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.
In Singapore, the rise of podcasting has shifted from entertainment and lifestyle into a new arena – public discourse and politics. As the 2025 General Election draws near, podcasters are making waves across online news and social media. To kick things off, we used Narrative AI, the first search engine for public opinion, to identify how large the global narrative on podcasts and their influence on audiences is in the last 6 months, using data from X.
We subsequently narrowed the focus of this global trend to Singapore and analysed on Pulsar TRAC more than 7k mentions across platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, TikTok, podcasts, Online News, blogs and forums to understand where the discourse is coming from, which channels are capturing the podcasters’ content and how audiences are responding to this content.
Mentions of podcasts in news and social media are growing
Social media is where the larger chunk of podcast conversation is taking place, specifically those episodes that feature a political figure, journalist or those that include healthcare-related discussions. The audiences that engage with these videos, majority being on YouTube, search for political credibility that resonates with them. Young Singaporeans watching these podcasts expect to see leaders who don’t just uphold the image of being a politician, but also someone who is grounded and trustworthy.
Youth and politicians' lives dominate podcast narratives
The audiences that consume these podcasts the most are young Singaporeans looking to participate in the conversation as much as they can. These audiences are being more proactive than ever.
With younger voters consuming media differently, these appearances are efforts by political candidates to connect with the public. Lawrence Wong, Josephine Teo, Indranee Rajah, and Desmond Tan, have used podcasts to communicate directly with the public – sidestepping traditional media filters.
Top podcasters on election-related content
When we focus on who the most mentioned podcasters around election content are, the Straits Times’ podcasts, the Daily Ketchup and Yah Lah BUT emerge on top. These podcasts have figured that the most discourse happens around content that’s either educational or controversial around elections. The public is actively responding to political content shared via podcasts, particularly those by The Straits Times and independent shows like Yah Lah BUT.
Satire and irony are key strategies to make politics palatable, especially for younger, digital-native audiences. The Daily Ketchup and Yah Lah BUT are blending serious topics like the GE2025, party agendas, healthcare, and opposition voices with humour that make them almost meme-worthy. Posts such as “PAP really said: ‘Trust me, bro’” TikTok clips show that these are genuinely made for content to go viral while retaining serious undertones too.
What’s interesting to note is that The Common Folks, with content in Malay and Indonesian, is tapping into a cross-border Southeast Asian audience and has some of the highest engagement on its content. Local slang, cultural jokes, and casual festive content like Raya greetings and songkok jokes have generated thousands of views, at times outperforming English-language political pods. This suggests a large, under-acknowledged appetite for vernacular podcast content that has a blend of humour and relatability.
Podcasts are no longer just background noise – they’re becoming one of the most relevant ways Singaporeans engage with politics. With high engagement on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, a wide spread of topics from youth issues to party politics, and growing presence in both mainstream and social media, podcasters are carving out a key role in shaping the GE 2025 conversation.
What is making podcasts stand out ahead of the Singapore GE2025?
In Singapore, the rise of podcasting has shifted from entertainment and lifestyle into a new arena – public discourse and politics. As the 2025 General Election draws near, podcasters are making waves across online news and social media. To kick things off, we used Narrative AI, the first search engine for public opinion, to identify […]
As the federal election campaign reaches its midpoint, patterns in media coverage and public attention are beginning to shift. Early social engagement was driven by cost-of-living pressures, energy policy, and political point-scoring, but has waned following the first leaders debate, despite this forum providing leaders the opportunity to set the agenda and strategies of the major parties. So how has coverage focus evolved since the first debate and are audiences still engaging with the campaign or switching off?
Social media engagement ahead of the federal election has been sharp and personal. It focused less on policy and more on identity and representation. From debates on topics such as immigration to housing stress and culture, social media has driven a values-first narrative. But while early attention was strong, both media coverage and social engagement have started to wane in the weeks since the campaign launched. The first leaders debate briefly reignited attention—trust, identity, and media—but coverage patterns suggest a shift away from daily blow-by-blow reporting towards broader social and cultural tensions.
As the federal election campaign nears its halfway mark, last week’s media highlights show a contest still struggling to cut through. Key moments included the first leader’s debate, the Treasurers Debate, the energy showdown at the National Press Club, and Senator Jacinta Price’s Perth appearance with Peter Dutton, which drew attention for its MAGA-style rhetoric. The first leaders debate was billed as a chance to reset the race—but for many viewers, it reinforced existing divides. Media attention around the debate momentarily lifted visibility for all major parties—but the spike was short-lived. The only party that has seen continued increases in social media engagement is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party’s sustained rise in social media engagement may be linked to its digital-first strategy, including an AI-generated campaign ad spruiking a fuel excise cut and a meme-style diss track targeting Anthony Albanese—tactics designed to capture online attention and drive shareability.
The Liberals also pitched a $1200 tax cut, Labor attacked their WFH backflip, and the Greens pushed housing and tax reform. Meanwhile, Dutton warned of a Labor-Greens-Teal alliance. Coverage suggests public engagement is driven more by polarising moments and political theatre than detailed policy.
When the election campaign officially kicked off, cost-of-living pressures dominated the news agenda. Fresh off the back of the federal budget, it’s no surprise that affordable healthcare, lower gas and energy prices, and tax cuts were the key messages party leaders wanted to land with voters. But coverage quickly pivoted. In the past week, foreign diplomacy—particularly how each leader would manage Donald Trump—has surged in prominence. While Trump’s role in tariff threats has made headlines, his influence on the broader election narrative goes beyond trade. Media reporting has increasingly centred on Albanese and Dutton’s capacity to navigate a potential Trump presidency, with ideological alignment, national security, and economic fallout all in play. The first leaders’ debate was expected to refocus the campaign on domestic issues. However, it briefly touched on international concerns, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese addressing the potential economic impact of Trump's proposed tariffs. Albanese described these tariffs as an "act of economic self-harm" that would dampen global growth, highlighting the intertwining of foreign policy with domestic economic concerns. This suggests that sustained attention is more likely when domestic issues are reframed through the lens of foreign diplomacy, and national identity.
In the social media landscape, Trump was a flashpoint in election-related conversation. His influence—real or perceived—was quickly linked to the Liberal Party, with MAGA-style rhetoric and Trumpian policy cues gaining traction online. These narratives tend to escalate on platforms where ideological alignment and cultural grievance amplify engagement. But it wasn’t all imported culture wars—the federal budget, and the Liberal Party’s fuel excise rebuttal, also drove significant social chatter. In recent weeks, comparisons between major party messaging and Trump-era policy—from international student caps and nuclear energy to debates about school curricula—have continued to dominate discussion.
The first leaders’ debate briefly touched on foreign policy, with Albanese warning Trump’s tariffs could hurt global growth, while Dutton framed it as a test of strong leadership. Domestically, Dutton’s renewed push for nuclear power reignited social media debate—drawing comparisons to Trump-era policies and fuelling discussion about Australia’s energy future. At the same time on social media, promises like HECS cuts, free TAFE, and more funding for public schools sparked genuine engagement, especially among younger voters and education workers, showing that practical, future-focused policies can still cut through. Compared to the start of the campaign, where cost-of-living dominated as a top-line concern, the conversation has expanded: audiences are now weighing both hip-pocket issues and the national values shaping Australia’s future.
While the debate itself tended to be overshadowed by frustrations about access and media control, a few political undercurrents still surfaced. Anthony Albanese drew some positive mentions, but reactions were far from policy-focused. The Liberal Party’s early claim of victory became a point of humour, with several users likening it to Trump-style misinformation tactics. Disillusionment with the major parties ran deep, with repeated calls to “break the donor-fuelled duopoly” and shift support toward independents or smaller parties. Still, these reactions seem more like a symptom of broader voter cynicism than a sign of energised political engagement, reflecting broader themes around the declining trust.
The leaders' debate didn’t reset the race—it refracted it, spotlighting how media coverage is now shaped less by policy detail and more by polarising symbols and cultural cues. As election day nears, the contest for attention is revealing just as much about media strategy and voter fatigue as it is about party platforms.
Did the leaders debate reignite voter interest or just stoke the culture wars?
As the federal election campaign reaches its midpoint, patterns in media coverage and public attention are beginning to shift. Early social engagement was driven by cost-of-living pressures, energy policy, and political point-scoring, but has waned following the first leaders debate, despite this forum providing leaders the opportunity to set the agenda and strategies of the […]
The Australian podcasting news industry continues to grow. While Australian audiences do consume content from international brands like the BBC, they also exhibit strong affinity for independent Australian productions over mainstream sources. In a period of uncertainty amidst Apple’s recent update to automatic download policies Australia’s podcast audience has rapidly expanded, with ad revenue rising from $5 million in 2017 to over $100 million in 2024. So how do podcasts fit into the Australian news cycle? As audiences direct attention to independent and international productions, audience targeting, partnerships and media monitoring trends indicate a shift and a need to adapt engagement metrics and messaging strategy.
To highlight the impact of podcasts on audience engagement, we tracked coverage of key news themes in Australian podcasting from January 2020 to November 2024.
Podcasts surged into the mainstream during the pandemic, and they’re now evolving by integrating with platforms like video and audiobooks to meet new audience expectations.
While general podcast news discussion remains steady, discussion on news podcasts indicates listener engagement peaks around high-impact stories, suggesting that the topic and information itself is what truly resonates with audiences. Outlets like The Australian Financial Review and ABC have expanded into the format, yet even major programs like ABC’s Background Briefing face fluctuating engagement compared to discussion about news content being consumed through podcasts. The data suggests there’s a gap being left by main outlets in the podcasting space. While traditional media adapts, independent producers are gaining traction with stories that deeply resonate on identity and community issues, such as the 2021 Christian Porter case and The Briefing’s 2024 episode on pianist Jayson Gillham’s lawsuit against the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. Understanding audience preferences and monitoring content trends helps communicators craft strategies that leverage podcasting’s unique appeal.
Podcasts offer creators the freedom to pursue stories with fewer constraints of advertisers, investors, or other stakeholders, leading to content deeply shaped by personal passion and a strong connection to the subject. This independence empowers impactful storytelling, as illustrated by The Teacher’s Pet, where Hedley Thomas’s rigorous reporting on the case of Lynette Dawson uncovered new, critical details and underscored the journalistic integrity driving audience engagement in a shared pursuit of truth. Similarly, New Politics, co-created by Eddy Jokovich, leverages its Patreon-funded model to explore perspectives outside mainstream narratives, showcasing the power of independent journalism through podcasting.
Sports and entertainment tend to generate high visibility and engagement, suggesting they benefit from a faster publishing cadence and broad appeal. However issues like global conflicts draw significant attention, especially among communities directly impacted. The Briefing podcast, for example, addressed the October 2024 conflict in Gaza in a recent episode where Lebanese-Australian journalist Liz Deep-Jones offered a personal perspective. This type of coverage shows how podcasts can provide both journalistic depth and emotional resonance, connecting listeners to complex stories in a more relatable way.
Even if a major broadcaster or outlet owns a podcast production, the unique style and tone set by the hosts and production team often place podcasts outside the conventional PR and communications scope. Unlike the carefully curated talking points found in a typical puff piece or advertorial, podcasts allow for candid, in-depth discussions that explore complex topics with a degree of freedom seldom found in traditional news media channels. This authenticity is driven by the podcast format itself, which favours nuanced discussion offering audiences a more transparent and less scripted narrative style.
The NRL is launching in Las Vegas. Can it win over the US?
Israel, Lebanon & The Big Ceasefire Question
The Details You Missed From The Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump
Many of the leading news podcasts, like The Quicky by Mamamia, follow a daily release that taps into the rhythm of the 24-hour news cycle, providing timely responses to breaking news. This format appeals to listeners by delivering news in a quick, digestible style, ideal for staying informed on the go and catering to audiences prioritising both convenience and relevance. It’s no surprise, then, that top news highlight podcasts often incorporate ads at multiple points—before, during, and after episodes—capitalising on the high listener engagement these accessible, on-the-go updates create.
Sports and entertainment podcasts tend to attract higher engagement with frequent, easily digestible episodes, often in the preferred 20-30 minute range, which sustain a steady listener base. Personalities like Hamish and Andy, and John Graham exemplify how audience visibility can be driven more by engaging personalities than by traditional news analysis. In contrast, outlets like The Australian Financial Review maintain a more analytical focus with podcasts such as The Fin and Chanticleer, known for their conservative, business-centric tone. Meanwhile, digital-first brands like Mamamia take a more hybrid, accessible approach across varied topics, leveraging podcasting to reach broader audiences and foster engagement with impactful news stories. This range of formats illustrates how different brands tailor their podcast strategies to meet audience preferences, from rapid updates in entertainment to in-depth discussions on current events.
While legacy media outlets leverage their reputations to enhance their podcast presence, credibility alone doesn’t ensure engagement. Instead, PR and communications teams can boost audience connection by aligning content with listeners’ interests and authenticity, helping refine podcasting strategies to capture attention and drive meaningful engagement.
How Australian podcasts fit into the news cycle & ignite cultural moments
The Australian podcasting news industry continues to grow. While Australian audiences do consume content from international brands like the BBC, they also exhibit strong affinity for independent Australian productions over mainstream sources. In a period of uncertainty amidst Apple’s recent update to automatic download policies Australia’s podcast audience has rapidly expanded, with ad revenue rising […]
As the spotlight on sustainability intensifies year by year, it has become a focal point for legislators, media entities, and audiences worldwide.
This dynamic environment demands that brands and institutions elevate their standards in messaging and actions, holding them accountable like never before. For professionals in the PR & Comms realm, it is imperative to grasp not only how sustainability is being discussed but also the potential pitfalls, such as greenwashing, and gain a profound understanding of the diverse audiences receiving these messages.
Explore over 20 beautifully crafted pages of data visualisation that illuminate audience insights sourced from social media, news outlets, and search engines. Gain valuable perspectives on how one of the defining issues of our time is being discussed and understood.
Our exploration of this crucial topic delves deep into uncovering insights that are indispensable for crafting effective strategies, both tactical and long-term:
-Unraveling trends in the sustainability conversation
-Assessing brand & industry reputations
-Navigating greenwashing & misinformation
-Understanding the diverse audiences of sustainability
To access these insights, simply fill in the form
Download now
"
["post_title"]=>
string(60) "Sustainability: Mapping the Media & Public Conversations"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(117) "From accusations of greenwashing to the role of misinformation, we explore the comms landscape around sustainability."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(49) "sustainability-mapping-media-and-pr-conversations"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2025-04-14 22:25:09"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2025-04-14 22:25:09"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=30836"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
Sustainability: Mapping the Media & Public Conversations
From accusations of greenwashing to the role of misinformation, we explore the comms landscape around sustainability.
