Modern Australian

'Fairness' versus 'strength' – the battle to frame the federal election

  • Written by Mark Triffitt, Lecturer, Public Policy and Political Communications, University of Melbourne

Politicians have long faced the challenge of how to effectively communicate with citizens who largely see them as dissemblers and promise-breakers.

On the face of it, the task for the major parties to construct messages that resonate with voters appears even more daunting in the 2019 federal campaign. After all, the campaign is occurring against the backdrop of historic low levels of voter trust and engagement.

At the same time, the policy battle lines between the major parties heading into the election are among the starkest in recent memory. As such Labor and the Coalition appear to have seeded a rich harvest of cut-through messages organised around very different themes.

Read more: As election 2019 kicks off, the only certainty is a cranky and mistrustful electorate

‘Fairness’ versus ‘strength’

Federal Labor’s campaign communications are organised around a single word: “fair”. At a party, leader or candidate level, “fair” or “fair-go” is threaded through nearly every piece of communication to voters.

Bill Shorten’s budget reply – the unofficial start of Labor’s election campaign – was replete with the word, or variations such as “fair go action plan” and “intergenerational fairness”.

In truth, fairness has always been part of the ALP’s messaging DNA. But its core campaign message in 2019 is aggressively leveraging what the party sees as an emerging zeitgiest in the Australian electorate against undue economic power and privilege.

The Coalition, on the other hand, has its own singular message: “strength” and its semantic sibling “security”. Both words have been campaign talismans for the Coalition since the Howard years, when 9/11 and the Tampa debate sensitised voters to national and border security.

This is why “strong economy”, ‘securing our future’ and “secure borders” will be repeated ad nauseum by the Coalition in the hope that old wine in new bottles will again prove to be its election elixir.

These juxtaposed themes appear to promise a level of campaign frission that might potentially reengage a jaded electorate. The reality, however, is likely to be the opposite.

Fighting the framing wars

Campaign communications based on pithy slogans have always been integral to electioneering. Slogans seek to compress complex realities into bite-sized messages that are simple and memorable. But in the 21st century, slogans and other highly truncated communications have become even more critical to political campaigning.

In this so-called age of distraction and information overload, every communicator faces major challenges not just to gain the public’s attention, but hang onto it. This attention/traction dilemma is compounded for politicians given the rapid rate at which citizens are tuning out of mainstream politics.

Read more: Federal election 2019: state of the states

These structural factors have meant the semantic contest between parties – otherwise known as framing wars - have become increasingly influential in how political campaigns are structured and run.

“Framing” in political communications parlance means marking semantic boundaries around the debate that a party’s campaign or policy speaks to. Values - such as fairness, strength, opportunity, equality and continuity - are the most effective words to frame political messages.

This is because distracted and distrustful voters are more likely to listen to political messages that speak to the universal and positive principles that values espouse. Hence, values framing potentially addresses the “attention” problem.

Their simplicity also readily lend themselves to the repetition required by politicians to hang onto public attention, thus helping to overcome the “traction” problem.

Seeking a connection with voters

While values framing - formalised as political communications practice in the United States over a decade ago - has become an integral tool for Australia’s political parties to connect with voters, there are major drawbacks.

First, the number of values – as expositions of basic moral principles – are relatively limited. This is why the same values, with minor variations, keep being churned out by parties in successive elections. They are also used by competing parties in the same campaign to neutralise the impact of rival frames. Already we see the Coalition attempting to reframe Labor’s fairness mantra as well as Labour’s assurances they too are “strong” economic managers.

As a result, rather than helping to differentiate parties, values framing can reinforce voter perceptions that there is little difference between them.

Read more: The end of uncertainty? How the 2019 federal election might bring stability at last to Australian politics

Embracing the vacuous

The universality of values helps major parties – facing an eroding support base – to appeal to many voters simultaneously.

But their catchall character can also make them and their leaders appear shallow and unimaginative. Think of Malcolm Turnbull’s “Continuity and Change” slogan in 2016. Not only was it widely criticised as a meaningless cliche. It was also seen as a knock-off from a popular political comedy series.

Finally, relying on a singular value to frame campaigns hard wires parties to lean on other generalisations that reinforce public perceptions politicians are out of touch.

Take both parties’ perennial appeal to “ordinary Australians” (is there such a thing in the worlds’s second most multi-cultural society?) or “working families” (at a time when more voters than ever are single).

In short, while voters will hear “fair” and “strength” robotically communicated throughout this campaign, what is viewed by the major parties as a “cut-through” cure to voter disengagement risks only adding to it.

Authors: Mark Triffitt, Lecturer, Public Policy and Political Communications, University of Melbourne

Read more http://theconversation.com/fairness-versus-strength-the-battle-to-frame-the-federal-election-115296

NEWS

Changing the terminology to 'people with obesity' won't reduce stigma against fat people

Fat activists argue fat is the most appropriate word to describe their bodies.Yulia Grigoryeva/ShutterstockThe British Psychological Society is calling for changes for how we talk about fatness, suggesting we should...

why up to two-thirds of property investors may get it wrong

How likely is it that where you happen to live will always outperform every other location?ShutterstockThe housing market is moving again. In the past month, national prices have climbed 0.9%.What...

The biggest hurdle for the Coalition's religious discrimination bill: how to define 'religion'

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils says the bill doesn't go far enough to protect religious minorities in an increasingly intolerant society.Dan Himbrechts/AAPThe Coalition government’s proposed religious discrimination bill has...

Snowy 2.0 will not produce nearly as much electricity as claimed. We must hit the pause button

Prime Minister Scott Morrison in front of the Tumut 3 power station at the Snowy Hydro Scheme. New analysis suggests the benefits of Snowy 2.0 have been overstated.AAPThe federal government’s...

feng shui for a vision of a world in harmony

The Chinese-Australian artist Guan Wei is on display in a new exhibition at the MCA. The centre piece of the exhibition is the 18x6m mural Feng Shui (2004).Guan Wei, Feng...

Rail works lift property prices, pointing to value capture's potential to fund city infrastructure

Value capture has been advocated as an innovative way to fund infrastructure, including by the Australian government. However, its effectiveness in Australia has been questioned. Our research, based on ...

Pope Francis and the Catholic church continue to look towards science, and that can only be a good thing

It’s not uncommon for science and religion to be framed as two opposing forces.The Catholic church has famously struggled to accommodate scientific research in its past, but recently there has...

Who is Judge Dredd and why it matters that media invoke the cartoon character

The character of Judge Dredd was designed to be satirical, depicting the ultimate draconian cop.Supplied, CC BY-NDAccording to a recent study, the sixth leading cause of death for young men...

Four questions about mortgages the ACCC inquiry should put to the big four banks

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission conducted an inquiry into mortgage pricing as recently as last year. Now Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has asked it to do another, broader one, in...

some students don't know the difference between bullying and banter

Nearly half of kids in a study were harmed by their peers.from shutterstock.comMany Australian students don’t know the difference between banter and bullying, with some saying they joke about wishing...

We need to count LGBTI communities in the next census – here's why

The ABS should include detailed questions about gender and sexuality in the 2021 Census. AAP/Brendon ThorneThere’s an old maxim: not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that...

Australia could see fewer cyclones, but more heat and fire risk in coming months

Northern Australia is likely to see fewer cyclones than usual this season, but hot, dry weather will increase the risk of fire and heatwaves across eastern and southern Australia.The Bureau...

Popular articles from Modern Australian

Best Out of Waste in New South WalesGlamorous Gifts - 5 Luxe Giving Options When Only the Best Will DoFood for collagenIs Rhinoplasty Right for You?Winter fun in ColoradoSlots SecretsEssential Personal Hygiene Tips for TravelingTop 3 Affordable Activities To Do In Los AngelesTop 4 Reasons Why a Gas Fireplace Is an Ideal SolutionAdvantages of Using an Insulin PumpMaths – when it’s time to break free of your misbeliefsStrictly For Women:5 Steps To Top 5 Designer Sunglasses That Celebrities Are WearingBest Paradise Islands You Should Visit in AustraliaMost Popular Mexican Destinations for Australian Visitors