Unpacking the Australian media’s preoccupation with a U.S. election

It’s apparent that the Australian media’s fascination with the freak show of U.S. politics is not about the public interest but about capitalising on the spectacle and click-bait to draw in viewers.

In recent weeks, the Australian media landscape has been saturated with exhaustive coverage of the U.S. presidential campaign, despite the election still being four months away and Australians not having a vote in its outcome. This intense focus has sparked a debate on the appropriateness and impact of such extensive foreign political coverage, especially when positioned against significant domestic issues that arguably warrant more attention.

The recent events in U.S. politics have indeed been dramatic and newsworthy: a shocking assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, and an unexpected withdrawal by President Joe Biden from his re-election campaign, presumably paving the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to assume the Democratic nomination. These developments have understandably dominated global headlines due to their implications on international relations and global stability.

However, the extent of the coverage by Australian outlets raises questions. For example, the ABC prominently featured U.S. politics across its platforms, with such stories consistently topping its most viewed articles. Similarly, major publications like The Guardian and the Sydney Morning Herald have followed suit, leading with U.S. political news over local Australian stories.

To keep pushing the issue of U.S. politics in different ways after the more substantial stories began to ebb, The Guardian went to the effort and expense of surveying 1,137 Australians last week, asking who they would vote for in the U.S. election if they could, even though Harris is not yet the endorsed Democratic candidate, even though the election is still four months away, and even though Australians cannot vote in U.S. elections. It’s hard to see how a vanity exercise of this kind serves the public interest for an Australian audience. Is it essential to know that 29 percent of those surveyed would vote for Trump and the Republicans, or that 37 percent would vote for Harris and the Democrats?

This phenomenon isn’t merely a matter of media preference but reflects a deeper global interconnectivity where American political shifts significantly influence economies and policies worldwide. Nevertheless, the saturation of U.S. politics in Australian media has had unintended consequences, primarily the overshadowing of pressing local issues. At a time when Australian politics also faces unprecedented developments, the predominance of U.S. news stories seems disproportionate.

Critics argue that this focus diverts attention from critical Australian issues that need addressing, from environmental policies and economic reforms to social justice initiatives. The rapid cycle of news coming out of the United States, including the rapid consolidation of Democratic support around Harris, mirrors a media fascination with American politics that often eclipses local content, leaving citizens less informed about their own governmental affairs. This has implications for public understanding and engagement with complex issues, both domestic and foreign.

The debate over the volume and tone of U.S. political coverage in Australia raises a central question about the role of media in shaping not just what people think, but what they think about in the first place.

Spectacle vs. substance: The impact of personality-driven coverage on politics

The portrayal of political leaders in the media often reflects not just the society’s interest in their personalities and policies but also the media’s own business-driven need to attract viewers and readers. This dynamic is exemplified in the case of Donald Trump, whose media coverage often resembles more of a spectacle than a serious political discourse. This phenomenon is not unique to Trump; a range of global political figures including Boris Johnson in Britain, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and locally, Scott Morrison, Tony Abbott, Pauline Hanson, Clive Palmer, et al, have similarly been highlighted and promoted, often for their more outlandish or controversial traits rather than substantive policy discussions.

This pattern of coverage reflects a broader trend where media focus on personalities who can generate immediate and intense public interest. Trump, with his unpredictable statements and flamboyant style, draws comparisons to a stand-up comic or a reality TV star more than a traditional politician. Similarly, figures like Johnson and Bolsonaro engage the public through a mix of humour, shock, and direct communication, often bypassing conventional political discourse and engaging directly with the populace in ways that traditional media find hard to ignore.

However, this focus on the sensational aspects of these leaders has significant implications for political reporting and public perception. The continuous emphasis on “idiot politician syndrome” shifts the focus from policy and governance to personality and scandal. This can detract from a more nuanced understanding of the political landscape and reduces complex political realities to simple narratives that are easier to consume but less informative.

The dominance of such figures in media coverage also skews public perceptions, making it seem as though flamboyance or controversy are more widespread in politics than they actually are. This can also lead to a cycle where the most sensational figures receive the most coverage, which in turn enhances their visibility and influence in a feedback loop that can distort electoral outcomes. For example, the coverage of Harris in the Australian media often highlights a comparative analysis of her negatives rather than her policies or leadership qualities. Such framing can influence public perception by focusing on personal flaws or controversies rather than substantive differences in policy or vision for the country.

The consequences of this style of media coverage are profound. It risks diminishing the public’s ability to engage critically with political information and to make informed decisions at the polls. Instead of a well-informed electorate, the focus on political drama and personality flaws can lead to voter apathy or cynicism, which undermines democratic processes.

The Australian media’s recent heavy focus on American politics, particularly its most sensational aspects, can crowd out coverage of critical domestic issues. This can leave Australian citizens less informed about their own government’s actions and policies, which directly affect their lives more than foreign political developments.

While the media’s obsession with figures like Trump and other controversial leaders can be explained by the immediate engagement they generate, it presents a challenge to the depth and quality of political journalism. As media outlets worldwide continue to navigate the shifting landscapes of digital news consumption and global politics, the balance between coverage that attracts viewers and that which informs and empowers them remains a critical concern.

The media’s obsession with the freak show

The pervasive focus of the Australian media on U.S. politics, particularly the sensational aspects embodied by figures such as Trump, highlights a broader trend within the industry: the prioritisation of ratings and a battle over diminishing advertising revenues, rather than substantive reporting. This phenomenon raises significant concerns about the media’s role in serving the public interest, particularly when it comes to informing citizens about crucial political developments.

It’s apparent that the media’s fascination with the freak show of U.S. politics is not about the public interest but about capitalising on the spectacle to draw viewers. This strategy is evident in the coverage of Kamala Harris, whose emergence as the likely Democratic nominee has shifted the narrative around the U.S. presidential race. Despite her serious demeanour and policy-focused campaign, much of the media coverage remains superficial, focusing more on her as a personality rather than on her policies or vision for America.

This approach reflects a media landscape – locally and internationally – that is increasingly driven by the need to secure eyeballs and generate clicks, and it is this environment that often rewards sensationalism over depth and controversy over clarity. While the media industry has always relied on sensationalism to engage viewers, readers, and listeners, in the past, this strategy was used to attract audiences to more substantial content that informed the public. However, in the modern era, sensationalism is used primarily to attract audiences to even more sensationalism and, as a result, the news, information and current affairs the public truly needs to know about are often relegated to insubstantial narratives, if reported at all.

The implications of such a media strategy are profound, especially in terms of how it shapes public perception and understanding of politics. Instead of fostering a well-informed electorate, this leads to an amused, bemused and misinformed public, where sensational stories overshadow critical issues and complex policy discussions.

The intense focus on U.S. politics by Australian media, despite the lack of direct electoral influence by Australian citizens, suggests a mismatch between the content provided and the actual informational needs of the audience. While the outcomes of U.S. elections certainly have global ramifications, the disproportionate coverage comes at the expense of more relevant domestic issues that directly impact Australians.

Harris’s rise in the U.S. opinion polls and the narrative shift from Trump as an inevitable winner to a potential loser illustrate how quickly media narratives can change, yet these changes often remain on the surface. The deeper, more substantive aspects of her candidacy and what it signifies for U.S. politics – and eventually, Australian and global politics – are frequently glossed over in favour of more digestible, albeit less informative, storylines.

As the media continues to struggle with the challenges of a changing technological and viewer consumption landscape, the need for a more responsible approach becomes clear. Such an approach would prioritise the public interest and strive to provide coverage that not only informs but also enriches public debate. This would entail a significant shift from the current practices, focusing more on in-depth analysis and less on the spectacle, fostering a more engaged and informed electorate. As the global media landscape evolves, the call for such a transformation becomes increasingly urgent, compelling media organisations to reassess their roles and responsibilities in a democratic society.