Who Really Sets the Budget Agenda—Media or the Public?
Who’s shaping the conversation around the 2025 federal budget—traditional media or the public? News coverage has framed the budget through a global lens, linking economic policy to Donald Trump, NATO spending, and deregulation. But on social media, the focus is closer to home. Early discussions revolved around tax cuts and cost-of-living relief before shifting to Medicare funding, public service job cuts, and the real-world impact of budget decisions.
This divide reveals a growing disconnect between political narratives and public concerns. While news dissects party strategy and fiscal responsibility, online conversations highlight frustration over essential services and household finances. As the budget approaches, the real question is: Will media framing or public sentiment ultimately shape how Australians respond?
In January 2025, the Australian federal budget was shaped by how media coverage highlighted global influences, particularly Donald Trump’s calls for NATO defence spending increases, framing Australia’s defence and trade priorities. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute argues Australia must “do more, spend more, risk more” in response to global threats, shaping debates within the Coalition. However, social media discussions focus more on direct budget impacts, particularly tax cuts and cost-of-living concerns. News outlets like The Australian and Herald Sun cover the growing budget deficit and fiscal responsibility, but social media sees widespread criticism of tax cuts, seen as election tactics without addressing inflation and essential services.
Public discussion is more engaged in how the budget affects areas like cost of living pressures like healthcare and education, with Channel 7 Sunrise and Weekend Australian reporting on inflation and its link to energy security. Social media engagement on Trump’s influence is secondary to local concerns, such as “bracket creep” and rising bills, reflecting a shift away from global issues like NATO, which are less discussed compared to the deficit and inflation impacts. This shows how social media conversations are focused on tangible, personal consequences, contrasting with news coverage that intertwines global and domestic policy discussions.
In February 2025, federal budget coverage often referenced Donald Trump’s economic policies, with references to comparing the Business Council of Australia’s tax cut push to Trump’s pro-business, deregulation agenda. Commentary like Ross Gittins’ SMH piece, discusses reduced government spending and red tape to similar policies abroad. On social media, tax cuts dominated early discussions, with many arguing the opposition’s focus on cuts and deregulation echoed past policies that ignored inflation and wage stagnation. Labor’s staged approach—tackling inflation before tax relief and healthcare investment—was seen by some as pragmatic, while others dismissed it as political manoeuvring. Comparisons to Trump-era tax cuts emerged, with debate over whether similar policies would work in Australia.
As the conversation evolved, Medicare and healthcare funding took centre stage, drawing more attention than Trump or the budget deficit in news coverage. Viral posts criticised past Coalition cuts to Medicare, bulk billing, and aged care, warning of further reductions under Peter Dutton. Others pointed to his past role in Coalition health policies, questioning his commitment. Job cuts to public services were also a concern, with warnings of delayed Medicare processing and added pressure on frontline healthcare workers. While news coverage framed the budget around political strategy and fiscal policy, social media reflected shifting anxieties—first tax cuts, then healthcare access and economic fairness.
In March 2025, media coverage of the Australian federal budget has centred on the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs, with news outlets highlighting concerns over trade tensions and their effect on Australia’s economy.
On social media, the focus has shifted to domestic issues like tax cuts, the budget deficit, and cost-of-living relief. Reports from Crikey and ABC News on the budget deficit have sparked social media debates about the sustainability of the government’s financial strategy. While some defend Labor’s post-COVID measures, including a $1.8 billion energy rebate, others criticise the government’s handling of inflation and the deficit. Social media reactions are more focused on domestic policy choices than global trade concerns, often reflecting more critical and emotionally charged reactions to leadership and policy, contrasting with the neutral, policy-focused tone of traditional news. The coverage also shows how economic issues are framed differently, with media offering analysis and social platforms fostering more polarised debates, suggesting the growing influence of grassroots concerns in shaping political discourse.
The Australian and ABC News set the agenda for this year’s federal budget coverage, shaping how key issues are framed for the public. Some leading stories published by The Australian centres on Coalition divisions, portraying the budget as a test of Peter Dutton’s leadership amid concerns over a weak economic agenda. MPs warn that an overemphasis on public service cuts and a lack of compelling policies—particularly on cost-of-living relief like energy rebates—could undermine voter confidence. The coverage highlights the Coalition’s struggle to present a credible alternative to Labor while managing internal pressure to adopt bolder economic policies.
ABC News, meanwhile, leads with the direct impact of the budget on households, reporting on electricity price hikes and their uneven regional effects. It also broadens the discussion by linking fiscal policy to social outcomes, with one popular story focusing on the Productivity Commission’s report on rising Indigenous incarceration rates reinforcing the stakes of government spending choices. This contrast in coverage underscores how print media frames the budget as a political contest, while broadcast news tends to focus on its real-world consequences.
The high engagement across news outlets such as ABC, Australian Financial Review, Crikey, The Saturday Paper, The Sydney Morning Herald, and 9News highlights a clear audience focus: A widely shared ABC article highlights how the Albanese government plans to address rising costs with energy bill relief, resonating with audiences concerned about personal finances. Crikey’s commentary on the political clash between Labor and the Coalition, particularly over spending commitments, engages audiences with broader political implications. Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald focuses on surprise revenue gains and potential energy relief, speaking to voters affected by rising electricity costs.
Audiences appear particularly engaged by news that ties political decisions directly to their personal and family financial realities—whether through energy cost relief, healthcare funding, or discussions around budget deficits. The framing of economic policies as part of an election strategy intensifies political rivalry, especially with stories positioning the Coalition’s fiscal responsibility as a counter to Labor’s spending.
https://t.co/Oup0A8nm9Z One that focuses on what Australia needs to do in such a world — spend more on defence, spend more on aid for our region, work more closely with like-minded democracies.
Social discussion reflects a positive outlook on the Labor budget, highlighting confidence in the government’s actions, particularly in disaster relief and economic recovery. Supporters see the budget as a chance to showcase progress, with a focus on strengthening the safety net and easing cost-of-living pressures. However, scepticism remains over wage growth, spending priorities, and whether rising defence costs align with immediate domestic needs. This tension underscores a broader divide in Australian perspectives—between those who view the budget as reinforcing long-term progress and those who question whether media narratives either overstate recovery or fail to scrutinise key trade-offs. The debate also signals a pushback against selective media framing, as Australians navigate between government messaging and critical scrutiny of economic challenges.
Yesterday he said he went to Canberra to meet with Services Australia about relief so it could be rolled out immediately. Why don't they listen?
— Kazza Boots 😷💉🪟🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ (@kazza264) March 8, 2025
Engagement with budget discussions on social media shows how politicians, journalists, and the public interact. Labor politicians use social media to promote the budget and counter opposition views, while political enthusiasts offer independent analysis. Journalists from outlets like Crikey and News.com.au provide investigative insights. Political influencers, with strong ideological leanings, generate engagement through hyperbolic framing, reinforcing confirmation bias. While politicians shape how the budget is understood, media outlets, despite smaller engagement, still play a crucial role in framing key updates, highlighting the fragmented nature of audience reception and the influence of partisan messaging.
The 2025 federal budget debate highlights the growing divide between media narratives and public concerns. While traditional outlets focus on political strategy and fiscal policy, social media engagement reveals a stronger emphasis on tax cuts, Medicare, and cost-of-living relief. This shift underscores the need for messaging that resonates with lived experiences.
As election season approaches, the question remains: Will political leaders adjust their approach to reflect public sentiment, or will the disconnect between media coverage and voter priorities continue to shape the debate?
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.
Why PR and comms teams need to take LLM visibility seriously — and what to do about it
The next time a journalist, investor or potential customer wants to know about your organisation, it’s now increasingly likely they won’t Google you. They'll ask an AI.
They'll type a question into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini, something like "Who are the leading renewable energy companies in Australia?" or "What's the best PR agency for healthcare in Singapore?" and the AI will give them an answer. The question is whether your own organisation shows up in that answer.
The implications are significant for communications professionals, whether they’re in the agency-side working with clients or in-house managing a brand. The rules of reputation and discovery are being rewritten, and there’s a new kind of playbook that we all need to adapt to. That’s what’s going to take us forward.
The shift no one saw coming, but perhaps should have
For decades, earned media has been the backbone of credibility. A strong piece in a respected outlet signalled trust, authority and relevance. This hasn't particularly changed, but the way that coverage gets used has.
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of publicly available content - news articles, company websites, industry reports, social media, expert commentary. When someone asks an AI a question, it synthesises all of that material into a single answer. If an organisation has a strong, consistent, well-sourced presence across those channels, it is more likely to show up. If it doesn't, it becomes invisible and is absent from the conversation entirely.
Gartner's latest predictions for Chief Communications Officers underline how serious this shift is. They forecast that as LLMs increasingly replace traditional search, PR and earned media budgets will double by 2027. What they say is that this is a communications challenge, one that requires PR expertise to build trust, secure quality coverage, and maintain consistent messaging across stakeholders.
Their research also predicts that by 2029, 45% of CCOs will be using narrative intelligence technologies to monitor reputation amid rising disinformation, a recognition that the old keyword-based approach to media monitoring simply can't keep up with the way stories now form, spread and multiply.
The AI-generated content loop and why it matters
One of the less obvious risks in this new landscape is what happens when AI starts feeding on itself.
Catherine Arrow, Executive Director of the PR Knowledge Hub, raised this point during Isentia's recent Inside the AI Shift webinar. As she explained, "AI can identify and interpret some publicly available commentary. The difficulty is that we have to be careful about what it is actually reading. You can already see this in AI overviews where the system may refer to online discussion without digging deeply enough into whether the original sources are genuine, reliable or themselves AI-generated. So we end up with AI nested inside AI, nested inside AI."
That creates a real problem for anyone in communications. If the content landscape is increasingly populated by AI-generated material which is optimised to be found by algorithms rather than to inform real people, then the signals that LLMs rely on to build their answers become less trustworthy. Human judgement, original thinking and genuine expertise become harder for these systems to find, precisely because they're being drowned out by content that was designed to game them.
Catherine puts it simply, "People can become immune to this kind of content because it does not sound like the way we speak to each other, nor does it reflect the way genuine relationships are built. Then, when conflict or outrage is layered on top, the environment becomes even harder to interpret."
For PR and comms teams, it's not enough to produce more content. The right content needs to be produced, one that is original, expert-led, and well-placed in the channels and formats that LLMs are most likely to surface.
What this means in practice
So what does it actually look like to build LLM visibility into your communications strategy? It starts with the fundamentals, but applied with new intent:
Expert commentary placed in credible publications.
Thought leadership that's genuinely distinctive, not a rehash of what everyone else is saying.
Consistent messaging across channels.
Media coverage that's authoritative enough for an AI system to treat it as a reliable source.
This is where the gap between media monitoring and media intelligence becomes critical. Monitoring tells you what's been said. Intelligence tells you how stories are forming, which perspectives are shaping them, and where your organisation sits within those narratives — including how AI systems are representing you.
Dr Nici Sweaney, Founder and Director of AI Her Way, made this distinction sharply during Isentia's AI as a New Stakeholder webinar. "What will set people apart, and what AI cannot replicate is the human lens. The judgment, the relationships, the institutional knowledge, the strategic read of a room. The organisations that lean into supporting their people to harness these tools, rather than just deploying the tools, will be the ones best placed.”
That's an important framing. The answer to AI disruption is to get clear on what only humans can do and then make sure the tools we’re using actually support that.
Staying credible when the noise is deafening
There's a temptation, when faced with a challenge like this, to throw more content at the problem – more posts, more articles, more releases. But Catherine Arrow points out the risks of that approach.
"Maintaining credibility and authenticity means being yourself and not allowing AI to suffocate your identity. That will become harder to do as digital twins, synthetic voices and other tools make it easier for organisations to use it as a mask. The real challenge is not so much maintaining credibility. It is about maintaining humanity, empathy, kindness and a genuine wish to connect with others beyond the AI-intermediated space.”
That advice matters just as much for organisations as it does for individuals. Brands that let AI do their thinking, generating bland, interchangeable content at scale, will find themselves blending into the noise rather than cutting through it. The brands that show up in LLM answers will be the ones with a clear, consistent, well-evidenced point of view.
Dr Nici Sweaney reinforced this from the operational side. "Ethical use is not about not using AI. It’s about using it with intention, honesty, and a clear sense of what good looks like on the other side.” She was also direct about the risks of rushing in, "Don’t add new shiny AI projects on top of already overloaded teams. That creates resentment, not buy-in. Start by solving the problems people already have."
The cultural dimension
There's another layer to this that often gets overlooked and that’s the cultural one.
Catherine Arrow raised important concerns about how different AI systems can distort or flatten cultural context. Many of the most widely used models are shaped by US language, commercial assumptions and social norms. Chinese models operate within a different political and cultural framework. For organisations working across the Asia-Pacific region, it directly affects how the brand, messaging and the market are understood and represented by AI.
"Different AI systems may distort cultural context by privileging dominant languages, simplifying complex meanings, mistranslating concepts, omitting local histories or reproducing the worldview of their developers and training environments. They may flatten culture by making everything sound the same.”
For communicators operating across diverse markets, this means paying close attention to where content sits, who produced it, and whether the AI systems the audiences are using can actually interpret it with the nuance it deserves.
Where Isentia's platform fits with its new toolkit for AI visibility
This is precisely the challenge that Isentia's Lumina suite was built to address. Lumina is an intelligent suite of AI tools trained on the language, workflows and realities of modern public relations and communications, designed to empower, not replace, the human element of communications strategy.
Isentia's Lumina AI View feature will allow organisations to track how their brand, competitors and key topics are described by leading LLMs, with auditable claims, citations and transparency with regards to the sources. It's the difference between wondering whether AI is getting your story right and actually being able to see for yourself. These aren't generic AI features bolted onto a monitoring tool. They're intelligence systems built for the way communicators actually work.
The bottom line
The communications landscape has shifted. AI isn't just a tool the team might use, it's a stakeholder in its own right, actively shaping how an organisation is discovered, understood and evaluated.
For PR and comms professionals, the priorities are to ensure experts, commentary and evidence are placed widely enough for LLMs to find them and include them in their answers. Intelligence is imperative and required to how narratives are forming across both traditional media and AI platforms. All of this needs to be done without losing the human credibility that makes communications worth paying attention to in the first place.
As Dr Nici Sweaney put it, "The people who get the most from AI aren’t the ones who use the most tools, they’re the ones who understand their work deeply enough to know exactly where AI can add the most leverage."
That's the opportunity. The question is whether we’re set up to take it.
To explore how Isentia's Lumina suite can help your team navigate AI visibility, get in touch or discover Lumina.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(51) "If AI can't find you, neither can your stakeholders"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(140) "We explore why LLM visibility should be a priority for PR and comms teams — and why harnessing AI, not just deploying it, is what matters."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(49) "if-ai-cant-find-you-neither-can-your-stakeholders"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2026-05-20 04:07:57"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2026-05-20 04:07:57"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=47943"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
If AI can’t find you, neither can your stakeholders
We explore why LLM visibility should be a priority for PR and comms teams — and why harnessing AI, not just deploying it, is what matters.
What 71 stories, 400+ perspectives, and 50 million audience impressions reveal about the media narratives shaping the 2026–27 Federal Budget.
The 2026–27 Federal Budget was released on 12 May and included some of the most ambitious policy changes in years.
Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers described it as a budget of ‘reform and resilience’, and the media coverage that followed reflected just how much there was to unpack.
We used Lumina, our AI-powered media intelligence suite, to surface the biggest stories, map different perspectives, and identify the key drivers behind each narrative. This clustered over 48 hours before and after the Budget into 71 different stories, more than 400 perspectives and the total audience reach topped 50 million cumulative views.
Below are the five stories that stood out, what the different perspectives tell us, and what communicators should be watching out for.
Key stories at a glance
▸ Property Tax Reform — Two evenly matched perspectives: affordability for buyers vs. reduced housing supply. Key drivers: Anthony Albanese, Jim Chalmers, Master Builders Australia, Property Council
▸ The Policy Reversal — Government says circumstances changed; opposition says trust was broken. Key drivers: Angus Taylor, Bill Shorten, Peta Credlin, Sean Kelly
▸ NDIS Changes — Sustainability concerns meet advocacy from families and disability organisations. Key drivers: Katy Gallagher, People with Disability Australia, ACOSS
▸ Market Reaction — Investors moved ahead of the speech; banks fell, miners rose. Key drivers: BHP, CSL, DroneShield, Tony Sycamore (IG)
▸ Small Business Support — Permanent write-off welcomed, but owners want more help with rising costs. Key drivers: Jim Chalmers, CPA Australia, Xero
Australia’s biggest property tax change in a generation
The centrepiece of this budget was a major overhaul of property investment tax. It was the most covered story of the night, and the perspectives on the announcement were split right down the middle.
The Government positioned the reforms as a step toward fairness. Negative gearing will be restricted to newly built properties from July 2027, and the 50% CGT discount will be replaced with an inflation-indexed model.
Furthermore, a 30% minimum tax will now apply to distributions from discretionary trusts. Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterated that these changes will aid a projected 75,000 Australians to buy their first home over the next decade. This perspective accounted for about 50% of coverage across the story (ABC Online).
Industry groups like the Master Builders Australia and the Property Council warned the changes would reduce new housing supply by 35,000 homes, push up rents, and discourage investment.
These perspectives made up approximately 50% of total coverage. That near-perfect split is notable. In most policy debates, one side tends to lead in terms of coverage, yet here, the two perspectives are running neck and neck
That balance tells us the debate around these reforms is far from settled. Neither side has won the narrative.
Why it matters for communicators: This is going to be a long-running conversation. Both sides have credible data. If your organisation has a stake in property, construction, or financial services, now is the time to develop your position and prepare for sustained engagement.
The policy reversal and what it means for trust
Behind that policy detail, however, was a more political story. The government had made promises before the 2025 election that it would not change negative gearing or CGT. This budget announcement made changes to both policies, and the coverage explored what that means.
The Government’s explanation around the changes took up about 43% of coverage. Previous Labor Minister and now Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Bill Shorten argued that the housing situation had worsened since the election ,and the government had a responsibility to act. Unsurprisingly, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese held the same position. In his interviews, Shorten pointed to the earlier redesign of the stage three tax cuts as an example of a policy change that voters ultimately accepted.
Political commentators offered an analytical view, making up about 40% of coverage. Former Labor adviser Sean Kelly and others noted that the fallout from changing a position depends on context, and that history offers examples of both successful and costly reversals.
The opposition’s framing accounted for about 18% of coverage so far, as we wait for their formal response to the Budget next week. Liberal leader Angus Taylor and his colleague Michaelia Cash described the move as a trust issue. A leaked government document giving Labor MPs talking points to explain the change added another dimension to the story (The Australian).
Why it matters for communicators: Past commitments stay in the public record. For communicators working on policy-related messaging, it’s worth thinking about how your stakeholders weigh trust against outcomes, especially as this story continues to develop.
NDIS changes spark a deeply personal conversation
The NDIS story stood out in Budget coverage for a different reason. It was one of the most emotionally resonant conversations of the night.
The government framed its changes as essential for the scheme’s long-term sustainability, and this perspective made up about 58% of coverage. Ministers pointed to cost growth and fraud as reasons to tighten eligibility, with the Fraud Fusion Taskforce positioned as the mechanism to protect genuine participants while saving $37.8 billion over four years (Sydney Morning Herald).
Disability advocacy groups responded with concern, accounting for about 42% of coverage. Organisations like People with Disability Australia highlighted that over 160,000 participants could be affected, many of them children.
The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) noted the budget also lacked additional support for people on income support. By budget night, advocacy groups had organised a press conference and gathered more than 13,000 petition signatures. This was a story where the personal weight of the coverage mattered more than the volume.
Why it matters for communicators: Personal stories and advocacy will shape this conversation more than policy. If you work in health, disability, or social services, this is one to monitor closely and maintain the human element in the approach.
The market moved before the speech
One of the more interesting stories of budget day was how the share market reacted before the Treasurer even stood up to speak.
The ASX 200 fell across the day. Banks were under pressure because of their exposure to residential mortgages, with analysts pointing to the risk of falling property prices if the tax reforms reduced investor demand.
Rising oil prices from the Middle East added to the mood (NEWS.com.au). And earlier in the week, Australian stock market stalwart CSL dropped over 16% on a separate profit warning, dragging the healthcare sector with it.
But mining stocks went in the opposite direction, with BHP hitting a record high on strong commodity prices for copper and iron ore. Different parts of the economy were reading the same budget in very different ways.
Why it matters for communicators: When investors move before an announcement, it tells you the narrative is already established. For organisations with listed exposure or investor-facing communications, the property reform story is one to address proactively.
Small business: welcome news, but not the whole answer
Making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent was a positive headline, but the coverage revealed a gap between the announcement and business owners’ lived experience.
The government’s framing dominated, making up about 75% of coverage. The write-off sat alongside a broader $3.5 billion tax relief package, which Treasurer Chalmers called part of the most comprehensive productivity push in decades.
But the remaining quarter of coverage tells a different story. Xero research showed only 35% of small businesses were confident the budget would address their challenges. Many described the $20,000 threshold as too low for the investments they actually need to make, especially given rising fuel and material costs.
The broader sense was that while the write-off is helpful, it doesn’t change the fundamentals of a tough operating environment.
Why it matters for communicators: Headline announcements and on-the-ground sentiment don’t always match. For industry groups and advocacy organisations, grounding your messaging in real-world experience will resonate more than repeating the numbers.
Looking at the budget through comms: what does it mean for strategy and messaging?
There are two factors that emerge as key considerations.
First, the property tax conversation is set to continue for the months ahead. Both sides have credible arguments and strong stakeholder backing; these sentiments will undoubtedly be reinforced by the Opposition next week. If your organisation is connected to housing, property, or financial services in any way, a long-term narrative strategy will serve you better than a one-off reaction.
Second, keeping an eye out for how the election reversal narrative evolves is important. It will become a reference point for future government commitments. For anyone working on government-related messaging, it’s worth considering how your audiences balance trust with outcomes. Media outlets are actively searching for inconsistencies – as are social media users – so any change must be clearly explained and a credible narrative developed.
How budget perspectives shape the media landscape
The 2026-27 Federal Budget was a budget that asked big questions and looked to a new future. The media coverage showed a public working through what these changes mean, with perspectives spread evenly across the biggest stories of the night.
For communicators, the value is in looking beyond the headlines. Understanding the different perspectives, the people and organisations driving them, and the patterns connecting them is what turns a reactive media response into a strategic one.
To explore these kinds of insights for your own industry, discover what Lumina can surface for you. For more insights from the Isentia team, fill in the form below and we’ll get in touch.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(70) "The latest stories and perspectives from a budget that broke the rules"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(201) "The 2026 Federal Budget has landed, and what PR and comms professionals need to observe is how the media conversation has split into dozens of competing narratives depending on who's telling the story."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(70) "the-latest-stories-and-perspectives-from-a-budget-that-broke-the-rules"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2026-05-19 09:10:49"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2026-05-19 09:10:49"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=47756"
["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 latest stories and perspectives from a budget that broke the rules
The 2026 Federal Budget has landed, and what PR and comms professionals need to observe is how the media conversation has split into dozens of competing narratives depending on who’s telling the story.