policy dominates headlines, the government is also asserting national interest abroad. Stability in foreign policy has been part of its strategy to project maturity and avoid overreach. This layer of pragmatism adds to the perception of a government intent on consolidating itself as a long-term, steady hand.
From broadcasting to narrowcasting
For communicators, the real gold was the discussion on how to get a message across in today’s complex and vast media landscape.
The panel explored the government’s newer tactics, like the PM’s appearances on popular podcasts with influencers such as Abby Chatfield and Hannah Ferguson. This reflects a broader shift from broadcasting to narrowcasting, with messages tailored to segmented audiences rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Success now depends on understanding fragmented channels and feeding high-quality, diverse content into the ecosystem.
But even as the playbook evolves, there’s an argument for getting the basics right. Gearin believes the media’s core job is to talk truth to power and explain how government decisions actually affect citizens, rather than just focusing on the politics or the optics. As news consumption habits change, especially among younger Australians, this balance between accountability and relevance is more important than ever.
We are watching a government playing a cautious long game, intent on cementing itself as the party of government while avoiding the risks of overreach. At the same time, the opposition’s weakness and media’s evolution raise questions about accountability and contestability. For communicators, understanding both the government’s measured strategy and the fast-changing media playbook is essential to navigating the term ahead.
Cautious, considered, or coasting? Decoding the Albanese government’s second term
What’s the Albanese government’s real game plan for its second term, and how will it play out in the media? Isentia recently brought together three of Australia’s top political journalists to pull back the curtain: Peter Gearin, Editor in Chief atThe Mandarin, Jason Koutsoukis from The Saturday Paper, and acclaimed broadcaster Virginia Haussegger AM, for […]
At Isentia’s Beyond the Barossa panel, industry leaders from tourism, higher education, government, defence, and media came together to discuss how South Australia is being positioned, both to its own people and to the world. The discussion highlighted shared challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of communications in shaping South Australia’s identity.
South Australia’s brand: confidence and complexity
Chris Burford (South Australian Tourism Commission) outlined the dual challenge of building national and international awareness while fostering local pride. While South Australia currently ranks sixth of eight states on “appeal and consideration” as a tourist destination, it leads the nation in state pride. Events like Liv Golf and Gather Round have helped South Australians feel more confident about their state, and post-COVID reflections have driven a greater appreciation for the quality of life.
The SATC’s Celebrate the Simple Pleasures campaign reflects a move toward “place branding,” focusing less on iconic landmarks and more on the lived experience of being in South Australia. The research underpinning the campaign revealed a consistent theme: South Australians want the state to “grow but not change” embracing progress while retaining its distinct character.
Education and global perceptions
Djurdjica Arslanagic (Adelaide University) noted that Adelaide’s perception internationally has shifted from being seen as a regional city to a globally attractive destination for students. South Australia’s reputation as welcoming, safe, and supportive resonates strongly with international families making education choices. With the upcoming merger of Adelaide’s universities, communication is focused on tailoring messages to varied stakeholders, from students to alumni to government, ensuring consistency while meeting different needs.
Defence, industry and the workforce challenge
Sasha Meldrum (Nova Systems) discussed the enormous communications challenge posed by AUKUS and the scale of defence industry growth. With tens of thousands of workers required, from shipbuilders to nuclear scientists, attracting talent locally and globally will demand new policy approaches and fresh messaging. Meldrum emphasised that communicators must also help shift perceptions of defence, reframing it as not only about warfare but also about peacekeeping, security, and technological advancement.
Media fragmentation and targeted storytelling
Verity Edwards (Hughes PR) reflected on the contraction of South Australian newsrooms and the rise of alternative platforms. Traditional prestige outlets like The Advertiser still hold influence, but strategies now require targeting the right audience with the right medium. For some clients, industry publications or regional media can have far greater impact than mainstream outlets. Edwards highlighted the need for nuanced communication strategies that prioritise outcomes over exposure, and lateral thinking to match stories with audiences.
The climate story
A key challenge raised during the Q&A was South Australia’s ongoing algal bloom crisis. Burford noted its severe impact on coastal communities and tourism, with uncertainty around long-term recovery. He stressed the importance of communication grounded in science and transparency to maintain public trust, comparing the challenge to COVID in its unpredictability. The discussion highlighted how crucial clear, proactive communication is, both in explaining what’s happening and in shaping the narrative around next steps.
Key Takeaways:
Confidence in identity – South Australians are more assured in their story, but lifting national and international visibility remains a priority.
Nuanced storytelling – Different audiences, from universities to defence to tourism, require tailored approaches that balance authenticity with strategy.
Collaboration – Industry, government, and academia must align communications to tackle workforce, economic, and reputational challenges.
Think laterally – Success isn’t always about “big hits”; smaller, targeted placements often deliver the most impact.
Beyond the Barossa: Communicating South Australia’s evolving story
At Isentia’s Beyond the Barossa panel, industry leaders from tourism, higher education, government, defence, and media came together to discuss how South Australia is being positioned, both to its own people and to the world. The discussion highlighted shared challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of communications in shaping South Australia’s identity. South Australia’s brand: […]
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 […]
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 […]
