Australian Value or Political Rhetoric? The Media’s Use of the Fair Go in Australia

Abstract

Deceivingly simple and often colloquial, the Fair Go is pervasive to the Australian lexicon and a feature of the projected national identity. The Fair Go has historically been used as a plea for fairness in contexts where there is perceived injustice. The Australian media hold significant power to shape public perceptions and debate, including those around fairness; however, there is a limited understanding as to how the Australian media use the term. Examining the use of the Fair Go by the Australian media allowed for greater understanding of the role that the Fair Go plays within Australian society. A media frame analysis was conducted to explore the Australian media’s use of the Fair Go, revealing that the Australian media imbued the Fair Go with complex power dynamics. Re-enforcing the Fair Go as a narrative of injustice, the Australian media used the Fair Go to both personalise and politicise experiences of disadvantage through dominant humanisation and responsibility narratives. The results demonstrate how the often used, yet simplistic, façade of the term masks the complexity and power that the media have imbued the Fair Go with. Furthermore, the findings raise questions surrounding the media’s use of the term and the legitimacy of the Fair Go as a moniker of injustice.

1. Introduction

Whether considered an ideal (Vanstone 2007), a steadfast Australian value (Herscovitch 2013), a myth (Lawrence 2017), or a cliché (Saunders 2004), the Fair Go is etched into the Australian national identity and vernacular (Bongiorno and Pennay 2018). The Fair Go is best understood from the perspective of opportunity—specifically, that individuals should have the opportunity to better improve their life circumstances and thus be given a Fair Go (Herscovitch 2013). Australian communities have been built on the belief that Australia is the land of the Fair Go, where an egalitarian, rather than class-based, society defines the national identity (Bolton 2003; Saunders and Wong 2013). The Fair Go has been used in Australia since the late 1800s, with records of it expressed in reference to the Shearers’ Strike of 1891 (see Latest from Clermont 1891). The Shearers’ Strike of 1891 is considered one of Australia’s first major industrial disputes, with the strike initiated on behalf of the working class, with shearers fighting for a Fair Go through a desire for better wages (State Library of Queensland 2023). Although the strike failed to achieve the desired outcome (State Library of Queensland 2023), it marked the beginning of a long history of the Fair Go being associated with perceptions of justice. Recent scholarship has further examined the historical evolution of the Fair Go concept in Australian society. Howard (2023) traces the origins of the term, noting that its early usage in the late 19th and 20th centuries was less associated with egalitarianism and social justice than is commonly assumed today. Instead, the concept initially emphasised procedural fairness and opportunity in specific contexts, gradually expanding to encompass broader social justice principles. This historical shift in meaning helps to explain the term’s versatility and continued relevance in contemporary Australian discourse. With this historical evolution as context, it is important to examine how the Fair Go functions in contemporary Australian discourse.

1.1. Fair Go Discourse

The Fair Go sits comfortably within Australia’s discussions surrounding social issues (Stockwell and Scott 2001), with Australians actively concerned by, and engaging in, discourse regarding notions of fairness. For example, a roundtable discussion involving senior political members examined the state of inequality in Australia (Australia21 and The Australia Institute 2018), whereby commentary was offered stating, “we have millions of people now in Australia not recognised as being Australian citizens. The denial of equality is as important as the values of equality” (Australia21 and The Australia Institute 2018, p. 61). The roundtable highlighted the need for empathy and a Fair Go for those who were socioeconomically disadvantaged and challenged those in positions of power to address inequality (Australia21 and The Australia Institute 2018). While such discussions highlight the Fair Go’s centrality in addressing social inequities, the concept is not without critique.

The Fair Go is often adopted during discussions of substantive issues such as inequality and justice. The term can be used to advocate for the empowerment of marginalised and disadvantaged groups, as well as a mechanism to advocate against potential change, as, by default, a meritocratic belief posits that disadvantaged individuals have not worked hard enough when having/being given a “go” (Sidanius and Pratto 1999). This is evidenced in former Australian Prime Minster Scott Morrison’s meritocratic mantra, “fair go for those who have a go” (Morrison 2019), which reflects the conditional requirements of the Fair Go and stipulates that fairness is earned. Morrison’s commentary is a departure from the egalitarian ideal that Australian society and the Fair Go are said to reflect (see Siegel et al. 2011). This departure from egalitarianism was acknowledged by Lawrence (2017), who argued the Fair Go to be unrealistic and more reflective of a term used to distract Australians from the reality of Australian society—namely, a society that is not fair, characterised by entrenched differences and power imbalances, and far removed from the Fair Go egalitarian ideal.

Building on this tension between egalitarian ideals and meritocratic applications, the political deployment of the Fair Go has also received recent scholarly attention. The political deployment of the Fair Go has also received recent scholarly attention. Petter and Howard (2024) analysed how Australian Prime Ministers strategically mobilise the vernacular concept of the Fair Go in their rhetoric, revealing how political elites adapt this culturally resonant term to advance policy agendas and engage in political competition. Their analysis demonstrates how the Fair Go serves as a flexible rhetorical device that can be employed to both challenge and reinforce existing power structures, depending on the political context. This dynamic use of the term in political discourse aligns with Morrison’s meritocratic framing mentioned above and further illustrates the tension between egalitarian and meritocratic interpretations of the Fair Go.

This is evident in the current experiences of inequity in Australia; for example, Australian household wealth is still very much unequally distributed (Davidson and Bradbury 2022). The richest 10% of Australians hold 46% of all wealth, yet 60% of Australians hold just 17% of wealth (Davidson and Bradbury 2022). As it stands, it will take 85 years to bridge the current gap of wealth inequality (Dawson et al. 2023). Furthermore, Dawson et al. (2023) revealed that inequality significantly increased between 2010 and 2021 across multiple areas, beyond that of wealth. At the current rate, it will take 63 years to address First Nations inequality and disability inequality. Similarly, it will take 19 years to bridge the current gap related to gender inequality. Such gaps indicate the significant social divide within Australia. Considering that the Fair Go can be used to both empower and oppress (Sidanius and Pratto 1999), and there are tensions in what the Fair Go is said to reflect (see Lawrence 2017), it is necessary to examine how the Fair Go is used in contemporary Australian discourse.

1.2. Framing and Media Power

The Australian news media represent one context where the Fair Go is expressed (see Howard 2023; Waller and McCallum 2018), and this is important to consider given the media’s ability to construct powerful narratives (Roselle et al. 2014). Framing is central in mass media’s ability to instruct audiences on “how to think” about an issue, by presenting selective and crafted accounts of issues and/or events (Cacciatore et al. 2015). Framing is a process whereby people conceptualise issues from a particular perspective or alter their thinking about issues (Chong and Druckman 2007). According to Entman (1993), framing entails selecting some aspect(s) of reality and bringing focus to this aspect in such a way that its presentation promotes a particular way of defining a problem, social/moral evaluation, causal inference, or recommendation.

Recent developments in framing theory have emphasised the evolving nature of the media’s influence in contemporary environments. Matthes (2022) argues for the integration of message effects and narrative approaches to framing, suggesting that frames operate not only as isolated message elements but as components of broader societal narratives. Similarly, Entman and Usher (2018) examine how framing functions in increasingly fragmented media environments, noting that traditional framing effects may be both amplified and diluted as audiences encounter multiple, often conflicting frames across diverse media platforms. These perspectives are particularly relevant when examining culturally significant concepts like the Fair Go, which may be framed differently across various media outlets and platforms, potentially influencing how audiences understand and relate to the concept. These theoretical perspectives provide context for an understanding of the specific news frames commonly identified in media analysis.

Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) and Linström and Marais (2012) suggest that the following frames have frequently emerged within news media: (1) human interest, (2) conflict, (3) attribution of responsibility, (4) economic consequences, and (5) morality. A human interest narrative is framed in such a way that the event, issue, or problem is presented to the reader such that it brings forth a human face or emotional angle as the primary focus. Within a conflict-framed story, the frame purposefully highlights conflict and tensions between individuals, groups, or institutions to capture the audiences’ interest. The attribution of responsibility frame presents the issue or problem in such a way that the burden of responsibility is either placed on the government or to the individual or group at focus. Economic consequences frame a story in terms of the economic impact that it will have on the individual, group, institution, region, or country. A morality frame places the event, problem, or issues within “the context of religious tenant or moral prescriptions” (p. 96). However, it has been suggested that, when considering framing and types of frames, there are further complexities to consider.

Frames are more than simply pro vs. con or favourable vs. unfavourable; frames have the potential to elicit more complex emotional responses (Tankard 2001). Carter (2013) argues that framing creates a bridge between cognition (our thoughts) and culture (the social context that we are a part of), with Tankard (2001) surmising that a frame can tap into cognitive dimensions such as attitudes and beliefs. Given this, considering a frame, or the process of framing, is important, as the media, and their ability to frame, have powerful implications. Through the strategic selection and display of stories, media outlets drive and influence public attention and communicate what is considered to be the most important issue of the day; therefore, the media have the ability to influence the salience of the issues considered relevant to the public (McCombs 2006). Ultimately, the media, and parties with media ownership, have the ability to set agendas that guide public discussion and debate (King et al. 2017). This is evidenced by Waller and McCallum (2018), who argued that the Australian news media played a pivotal role in the Australian public’s ability to embrace the 1967 referendum, which gave rights to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through the repeal of Section 127 and amendments to Section 51 of the Australian Constitution (Attwood and Markus 2007). The success of the referendum meant that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were legally considered Australian citizens and part of the Commonwealth (Attwood and Markus 2007). In their argument, Waller and McCallum (2018) surmised that the use of “white Australia’s most cherished value, the ‘fair go’” (p. 1000) was what rallied the Australian public to stand behind the movement for constitutional change. The media’s use of the Fair Go, in combination with other key narratives, resulted in significant political change, evidenced by the overwhelming “Yes” vote received in the 1967 referendum (Waller and McCallum 2018). Waller and McCallum (2018) reflected on the media’s influence and use of the Fair Go on the outcome of this specific event; however, it is worth considering the broader application of the Fair Go in contemporary Australian media. While this historical example demonstrates the media’s significant influence on public opinion through Fair Go framing, understanding the contemporary applications of this culturally resonant term requires systematic analysis.

1.3. Rationale

Australians are in active discussions surrounding fairness (see Australia21 and The Australia Institute 2018), strongly endorsing the idea of “fairness”, with the notion of the Fair Go embedded in Australia’s national identity (Bongiorno and Pennay 2018). The term has long been used to reflect perceptions of injustice (see Australia21 and The Australia Institute 2018; Latest from Clermont 1891), with the Fair Go sitting comfortably in discussions surrounding social issues (Stockwell and Scott 2001). However, the Fair Go is complex, as it can be used to both empower and oppress (Sidanius and Pratto 1999), with evidence highlighting differing perceptions of the political philosophy underpinning the Fair Go, namely egalitarianism (Saunders and Wong 2013) and meritocracy (Sidanius and Pratto 1999). The prominence of the term in national discourse is clear, with the Australian news media playing a role in the development and ingraining of the notion of the Fair Go within Australia (Waller and McCallum 2018). Given the ability of the media to not only shape public debate by generating interest in specific issues (Happer and Philo 2013) but also to influence national agendas (King et al. 2017), in addition to the Fair Go being used by the media to shape public perceptions, as evidenced by the 1967 referendum (Waller and McCallum 2018), a media frame analysis (MFA) examining the use of the Fair Go could facilitate an understanding of how the Fair Go is constructed and framed in mainstream Australian news media. Such an investigation could build on research such as Howard’s (2023) historical analysis of the Fair Go and Petter and Howard’s (2024) examination of political rhetoric by specifically focusing on how the media construct and frame the concept. While these recent studies have illuminated the historical evolution and political deployment of the Fair Go, less attention has been paid to the media’s role in shaping the public understanding of this culturally significant term. Given the media’s demonstrated influence in previous national conversations involving the Fair Go (Waller and McCallum 2018), examining the contemporary media framing of the concept will provide valuable insights into how this supposedly shared value operates in public discourse.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

A qualitative MFA was undertaken, guided by procedures proposed by Giles and Shaw (2009). An MFA allowed for an examination of the way in which information that reflected a specific topic (Fair Go) was communicated to the public (Entman 1993; Van Gorp 2007). An MFA enabled an understanding of the journalistic practices that were applied to frame behaviours and the motivations of news sources that explain to the reader the origins of issues. Such practices—for example, the use of archetypes (character constructions) or narratives (the story being told)—suggest to the reader how to interpret the event or issue being communicated to them (Van Gorp 2007). In this instance, an MFA allowed for the examination of the journalistic practices employed by the media in framing the Fair Go to the Australian public. We selected Giles and Shaw’s (2009) media frame analysis approach over other alternatives because it specifically addressed the psychological dimensions of news influence. This methodological approach was particularly appropriate in examining the Fair Go concept as it allows for the systematic analysis of character construction, reader identification, and narrative framing—all critical elements in understanding how culturally significant terms operate in public discourse. Furthermore, the approach’s emphasis on language categories and generalisation aligned well with our research aim to explore how the Fair Go is constructed and deployed across varied contexts in the Australian media. This research adopted a social constructionism epistemological lens, which posits that our understanding of the world is constructed through our engagement in the world, rather than our discovery of it (Crotty 1998). Furthermore, it posits that language plays a part in both the construction of our world and how we perceive it (Burr 2015; Phillips 2023).

2.2. Data

The final article sample resulted in 230 online Australian news articles, procured from Factiva and ProQuest database searches (see Supplemental File S1, Table S1). Articles were sourced between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2021. The search terms “Fair Go” and “fair go” were used in the keyword search, and it was restricted to Australian national publications.

2.3. Procedure

The stepped process proposed by Giles and Shaw (2009) served as the foundation for the analysis. However, at times, the analysis was adapted to account for the contextual nature of the Fair Go, as described below.

2.3.1. Initial Data Collection

With a substantive focus (Giles and Shaw 2009) on fairness and justice—specifically, the prominence of the term Fair Go in the Australian identity (Bongiorno and Pennay 2018)—the search term parameters were set. The initial article search began 1 January 1996 and ended on 30 June 2021, with the start date marking the commencement of former Prime Minister John Howard’s leadership in January 1996 (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet n.d.), which marked the second-longest prime ministership in Australia and coincided with an upswing in the use of the phrase “Fair Go” in Australian political discourse. The search term “Fair Go” was used in both the Factiva and ProQuest databases, with all sources restricted to Australian newspapers. A search within this timeframe for each year was conducted to obtain insight into the subject areas where the media referred to the Fair Go.

The subject areas (e.g., political/general news) in which the articles were classified and catalogued within the databases, and their associated search result counts, were entered into a Microsoft Excel (v2021) spreadsheet. A Factiva database search across the 26 years from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 2021 resulted in 4107 articles. A ProQuest search with the same parameters resulted in 813 articles. The top three subject areas identified across the databases were (1) political/general news; (2) domestic politics; and (3) commentaries/opinions. News media tend to reflect current and rising issues at the time that the articles are written (Happer and Philo 2013). To ensure that the analysis better reflected contemporary Australian society, the timeline was reduced. Furthermore, given that the data set was coded manually to enable a deeper interpretation of the data and a feasible analysis, articles were further refined to the three identified subject areas and a more recent 3-year timeframe, January 2019–July 2021. Furthermore, the search was further limited to articles that used “Fair Go” in the title, to ensure that the principles of the Fair Go were embedded in the messaging and overall narrative of the article. This resulted in 683 Factiva and 692 ProQuest articles.

Setting a more recent time range allowed for the examination of articles that better reflected the contemporary cultural and societal circumstances within Australia. The 2019–2021 timeframe represents a particularly significant period for the examination of the Fair Go concept in the Australian media for several reasons. This period encompassed the 2019 federal election campaign, during which the Fair Go featured prominently in political rhetoric—most notably in former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s campaign slogan, “a fair go for those who have a go” (Morrison 2019). This period also captured the social and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, which sparked renewed public discourse about fairness, opportunity, and social safety nets—core elements of the Fair Go concept. Additionally, this timeframe allowed for an analysis of how the Fair Go was deployed in media discussions surrounding important national challenges, including climate policy debates, economic recovery planning, and responses to growing inequality. The concentration of these politically and socially significant events within this period provided a rich context for the examination of contemporary applications of the Fair Go concept in Australian media discourse.

2.3.2. Data Cleaning

The cleaning process involved three criteria: (1) identical duplicates, whereby articles with the same content, same word count, and same author were identified, and one of the articles was then removed; (2) multiple articles published by the same author and had similar or the same content but differing word counts—in these instances, the article with the larger wordcount was retained for analysis; and (3) incomplete articles, where articles that were only partially reported on one page and continued on additional pages within the publications were noted. If the full version of the incomplete article could not be located, the incomplete article was removed. The cleaning process resulted in the removal of 111 duplicate and redundant articles, and the final article count was 230.

2.4. Analysis

Articles were extracted into Microsoft Word (v2021) and coding was conducted both in digital and hardcopy formats. Given the number of articles, a hybrid approach was adopted, as coding and annotating hardcopies was found to be more immersive and aided in interpretation, whereas the digital record enabled the quantification of codes, where applicable. MFA entails identifying and interpreting elements of the article. In this study, the focus of the analysis was the article itself, excluding the title/headline—specifically, the contents of the article, the story, and the narrative characters within the article itself. The process adopted is described below.

2.4.1. Identifying the Story

The first step, identifying the story, involved identifying what the article was about (Giles and Shaw 2009). The article was read, and a summary of what the article was about was recorded in Microsoft Excel (v2021). This step identified the central justification and purpose of the publication of the story (Giles and Shaw 2009). Furthermore, written notes and initial interpretive notes on the article content were created.

2.4.2. Identifying Characters

Characters reflect the individuals referred to in the article. All characters in the article were recorded in Microsoft Excel (v2021). In the context of this research, the consideration of what was a character within articles was extended to include not only humans but also animals and pets mentioned in the story. Notes were also taken on the archetypes that the characters played in the article and included in the character construction (e.g., if the characters appeared to be framed as a villain in the story or a battler impacted by an issue or circumstance). For context, the “battler” is an Australian colloquialism that describes individuals who have few natural advantages, who work relentlessly for little reward and struggle to establish a livelihood yet display courage in their efforts (Australian National University 2017). The battler term has been linked to and used in conjunction with the Fair Go when referring to members of Australian society (see Herscovitch 2013).

The broad literary archetypes of the hero, villain, and victim have been used previously to identify characters within Australian news articles (see Phillips et al. 2023). However, through the analysis, specific characterisations of the hero and victim archetypes emerged. The advocate emerged as a sub-type of what may traditionally be considered the hero, and the battler archetype emerged as the characterisation of the traditional victim. Typically, the character construction of animals was as the battler/victim archetype.

2.4.3. Reader Identification

This step involved identifying the character(s) with which the article author led the reader to connect with (Giles and Shaw 2009). Notes were created in Microsoft Excel (v2021).

2.4.4. Identifying the Narrative Frame

Although the steps proposed by Giles and Shaw (2009) suggest a linear, stepped process, at times, the process became iterative, particularly when determining the narrative frame. Refining the search parameters to the inclusion of “Fair Go” in the title ensured that the principles of the Fair Go were embedded in the messaging and overall narrative of the article; however, this meant that the Fair Go was applied to various contexts and situations, rather than being the central focus of the articles themselves. For example, articles did not report on the Fair Go as a construct itself, but, rather, on whether a Fair Go was evidenced in a myriad of contexts, or they flagged a situation where there was the belief that a Fair Go should have been afforded to the character/s in the article. As such, a broader deductive approach to the consideration of the narrative structure was taken.

Standard news frames identified by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) and Linström and Marais (2012), such as the human interest, conflict, attribution of responsibility, economic consequences, and morality frames, were applied to account for the broad application of the term “Fair Go”. The coding criteria proposed by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) were applied to each article. During the article familiarisation process, it was evident that it would be challenging to identify the narrative construction of the articles. This was based on the varied lengths of the articles, in addition to the content of the articles. It was evident that thinking of narrative forms in a traditional literature sense was not appropriate. Therefore, more broad, traditional news frames were considered. The frames proposed by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) were identified as frames that were continually found to be applied within news media. Furthermore, given that early indications revealed the Fair Go to be applied within the political space, and that Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) applied the news frames successfully to news articles related to European politics, the news frames were considered a good fit for the current research.

Our approach acknowledges recent critiques and developments in framing theory. Entman and Usher (2018) emphasise that contemporary framing effects must be understood within increasingly complex media ecosystems where audience members encounter multiple, potentially contradictory frames. While our analysis focuses on traditional news media framing, we recognise that these frames exist within a broader media environment. Additionally, Matthes (2022) advocates for greater integration between message-centred framing approaches and narrative analysis, suggesting that frames derive power not just from their immediate construction but from how they connect to broader cultural narratives. This perspective informed our attention to both the structural elements of news frames and their connection to broader Australian cultural narratives around fairness, justice, and national identity.

Narrative coding entailed a binary coding process. A code of 1 was recorded each time an article met a narrative frame criterion. For example, a criterion within the human interest frame was “Does the story emphasise how individuals and groups are affected by the issue/problem?”. If the article did emphasise how an individual and/or group was affected by the issue or problem, then a 1 was recorded in Microsoft Excel (v2021). If the article did not make mention of the impact on individuals or groups, then a 0 was recorded. This process was repeated for each narrative frame and subsequent criterion in relation to an article. The 1s were tallied at the end of each narrative frame. Once coding was completed for all narrative frames and the 1s tallied, the frame with the highest 1 count was considered the narrative frame of the article.

During the coding process, there were some instances whereby multiple narrative frames could be applied to a single article. When this occurred, the articles in question were sent to the research team for cross-coding. The articles were coded by all members of the team and then discussed in the context of the narrative frames as identified by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) until a consensus was reached. In some instances, it was determined by the research team that an article could hold dual narrative frames.

2.4.5. Analysis of Language Categories

The analysis of language categories entailed the examination of the language within the article (Giles and Shaw 2009). Articles were read line by line, and specific words and phrases were extracted that were deemed emotive or of interesting use in the context of the article. These words and phrases were then entered into Microsoft Excel (v2021).

2.4.6. Generalisation

Generalisation involved the exploration of how an article or articles were linked to broader substantive issues or concerns (Giles and Shaw 2009). In this research, generalisation entailed identifying the larger substantive issues where the Fair Go was considered/applied—for example, disadvantage or injustice—which were recorded in Microsoft Excel (v2021). Each article was considered based on its own merits, and, at times, more than one generalisation was recorded. Once all articles were complete, a count was conducted in Microsoft Excel (v2021) to determine the most frequently recurring substantive issue, allowing the examination and isolation of the dominant generalisations found within the entire dataset.

2.5. Quality Procedures

To address the trustworthiness of findings, researchers engage in investigator triangulation (Rothbauer 2008), affirming methodological integrity throughout the narrative frame coding process. Triangulation improves the credibility and overall trustworthiness of the findings. More specifically, investigator triangulation allows different dimensions of understanding of the data to occur, offering additional insight and understanding (Rothbauer 2008), in addition to the confirmation of the findings (Carter et al. 2014). This was predominantly used throughout narrative determination—specifically, when articles were found to have dual narrative frames. During this time, four coders were used to determine the narrative of the article. Where there were conflicts in how the narrative frames were applied, discussions were undertaken within the team and a consensus arrived at post-discussion. Furthermore, throughout the analysis, an audit trail was kept, outlining the process performed and decisions made related to data collection and analysis (Mays and Pope 2000). This included discussions with the team when analytical challenges arose and how, as a team, we addressed these challenges and how we progressed with the analysis. Moreover, reflexive journaling practices were employed throughout the research process to manage positionality and subjectivity (Mays and Pope 2000), recording general thoughts and ideas related to the research topic and research process.

3. Results

An MFA of 230 news articles was conducted to explore how the Fair Go is constructed in online and print media. Building and adapting the approach offered by Giles and Shaw (2009), the MFA examined the Fair Go and the nuances identified with its application within the Australian media space. The Fair Go appeared to be a term with political associations and readily applied to situations or circumstances that media publications viewed to be unfair or unjust. The Australian Fair Go is constructed and framed in terms of narratives of humanisation and responsibility, using the term to humanise people and issues. Furthermore, the term appeared to be used in a colloquial and rhetorical sense as a mechanism to build connection and relatability between the public and the issues described in the articles. See Supplemental File S2, Table S2 for a full breakdown of the narrative counts.

3.1. The Fair Go as a Politicised Term

The Fair Go appeared to be a highly politicised term within the Australian media. Broadly, the subject areas identified in which the Fair Go was most readily applied and categorised were in the political space. For example, during the determination of scope, across the 25 years, the subject areas “political/general news” (n = 2547), “domestic politics” (n = 1116), “nominations” (n = 346), and “prime ministers” (n = 319) were identified as prominent classifications of the articles related to the Fair Go. This was an early indication that the term “Fair Go” was readily applied within the political space. When refined further to a three-year period, 2019 resulted in strong political categorisations. In 2019, the dominant subject area within Factiva was domestic politics (n = 160; see Supplemental File S3, Table S3), with a ProQuest search resulting in the dominant subject area of prime ministers (n = 111; see Supplemental File S4, Table S4).

In the majority of instances, the articles had some form of political quality, whether the individual within the article had a connection to local, state, or federal politics or the article itself was political commentary (65.7%). When articles discussed specific political parties—for example, the Australian Labor Party (ALP; left-leaning) or the Liberal Party of Australia (right-leaning)—articles appeared positioned to frame one party better than the other. In essence, it depicted an us-versus-them mentality and adopted a Labor perspective, i.e., what Labor has to offer in comparison to Liberals.

Within these articles, political parties appeared to pitch themselves to the public in an attempt to sway potential voters—for example, “…pitch was aimed at working-class and middle Australia (ALP)” ^#77; “Labor is offering a united and stable team” ^#82; “[Labor] present a unified contrast to the Morrison government^#91”; and “…Labor would be the party for jobs” ^#142. The content of the articles pitching political parties suggests that the media use the phrase “Fair Go” as a mechanism to create a connection between the Australian public and those in politics. Namely, by using a colloquialism within politics, politicians and political debate can become more accessible to “common people”.

Within politically focused articles, promises to those in less fortunate positions were made. Political parties appeared to outline ways in which they could help others in disadvantaged positions. In particular, pitches were offered from the Labor party—for example, “vowed to raise wages” ^#76; “Bill Shorten is promising a fair go for Australia” ^#79; “He promised to deny tax deductions for royalties to large global corporations” ^#89; “pledging to deliver a living wage” ^#91; and “We’ll help the people of Victoria with the cost of living” ^#92. The commentary here appears to reflect how the Fair Go is used by the privileged elite, who vow to use their positions of power and status to better the disadvantaged positions of others. Furthermore, the commentary reflected conditional advocacy, whereby a plan or solution was pitched to address or fix an issue, provided that the specific political party was elected. This was further exemplified by the following commentary: “Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten was in Palmerston promising $5 million towards a new pool for the municipality if elected as Australia’s next prime minister” ^#05 and “Mr Andrews said he was confident of a “fair go” for Victorians should Labor win” ^#56. The use of the Fair Go in this manner appears to highlight conditionality within the use of the term. The politicians appear to be attempting to persuade voters that their policies are fairer for the public. While it may be reasonable for politicians to present policy positions like this within their campaign platforms, where voters are able to choose between different parties, the use of the Fair Go in conjunction with this strategy suggests that help will come based on the condition of winning an election.

Interestingly, it appeared as though, at times, within the articles, the term “Fair Go” was more of a political trope than a construct that reflected Australian society—for example, “[the] fair go we’re so fond of never really existed” ^#118 with the feeling that “… the phrase is nothing more than a slogan thrown out in the lead up to an election” ^#111 and the belief that “The fair go has been rolled out in every election campaign in living memory” ^#79. The commentary here suggests that the Fair Go is constructed to be more than an Australian colloquialism—rather, it is a mechanism employed purposefully, strategically, and tokenistically within the political space.

3.2. Character Archetypes

Those included in Fair Go articles appeared to adopt specific archetypes or roles. These archetypes were in part defined by the positions of power that they appeared to hold in relation to the issue or problem identified within the article. Within the analysis, the archetypes were identified as the villain, the battler, and the advocate.

3.2.1. The Villain

The villain role within the articles appeared to be played by the individuals that were deemed responsible for contributing to the issue or failing to intervene to address the issue. Furthermore, the villain was a role that constituted a position of power, with 44% of instances where the government or government representatives were framed as the villain in the story. Examples are “Our nation’s most deserving senior citizens [Battlers] are being ripped off on a grand scale by their government: a government that ensures when its own politicians retire, they enjoy a lavish, gold-plated scheme pandering to their every need” ^#20 and “Territorians [Battlers] just want a fair go from the feds…We need the support of ScoMo [Scott Morison, past Australian Prime Minister] and his federal parliament colleagues to give us a leg up” ^#111. The evidence here reflects the perception that the government and government representatives in positions of power are in some way failing the Australian people. This suggests that the framing of the Fair Go in relation to the villain archetype is reflective of the privileged elite, who hold positions of power within Australian society.

3.2.2. The Battler

While the villain archetype typically held positions of power, the battler archetype represented those directly impacted by the issues identified within the articles. Essentially, the Australian media depicted the battler in a position of disadvantage. For example, the term Fair Go identified particular groups/people in need: “It’s obvious to any objective observer of the workforce right now that ordinary working people aren’t getting a fair go” ^#58; “Directing the ACCC [Australian Competition & Consumer Commission] to assess, test and design a floor price is an important first step in giving our dairy farmers a fair go” ^#61; and “Zeenat Khan, an Australian sonographer based in the UK, said those who had been vaccinated overseas should be given the same fair go as Australians jabbed onshore” ^#209. The examples here demonstrate the media’s use of the Fair Go to reflect perceived instances of injustice. Furthermore, it appeared as though the battler role was applied to various individuals and contexts—for example, “School children deserve a fair go” ^#30; “Fair go for country electricity consumers” ^#43; “A fair go for Riverwood homeowners” ^#212; “A ‘fair go’ for our region” ^#151; and “Carers get a fair go” ^#116. Given this varied application of the Fair Go by the media, this suggests the use of the term to be purely reflective of situations considered unfair or unjust.

3.2.3. The Advocate

Beyond the villains and the battlers, a third prominent archetype emerged in our analysis. The advocate appeared to speak on behalf of the battlers impacted by the issue or problem at the centre of the article. The Fair Go appeared to be strongly associated with individuals, groups, or organisations that advocated for battlers in an attempt to bring to light the problem itself and the struggles of the individuals impacted by the problem or issue. The prominent role of advocates in the Fair Go discourse raises significant questions about representation and legitimacy. When media outlets privilege certain voices to speak on behalf of battlers, they are exercising considerable gatekeeping power that shapes the public understanding of disadvantage. This selective amplification process is not neutral but reflects established power structures and media values that determine which advocates—and, by extension, which experiences of disadvantage—are deemed newsworthy (Cottle 2000; Nielsen and Fletcher 2023). There appeared to be three approaches to the inclusion of the advocate in the construction of the Fair Go: (1) highlighting individuals directly affected by the problem, (2) an unbalanced argument approach, and (3) the “thank you for trying” approach.

The first approach to including advocates highlighted individuals that were directly affected by the problem within the article. These articles tended to adopt first-person language such as “I” and “We”—for example, “I know the harsh reality from personal experience. Who better to research and write about productivity and employment outcomes than someone who has experienced autism and 40 years of competitive employment?” ^#02 and “We veterans are angry, and we are starting to gather force to challenge the government. We want to be treated fairly, and we want our money back” ^#19. In these examples, dual character constructions were applied whereby the advocate was also a battler. In such instances, the individual had lived experience of the problem identified in the article, while also advocating for others with similar lived experiences. Furthermore, the representative position is double-edged. Hearing experiences and reflections from a singular voice to the issue can be problematic, as it assumes that one voice speaks for all that are impacted by the problem. Of note, a few articles were written or voiced by the individuals, groups, or organisations that the problem directly affected. Of the 90 articles that had an advocate role within the story, two (2.22%) were voiced by an individual personally impacted by the problem featured within the article. Having limited articles voiced by those directly calling for a Fair Go potentially calls into question the accuracy of the representation of the problem identified within the article—specifically, whether the battlers’ positions are adequately represented.

In contrast to this direct advocacy approach, we identified a second, more prevalent approach that included an advocate role, which was the unbalanced argument approach. The unbalanced argument was the most readily applied approach within articles that included an advocacy role (85.5%). These articles had the voice of the battler, which provided a face to the problem, through the use of personal vignettes. However, the advocates in this circumstance appeared to be members of the community who held some form of power, position, or resources to garner media attention. Advocates’ positions ranged from members of parliament and executives to celebrities—for example, professors (“Telethon Kids Institute Chief Professor”) ^#146; members of parliament (“Health Minister” ^#12; “Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers” ^#116); executive officers (“Alexandrina Council chief executive”) ^#22; Australian intelligence, e.g., “…a former inspector-general of intelligence and security” ^#166; and media personalities (“Hamish Blake” ^#196). Using advocates who hold positions of power to bring voice to issues and advocate for a Fair Go on behalf of battlers calls into question how issues are determined to be newsworthy. It could suggest that the advocate, and not the issue, is the primary focus, and the use of the term Fair Go may be more tokenistic in these instances.

The third approach to the advocate role is the “thank you for trying” approach and is a dynamic in the writing that places emphasis on praise towards the advocate, positioning the issue or problem within the article as a secondary focus. Although minimal articles employed this approach (4.44%), this approach positions the advocate’s voice as the primary voice and focus of the article. Within these articles, the focus appeared to be around the efforts made by the advocates, framing the advocate and their efforts in a positive light—for example,

[Volunteer Joan Scott] was nominated for her role as a volunteer Independent Third Person with the Office of Public Advocate, where she ensures people with a disability or a mental health diagnosis are not disadvantaged with dealings in the justice system ^#64.

The extract above is representative of articles that frame the advocate as the primary focus, positioning the issue or problem and the individuals impacted as the secondary focus. Although the focus of the articles was the work of the advocates, at times, the broader problem for which the advocates advocated was mentioned—for example, “Outland jeans are sustainably produced by disadvantaged women overseas, many of them rescued from the horrendous sex trafficking industry—a fact that obviously attracted the attention of the duchess, known for her humanitarian heart” ^#54. Although mentioned, the discussion of the broader issue appeared fleeting and a secondary focus within the article.

3.3. Narrative Construction

The human interest and attribution of responsibility frames appeared to dominate the narrative construction of the articles, with a small number of articles (1%) holding more than one narrative frame. The articles that held dual narratives appeared to construct a balanced argument that reflected the human interest and attribution of responsibility narratives, highlighting both the resulting impact of the problem or issue on the battlers and creating a discussion around who had a hand in contributing to the problem or the power to address it. The dominance of these frames suggests that the Australian media employ the Fair Go to reflect perceived injustices, as well as to provide suggestions as to who may hold the responsibility to rectify the injustice.

3.3.1. The Fair Go as a Humanising Narrative

The majority of the articles where the Fair Go was applied were framed as human interest (42.17%), whereby a “face” was given to the issue or problem at the centre of the article, highlighting the battlers and villains of the story. Articles framed in this manner positioned the Fair Go to reflect the perceived injustice of the battler archetype. A human interest-framed article provided personal details of how the issue or problem described in the article affected the battlers within the story—for example, “A battler of abuse, Pepper has taken time to trust people again” ^#01 and “teachers were overworked, belittled by politicians in the media and suffered from change fatigue” ^#57. Framing a story in such a way could enable the reader to connect and empathise with the individual(s) or situation(s), potentially making the issue or problem more relatable to the public. The human interest frame appeared to allow the fostering of empathy or compassion towards the battlers and their situations through the use of mechanisms like personal anecdotes—for example, “I know the harsh reality from personal experience” ^#02; “Politicians should be caring for us in our declining years, not ripping us off” ^#19; and “It’s hard to get ahead” ^#208. Similarly, the use of emotive, descriptive language—for example, “a cry to be recognised” ^#121; “struggling with the rising cost” ^#92; “failed miserably” ^#214; and “Our vehicles just get slaughtered” ^#16—further assisted in fostering compassion and empathy towards those impacted by the issue within the article.

What appeared to emerge strongly within the human interest frame was the role of the advocate. In this instance, 41 of the 97 articles (42.3%) narratively constructed as human interest were generalised to advocacy, with the inclusion of an advocate within the story. It appeared that, when advocacy was indicated within the article, the articles were written in a way that highlighted the voice of the advocate and their advocacy on behalf of the battlers—for example, “Victor Harbor chief executive Victoria MacKirdy said her council would advocate for South Australia’s three major universities” ^#47; “Leader Robbie Katter has campaigned for years to ensure Indigenous people are able to get work in their own communities” ^#198; and “Riders do all their fundraising before hitting the road helping kids and their families who are doing it tough and providing much needed support to regional communities” ^#217. Within the media, when the Fair Go appears to be narratively constructed as human interest, articles make clear the human impact of the issue or problem within the article. Moreover, the articles highlight members of the public advocating for those impacted.

3.3.2. The Fair Go as a Narrative of Responsibility

Of the 230 articles, 93 (40.43%) appeared to be framed as attributions of responsibility. These articles appeared to make a case for assigning an individual, group, or organisation as responsible for addressing the problem identified within the article. Within this frame, the Australian government was seen to be the “body” that had the power to “fix” the problems identified; however, it was also considered as contributing to the problem.

When examining the character construction within the articles, in 44% of instances, the villain appeared to have a political connection and was either a member of the local, state, or federal government or a branch of government itself. Examples are “Sunshine Coast Mayor Mark Jamieson has shared his disappointment with recent visits to the Coast by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Prime Minister Scott Morrison” ^#63; “The demands they will take to the federal government include NSW not contributing to the 450 gigalitres of additional water recovery efforts…” ^#148; “The Morrison Government’s decision not to adjust the time frame for compensation for fireys [fire fighters] who spend more than 10 days protecting life and property from deadly bushfires to include all Territory volunteers is incredibly disappointing” ^#160; and “Governments of all stripes have relied on high levels of migration to boost population to fuel economic growth. Arguably, at times this has been a lazy approach” ^#176.

Although the responsibility for problems was, at times, attributed to the government, there was also an acknowledgement that the government had the ability to address the problem. Within the articles, the solution to the identified problems was at times attributed to either a member of the local, state, or federal government or a specific government department. Examples are “All Australian kids deserve a fair go, regardless of where they live. That’s why a Shorten Labor Government will provide an extra $14 billion for public schools to deliver the biggest school investment in Australian history” ^#30; “Sonny Bill Williams wants Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to give asylum-seekers in offshore detention a fair go and send them to New Zealand” ^#200; and “Australians vaccinated overseas are urging the government to clarify if their COVID vaccination status will be recognised…” ^#209.

Examining the broader substantive issues that the articles were addressing, attribution of responsibility articles addressed disadvantages in the majority of instances (48.38%). These articles appeared to highlight the position of disadvantage as felt by an individual, group, or organisation. Within the disadvantaged articles, the commentary spoke of fairness—for example, “joined in the fight for fair pay and conditions” ^#153; “if workers don’t get fair wage increases, they don’t spend and can’t save” ^#64; and “make sure the playing field is fair” ^#27. This media focus on disadvantage reflects growing public concern about inequality in Australia. Next25 (2022) found that Australians increasingly perceive their society as becoming less fair, with many believing that the Fair Go concept has been diluted through political overuse. Their research revealed that citizens observe a widening gap between the Fair Go rhetoric and lived experiences of disadvantage, particularly for marginalised communities. This public sentiment aligns with our findings about how media narratives construct the Fair Go in relation to perceived injustices.

Furthermore, the articles included language around unfair treatment within situations—for example, “unfair position that they find themselves in” ^#153; “Unfair inferences cast a shadow” ^#192; and “unfairly targeted” ^#165. The discussion of fairness went further in making explicit links to inequality—for example, “Our volunteer firefighters deserve a guarantee they’ll be treated equally” ^#10 and “unacceptable inequalities” ^#162. This link to broader substantive issues such as inequality and perceptions of fairness suggests that the Australian media use the term “Fair Go” as a colloquial mechanism to highlight social issues in order to avoid sparking controversy.

At times, the articles identified the problem and the individual, group, or organisation that was felt to be positioned to address the problem—for example, an article highlighted the mining company Adani and the delayed process in seeking government approval of its Black-throated Finch Management Plan. Within the article, the commentary was posed as follows: “[Adani was] awaiting State Government approval” ^#08 and “[the] company wanted clarity from Ms Palaszczuk” ^#08 “[and were] simply seeking a fair go” ^#08. This commentary appears to place Adani in a position of disadvantage, in comparison to Ms Palaszczuk, who appears to hold the position of power and thus represents the perceived mechanisms and the ability to address the issue that Adani is facing. It appears that, when the Fair Go is narratively constructed as the attribution of responsibility, articles endeavour to make clear that there is a position of disadvantage, and they do this by touching on broader societal issues such as inequality. Interestingly, 38.71% of the attribution of responsibility articles indicated advocacy as a substantive issue. Identifying elements of advocacy in conjunction with a responsibility-framed narrative could suggest that an advocacy position is a representative position, holding a level of expertise regarding the problem identified. However, if the advocate within the article is not directly impacted by the problem, the legitimacy of this expertise could be questionable.

4. Discussion

Guided by Giles and Shaw (2009), an MFA was conducted to examine the use of the Fair Go in the Australian media. On the surface, the MFA revealed the Fair Go to be a moniker for perceived injustice. The term was applied to situations and people who felt their circumstances to be unfair or unjust. Prior to the early 1900s, Howard (2023) acknowledged that the Fair Go was less about egalitarianism and social justice; however, the current findings reveal that a shift has occurred in the Fair Go’s use and meaning. Interestingly, upon closer examination, nuances were found in the media’s use of the Fair Go. The analysis revealed complex nuances of power—specifically, the power dynamics evident within the framing of the Fair Go through the prominent application of the term to the Australian political landscape and through dominant narratives of humanisation and responsibility. While previous research has acknowledged the complexity of the Fair Go term (Howard 2023; Petter and Howard 2024), our analysis uniquely demonstrates how the morality frame becomes analytically redundant when examining culturally embedded values, how media representation fails to account for intersectionality, and how the privileging of powerful voices can limit the concept’s effectiveness in addressing systemic inequalities.

The media are considered “a megaphone for those who cry for fairness, relief and recognition” (Christians et al. 1993, p. 92). This is poignant given the media’s use of the Fair Go as an indicator of perceived injustice. The Fair Go’s association with inequality and justice (see Australia21 and The Australia Institute 2018) has long been acknowledged and is further evidenced by the early indications acknowledged in this paper. Christians et al. (1993) stated that the “…test of whether the news profession operates justly over the long term is its advocacy for those abused or ignored by established power” (p. 92), and, with the media’s application of the Fair Go to Australia’s political landscape, this may be valid. However, within the media’s politicising of the Fair Go, complex power dynamics emerged, where the Australian political landscape had roles within not only the character archetypes but within complex dynamics related to narrative constructions (e.g., narrative of responsibility). The analysis revealed that the Australian media hold the Australian government in complex dual positions of power and privilege—namely, as both the cause and solution to the injustice experienced by Australians—and this is reflected by members of government holding both villain and advocate archetypes.

At surface level, the Fair Go articles that were politically focused revealed that the term was used as a mechanism for political gain. Specifically, it was a political strategy employed by political parties to sway voters in elections, as evidenced in the media’s use of the term around election time. Saunders (2004) acknowledges the Fair Go to be a “core Australian political value” (p. 4), suggesting that, without it, politicians would struggle to rally support and belief from the public, with politicians readily appealing to the Fair Go principle to justify policies (Giles 2002; Howard et al. 2024; Petter and Howard 2024). This perception is supported by the current research.

Politically focused articles centred around an us-versus-them mentality, whereby political characters stated that they were advocating for a Fair Go for Australians compared to their political counterparts, promising to advocate for those in disadvantaged positions. This mentality is further supported by Petter and Howard (2024), who found that, throughout Australian Prime Ministerial discourse, the Fair Go was used to engage in political competition. However, the sincerity of using the Fair Go in this manner is called into question. As evidenced in the current MFA, politically focused articles appear to give the promise of a Fair Go for the Australian public conditionally, reflecting the politicisation of disadvantage. The conditionality is evidenced through the political promises offered to the public during election years, with the assertion that, if elected, these promises will be met. The discussion of rights and disadvantage is arguably contested due to subjective journalism and the rights of people being used for political gain (Seneviratne 2020). The Fair Go used in this manner calls into question the authenticity of the term as a moniker of injustice, with a policy report by Next25 (2022) noting the Australian public’s belief that the overuse of the term by the media and politicians has rendered the Fair Go meaningless (Next25 2022). Interestingly, research has indicated that, for the most part, political parties intend to deliver on political promises (Naurin 2011); however, their power to do so may be exaggerated. Political parties are better able to deliver on promises when faced with limited contextual challenges and they have few institutional ties (Naurin 2011), demonstrating complexity when considering the government’s perceived power and actual power. This complexity is worthy of consideration given that the Fair Go was crafted in light of a narrative of responsibility, whereby the government was accountable for both contributing to and addressing perceived injustices within Australia.

Beyond its political applications, our analysis revealed how the media used the Fair Go as a humanising narrative strategy. We are living in what is considered to be a “post-truth” world (Seneviratne 2020), a term coined to reflect the abundance of misinformation perpetuated by modern-day media sources (Lewandowsky et al. 2017). When facts are presented, they are more likely to be questioned; however, when personal experiences are included, the authenticity of the experiences is harder to dispute and less likely to be questioned, particularly when reflecting experiences of harm (Kubin et al. 2023). The inclusion of personal experiences to humanise articles serves multiple purposes beyond authenticity and believability (Kubin et al. 2023), as it enables the fostering of empathy (Peter and Zerback 2020). The eliciting of empathy through the humanisation of news subjects is not a new concept (see Schudson 2013); however, the eliciting of empathy through humanisation within articles may be counterproductive to social change. The media’s focus on eliciting empathy can result in what Hoffman (2000) describes as “empathy over-arousal”, when feelings of empathy become so painful and intolerable that the empathetic person may themselves become distressed. This experience can mean that people become less empathetic (Hoffman 2000), leading people to further distance themselves from social issues by intentionally avoiding topics (Kinnick et al. 2016), thus maintaining the status quo. Therefore, if the media’s intent is to highlight injustice using the Fair Go in conjunction with a dominant humanisation narrative, this may be counterintuitive to the media’s responsibility as a proactive source of real societal change, as recognised by Christians et al. (1993).

The media’s privileging of certain advocate voices over direct battler testimonies is particularly problematic for three key reasons. First, it reinforces existing power hierarchies by suggesting that disadvantaged groups require mediation by more privileged actors to have their concerns legitimised in public discourse (Couldry 2000). Second, it potentially distorts the representation of lived experiences of disadvantage, as advocates, despite good intentions, may lack the experiential knowledge necessary to accurately articulate the nuances of situations that they have not personally encountered (Phillips et al. 2023). Third, the media’s selection of which advocates to platform often reflects institutional biases that favour established, elite voices over grassroots perspectives, potentially narrowing the scope of how disadvantage is conceptualised in public discourse (Nielsen and Fletcher 2023). This selective amplification process can inadvertently reinforce, rather than challenge, the structural inequalities that the Fair Go rhetoric purports to address.

The media’s strategy of pairing a term reflective of experiencing injustice, like the Fair Go, with individuals’ personal experiences demonstrates the media’s power and privileged ability to shine a light on perceived experiences of injustice. In essence, the media privilege some personalised narratives over others, through the publishing of articles and their associations with the Fair Go, thus prioritising particular issues among the public. However, the media’s use of the Fair Go fails to account for the intersectionality and positions of privilege of the battlers calling for a Fair Go, as intersectional theorists argue that a person or group can be both privileged and oppressed (Zinn and Dill 1996). This makes the consideration of disadvantage and those in disadvantaged positions more complex.

Given that the media’s use of the Fair Go reflects a perceived injustice and is applied to vastly differing contexts and perceived battlers, it is not clear whether the media’s use of the Fair Go is reflective of equality or equity, raising questions as to the ideological underpinnings that the media are using to consider fairness and what is essentially fair. With equality reflecting that all people are the same, deserving of the same respect and opportunity, equity goes further to also acknowledge unique differences, therefore identifying that some may need additional support and, at times, may need more than others (Australian Human Rights Commission n.d.). Equality and equity are exemplars of the complexity of fairness and the media’s use of the Fair Go, a term underpinned by fairness concepts, and, without the consideration or additional context regarding fairness, this raises more questions about the Fair Go and what it stands for.

The media’s application of the Fair Go across varied contexts, without clearly defining the underlying conception of fairness, becomes particularly problematic against the backdrop of Australia’s documented inequality trends. While our findings show that the media readily deploy the Fair Go as a moniker for injustice, recent research from Next25 (2022) suggests that this rhetorical approach may have diminishing returns, as Australians increasingly perceive a disconnect between Fair Go rhetoric and substantive action to address systemic inequalities. Their survey found that many Australians believe that the term has been rendered meaningless through overuse by media and politicians, highlighting a potential credibility gap in how fairness is discussed in public discourse compared to the lived realities of disadvantage.

The gap between Fair Go rhetoric and implementation is further evidenced in contemporary Australian policy discussions. Next25 (2022) found that, while Australians continue to value the Fair Go as a national ideal, there is widespread scepticism about its practical application, with survey respondents reporting that the frequency with which politicians and the media invoke the term often masks inaction in addressing structural causes of disadvantage. This aligns with our finding that the Fair Go is deployed across varied contexts as a rhetorical device, potentially diluting its substantive meaning while maintaining its emotional presence. The documented inequality trends in Australia (Dawson et al. 2023) and public perceptions of decreasing fairness (Next25 2022) suggest that media invocations of the Fair Go, while powerful as framing devices, may be increasingly disconnected from lived experiences of (in)equality.

Implications, Future Research, and Limitations

Having examined the complex ways that the Fair Go operates in the Australian media, we now turn to the broader implications of these findings and directions for future research. The current study has revealed the greater complexity of the Fair Go than previously considered. As demonstrated, the Fair Go has multiple complex power dynamics attached to the term. Beyond the Fair Go’s ability to highlight injustices within Australian society, there are power dynamics that have the ability to both facilitate and prevent change with the Fair Go’s expansive use by the media and strong political affiliations. The media have chosen to quote and present information and construct a particular narrative by using a combination of journalistic voice, politicians’ voices, or a third party’s voice strategically in the construction of their narratives. The power of the media is reflected in their ability to generate interest in specific issues (Happer and Philo 2013) and influence national agendas (King et al. 2017). This power, coupled with the use of a well-known and iconic Australian term like the Fair Go, reflective of experiences of injustice, has implications as to how Australian society views and understands the experiences of disadvantage and injustice in Australia.

The power dynamics revealed in our analysis should also be considered in light of evolving media ecosystems. Flew and Gillett (2021) argue that platform capitalism has fundamentally altered the governance of Australian news media, with digital platforms increasingly influencing how news is produced, distributed, and consumed. This shift has implications for how concepts like the Fair Go are framed and circulated. While traditional media outlets maintain significant agenda-setting power, as demonstrated in our findings, the fragmentation of media consumption across multiple platforms may affect how the Fair Go narrative resonates with different audience segments. The politicised nature of the Fair Go in our findings suggests that its deployment may be increasingly shaped by the political economy of digital news production, where emotive terms with cultural resonance can drive engagement across platforms.

The broad application of the term and the varied perceived experiences of injustice raise questions about fairness—specifically, how fairness is considered within Australian society. The seminal justice theory by Rawls (1958) posits that, a just society must be a fair society—more specifically, justice as fairness. Rawls posits that people should not be rewarded by societal institution-based chance outcomes, such as being born into wealth. How fairness is considered differs depending on the perspective and context—for example, diverging from the political philosophical standpoint of Rawls (1958), Goldman and Cropanzano (2015) argue that, from a legal standpoint, fairness and justice differ. Justice is the enactment of law, whereas fairness is the people’s reaction to the law (Goldman and Cropanzano 2015). The differing standpoints between Rawls (1958) and Goldman and Cropanzano (2015) demonstrate that the context in which fairness is considered from a political or legal standpoint can shape how fairness is understood. Further research exploring the ideological and social underpinnings of fairness in Australian society would add additional contextual understanding to the Fair Go. Furthermore, the media’s use of the Fair Go has implications for those in positions of disadvantage who are not considered worthy of media coverage by media outlets. This raises the question as to which characteristics of disadvantage make it worthy of news coverage such that a situation or context becomes associated with the Fair Go moniker.

Given the politicalised nature of the Fair Go, further examination of political discourse and the Fair Go would be valuable. In the current analysis, although the Fair Go was prominent within political articles, primarily highlighting the Labor Party, limited articles were from a Liberal perspective, and it was beyond the scope of this analysis to delve further into the use and meaning of the Fair Go specifically within political discourse. A Foucauldian discourse analysis of political news media and their use of the Fair Go would be valuable to explore the ideological differences in the way in which the Fair Go is used within Australian politics and news media, given the differing ideological values of Australian political parties (Johanson and Glow 2008). Furthermore, future research might explore the connection between Fair Go advocacy and the literature on representative claims making (Saward 2010), which offers a theoretical framework for an understanding of how advocates’ claims to speak on behalf of disadvantaged groups are constructed and legitimised in public discourse. This perspective could further illuminate the power dynamics that we identified between advocates and battlers in Fair Go narratives. Relatedly, as the media can be considered the fourth estate in democracies, with their role related to government accountability (Baker 2007), dominant narratives of humanisation and responsibility may be part of this accountability. Therefore, comparative political media articles not related to the Fair Go could be examined to see if the same narratives of humanisation and responsibility are still present.

The nature of communication has grown, including how people consume news media (see Wilding et al. 2018). This changing media landscape is particularly relevant when considering the power dynamics embedded in Fair Go discourses. Nielsen and Fletcher (2023) argue that, despite dramatic technological changes, significant power asymmetries persist in news media ecosystems, with elite sources and established media institutions maintaining a disproportionate influence over public discourse. Their concept of persistent power helps to explain our findings regarding the politicisation of the Fair Go, suggesting that, while digital platforms have changed how news circulates, the fundamental dynamics of who shapes narratives around culturally significant concepts like the Fair Go may remain relatively stable. This perspective suggests that our findings about the media framing of the Fair Go may have continued relevance, even as consumption patterns evolve across platforms. Despite this, although the sourcing of articles for this study was expansive, it did not account for other forms of news media, such as television coverage or social media. Further examination of the use of the Fair Go could be expanded to cover multiple news media sources so as to better reflect the diverse modes of communication available and to uncover further underlying patterns in the term’s use.

Additionally, the Fair Go has a value basis, with the morality code arguably applied to all articles that use the term; therefore, the frame becomes potentially meaningless. As such, the morality frame was determined to be redundant and not of consideration during the coding of the frames. Moreover, perceptions of what is considered to be unfair or unjust are arguably subjective. Therefore, investigation into media ownership and perceptions of injustice and the use of the Fair Go may be warranted.

5. Conclusions

The Fair Go is a term readily used in Australia. With the façade of simplicity, at the surface level, the Fair Go appears to be a colloquial term, reflective of a relaxed Australian culture. Yet the reality of the Fair Go is far from simple. The Fair Go is used to both personalise and politicise injustice within Australian society. These findings collectively demonstrate how the Fair Go functions as both political rhetoric and an advocacy tool, with its effectiveness and legitimacy shaped by who employs it, which narrative frames accompany it, and which character archetypes are invoked in its deployment. The media’s use of the term has imbued the Fair Go with complex levels of power, through reflecting perceived experiences of injustice and accountability within Australian society. The Australian media’s use of the Fair Go has demonstrated and reinforced the Fair Go as the moniker of the experience of injustice in Australia through its broad and consistent use. However, this raises the question as to whether the term’s use legitimately highlights experiences of injustice or whether it is merely a mechanism used by the media for political accountability.

The media’s tendency to foreground advocate voices in Fair Go discourse has significant implications for how disadvantage is understood in Australian society. By mediating the experiences of battlers, primarily through more privileged advocates, media outlets risk creating a filtered version of disadvantage that aligns with existing power structures rather than challenging them. This raises important questions about whose definition of fairness ultimately shapes public discourse and whether the Fair Go concept, as currently deployed by the media, can genuinely serve as an effective framework for addressing systematic inequalities. Furthermore, the frequent and varied application of the Fair Go in media discourse reflects a fundamental ambiguity; while the term is ubiquitous, what constitutes fairness in the Australian context remains unclear and subject to interpretation. This ambiguity allows the Fair Go to be flexibly deployed across a range of social and political contexts, potentially diluting its meaning while simultaneously reinforcing its cultural significance.

The practical implications of these findings are significant for both media practitioners and political communicators. For journalists and editors, recognising the power dynamics embedded in Fair Go narratives suggests a need for greater reflexivity when invoking this culturally resonant term, particularly concerning who is granted the authority to define fairness and whose experiences of injustice receive media attention. For political communicators, our findings highlight both the rhetorical potency and the potential limitation of Fair Go appeals in an increasingly fragmented and sceptical media landscape. As audiences become more aware of the conditional and politicised nature of Fair Go rhetoric, political actors may need to move beyond simple invocations of the term toward more substantive demonstrations of their commitment to addressing structural inequalities. These challenges are particularly acute in the current political communication environment, where declining trust in institutions and increased polarisation require more authentic engagement with foundational values like fairness. Whether the meaning of the Fair Go will be further diluted through varied application remains an open question. What is clear from our analysis is that the term’s versatility and cultural embeddedness have made it a powerful framing device in the Australian media, one that continues to shape how issues of fairness, disadvantage, and political responsibility are communicated to the public.