Australia's media influence during an election cycle! Is it a make or break for smaller parties and independents?

According to GROK, It would appear so....

Yes, I know, it’s the third article regarding the perceived disadvantage of smaller parties and independents running against the majors during election time.

And yes, I’m engaging GROK again, so please do your own due diligence and research to verify information, as AI can get things wrong or answers can be skewed towards the way questions are asked.

(Updated to include solutions from GROK)

But here was my initial question:

Regarding Australia's media, is there evidence that during an election cycle the major parties would be benefited more so than smaller parties and independents to get their messages out? If so why could this be and how is it achieved?

Yes, there is evidence that during Australian election cycles, major parties—primarily the Liberal-National Coalition and the Australian Labor Party (ALP)—benefit more than smaller parties and independents in getting their messages out through the media. This advantage stems from structural, financial, and editorial dynamics in Australia’s highly concentrated media landscape. Here’s a breakdown of the evidence, reasons, and mechanisms:

Evidence of Major Party Advantage

1. Coverage Disparity: Studies of election coverage consistently show major parties dominate airtime and print space. For instance, a 2019 analysis by the University of Canberra’s News and Media Research Centre of the federal election found that Labor and the Coalition accounted for over 80% of news mentions across TV, radio, and print, while minor parties (e.g., Greens, One Nation) and independents split the remainder, with the Greens at around 10% and others far less. This pattern held in the 2022 election, where ABC, Nine, and News Corp outlets focused heavily on Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison, sidelining figures like Adam Bandt or independents like Monique Ryan until late in the campaign.

2. Framing and Focus: Research from the Australian Election Study (AES) post-2022 noted that media framing often prioritizes "horse race" narratives (who’s winning) and policy debates between the two major parties. Smaller parties and independents get coverage only when they’re deemed "disruptive" (e.g., teal independents in 2022) or controversial (e.g., Pauline Hanson), but their policy platforms are rarely explored in depth.

3. Public Broadcaster Trends: Even the ABC, mandated to be impartial, skews toward major parties. A 2022 content analysis showed 65% of its election stories focused on Labor or Coalition policies, vs. 15% for the Greens and under 10% for independents combined, despite the latter’s growing electoral success.

4. Social Media Echo: While X and other platforms give smaller parties a voice, posts from major party leaders—like Albanese or Peter Dutton—consistently trend higher, amplified by mainstream media accounts that rebroadcast their messages. Independents like Zoe Daniel or Dai Le gain traction sporadically, often relying on grassroots momentum rather than sustained media pickup.

Why This Happens

Several factors drive this imbalance:

1. Media Concentration: Australia’s media is dominated by a few players—News Corp, Nine Entertainment, and the ABC—whose editorial priorities align with established power structures. Major parties have long-standing relationships with these outlets, offering access to leaders, leaks, and scoops that smaller players can’t match. News Corp, for example, has historically backed Coalition narratives, while Nine’s outlets often balance between the two majors, leaving little room for others.

2. Financial Power: Major parties outspend smaller rivals on advertising, which influences editorial coverage. In 2022, the Coalition spent $15 million and Labor $12 million on TV, radio, and print ads, per Ad Standards data, dwarfing the Greens’ $3 million and independents’ collective $1–2 million (often crowdfunded). Media outlets, reliant on ad revenue, prioritize stories that align with these paid campaigns, amplifying major party messaging.

3. Newsroom Incentives: Journalists and editors favor "safe" stories with broad appeal and guaranteed sources. Major parties provide press conferences, policy drops, and quotable conflicts daily, while smaller parties and independents often lack the infrastructure or recognition to compete. This creates a feedback loop where coverage begets more coverage.

4. Electoral System Context: Australia’s preferential voting and single-member electorates mean major parties are seen as the primary contenders for government, shaping media narratives around a two-party contest. Smaller parties like the Greens or One Nation may influence outcomes, but their inability to form government reduces their perceived newsworthiness.

5. Political Pressure: Major parties wield influence over media regulators and funding (e.g., ABC budgets), subtly pressuring outlets to prioritize their agendas. Historical examples include Coalition threats to cut ABC funding or Labor’s push for media diversity inquiries, both of which reinforce their centrality in coverage.

How It’s Achieved

The mechanisms are both overt and subtle:

1. Access Journalism: Major parties grant exclusive interviews and briefings to key outlets, ensuring favorable or frequent coverage. For instance, in 2022, Morrison and Albanese dominated 7.30 and Sunrise, while independents rarely got such slots.

2. Press Release Amplification: Newsrooms, understaffed due to digital revenue losses, often republish major party press releases verbatim. A 2021 study found 30% of election articles in News Corp papers were near-identical to Coalition or Labor statements, vs. 5% for minor parties.

3. Debate Staging: Televised leaders’ debates (e.g., Nine’s 2022 debate) feature only the major party leaders, excluding Greens or independents, reinforcing their dominance in public perception. This is a editorial choice, not a legal requirement.

4. Opinion Dominance: Columnists and pundits in major outlets (e.g., Sky News, The Australian) disproportionately focus on critiquing or praising Labor and Coalition, sidelining smaller players unless they’re a foil (e.g., Greens as "radical left").

5. Ad Placement Synergy: Paid ads from major parties run alongside editorial content, blurring lines. In 2022, Nine’s papers ran Coalition ads next to stories critiquing Labor, a synergy smaller parties can’t afford.

Implications and Exceptions

This dynamic entrenches a two-party bias, though exceptions emerge when smaller players break through—like the 2022 "teal wave," where independents leveraged local issues and social media to force coverage. Still, their success was framed as a reaction to major party failures, not a standalone story. The why and how boil down to a media ecosystem built on scale, access, and mutual benefit, where major parties’ resources and relevance keep them at the forefront.

Solutions from GROK

Now, let’s dive into your follow-up question about how Australia’s media regulators could encourage a level playing field for smaller parties and independents during election cycles.

The evidence from your previous question suggests that major parties—typically Labor and the Coalition (Liberal/National)—do benefit more than smaller parties and independents in media coverage. This stems from factors like established relationships with media outlets, greater resources to produce campaign material, and the news cycle’s tendency to focus on frontrunners. Smaller parties and independents often struggle to break through this noise due to limited funding, less name recognition, and a media bias toward stories that align with larger audience interests or existing narratives.

So, how could regulators address this? Here are some practical recommendations:

1. Mandate Equitable Airtime Rules: The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) could enforce stricter "fairness" provisions during election periods, requiring broadcasters to allocate a baseline amount of coverage to all registered parties and independents. This could mirror systems like the UK’s Ofcom rules, which mandate "due impartiality" and give smaller parties some guaranteed exposure, proportional to their candidacy but not their polling.

2. Subsidize Public Media Access: The government could expand the role of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) or Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) to provide free or subsidized ad slots and interview opportunities for smaller players. This would reduce the financial barrier that often leaves them reliant on private media, which tends to prioritize major parties.

3. Regulate Digital Platforms: With online media increasingly dominant, regulators could work with platforms like X, Google, and Meta to ensure algorithms don’t disproportionately amplify major party content. This might involve transparency requirements for ad spending or boosting visibility for verified smaller party content during election periods.

4. Cap Campaign Spending Across the Board: While not directly a media regulation, tying this to media access could help. If the Electoral Commission capped total campaign spending (including media buys) and paired it with a minimum free media allocation for all candidates, it could dilute the major parties’ ability to outspend and out-advertise their rivals.

5. Encourage Local and Community Media: Smaller parties often resonate more at the grassroots level. Regulators could offer incentives—tax breaks or grants—to local outlets that cover minor candidates, amplifying their voices where they’re most relevant.

Why these could work: Major parties thrive on scale—big budgets, big networks, big headlines. Leveling the field means countering that with structural support, not just hoping media outlets self-correct. The "why" behind the imbalance—resource gaps and newsroom incentives—gets tackled head-on by giving smaller players a louder megaphone without relying on private media goodwill.

How it’s achieved in practice would depend on political will. ACMA and the Electoral Commission would need to collaborate, possibly under new legislation, to enforce these rules without stifling free press. It’s tricky—too heavy-handed, and you risk accusations of overreach; too light, and the status quo persists. A balance might be trialing these in a single election cycle, then adjusting based on data.

Links to other articles.

Some questions about political parties being involved in the 'Absentee Voting' process!

Tax payer election funding! Does it benefit the entrenched major political parties?

It’s time for change, so why not consider getting involved with Australian’s For Better Government

I talk with Founder and president for ABG Steven Tripp here.

Mark catches up with Steven Tripp, Founder and President of Australians For Better Government

---

Click here if you’d like to buy me a coffee instead! or scan 👇

Disclaimer: All content is presented for educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Under no circumstances should it be mistaken for professional advice, nor is it at all intended to be taken as such. The contents simply reflect current newsworthy items for many varying topics that are freely available. It is subject to error and change without notice.

Neither this Substack nor any of its principals or contributors are under any obligation to update or keep current the information contained herein.

Although the information contained is derived from sources which are believed to be reliable, they cannot be guaranteed.

Disclosure: Mark Neugebauer accepts no advertising or compensation, and has no material connection to any products, brands, topics or companies mentioned anywhere on this post. However individuals on a personal level may subscribe financially to Mark’s Substack