Media’s fear of Pauline Hanson is her greatest weapon

Pauline Hanson thrives when journalists fear being left out, but Dr. James Beattie writes that the media has more power than they think if they are willing to use it.

THERE ALREADY WAS some comments about how journalists can be more research In the interrogation of the senator Pauline Hanson Lately Press Club address.

But little has been said about why there are so few compelling questions from this elite group of Australian media practitioners, and how they should or should not cover it in the future. Did most of them turn off their moral compasses as well as their cell phones when entering the room? Or was something else happening? Were they acting out of moral cowardice or merely polite respect?

Or was it more of a professional FOBB issue: fear of getting banned?

Pauline Hanson problematic relationship recorded with the media. But as I explain below, he needs the mainstream media as much as other politicians. However, he has already banned two media outlets, confirming and expanding his party’s exclusion. ABC And Guard One Nation answering a question from media events Guard‘s Sarah Martin During a Press Club appearance.

Every journalist at the event was aware of this ban before arriving; Therefore, it is understandable that many of them are anxious to avoid suffering the same fate.

In his speech, Hanson also announced that he would abolish SBS and turn the ABC into a mostly subscription-financed organisation. Who wouldn’t be afraid to provoke Hanson’s ire with policies or threats like these?

But does this need to be the case? Why would he hold all the cards?

This is how bullying works: Intimidate those who dare to challenge you by banning them; many journalists seem to regard this as tantamount to professional assassination. But given that there are already a few brave souls like Sarah Martin standing up to him, why aren’t there more? When Hanson called Martin “a dude,” why did his colleagues in the room remain conspicuously silent about his attack on Martin’s professionalism? “worthless journalist”?

Did anyone present leave the hall to protest this insult? No. Did the landlord intervene to assert some standards of decency regarding Hanson’s treatment of Martin? NO.

The union representing Australian journalists is the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), published a expression Later that day Hanson ‘Abuse continues’ Martin and International Federation of Journalists He confirmed this statement the next day. A lot media organizations wrote stories however, there was no official media statement from these organizations and the Press Club itself apparently decided not to take a stance on the incident.

What most journalists may not have realized is that behind what he was clearly channeling Lewis Carrollcruelly Queen of HeartsHanson is just as much a figment of the media’s imagination Wonderland Queen It’s for Alice. He bans media outlets and practitioners because he doesn’t trust his ability to competently handle their fancy questions. Perhaps he realizes that he does not have the capacity to discuss the issues he talks about in terms of policy implications.

If there is anyone who will have the upper hand here, it is the media, because of how meticulously they usually do their homework on matters related to domestic politics. The crème de la crème of Australian journalists gathered for the Press Club speech had to guess what areas Hanson would investigate, what his weak points might be and how best to scrutinize his claims and proposals. A vital message for the media is this: Don’t be bullied by Hanson’s political cowardice camouflaged as toughness.

Perhaps the most egregious moral failure of the event – or was it professional? – the encouragement was that there was no serious challenge to Hanson’s desire to make Australia a monocultural nation. No journalist has attempted to explain exactly what monoculturalism means for Australia; What would change if Hanson achieved this goal?

Hanson acknowledges that we are a multiracial nation, so for him “cultural” must mean something different than “racial purity.” But what exactly?

a few journalists to have since it was discussed he monocultural “vision” from someone various perspectives. But none of the Press Club journalists attempted to question him in detail about how pervasive and invasive his monocultural mission would be if he were given the reins of power.

This was a valuable opportunity wasted; An obvious failure on the part of the assembled representatives of the Fourth Estate, given how rare it is for the mainstream media to question him personally.

So where to from here? I have a suggestion: MEAA has two t-shirts and even a medal, one of which says: ‘I was banned by Pauline Hanson’the other says: ‘I do not suffer from FOBB’. The first may be awarded to journalists who have had the honor of being excluded from one or more of Hanson’s media events. Second, it could be accessible to any journalist who wishes to stand in solidarity with those currently banned.

Like all politicians, Hanson relies on the media’s oxygen tank, and any news about him will help mobilize his supporters. The more media outlets and individuals it excludes, the less oxygen it gets.

We should also activate various social media hashtags. One of them could be #BanMe, or even better, #BanhMiTooPauline. Another might be #NoFOBB.

former legal reporter Recommended by David Solomon ABC simply ‘Stop reporting everything he says’While I was a journalist Barrie Cassidy goes even furthermedia as a whole “Resist such interventions in their work together. How can a journalist go to a press conference when some of his colleagues are locked out?”

I agree with these sentiments. But it’s hard to imagine Sky News Journalists standing shoulder to shoulder with the ABC or Guard reporters will boycott coverage of Pauline Hanson. However, journalists’ attitudes toward Hanson in the future will be a litmus test for the value they place on professional complacency versus moral courage. Their silence or professional timidity would mean tacit acceptance of their party’s “values” and “policies”.

political analyst Amy Remeikis reminds us Hanson can bypass mainstream media:

‘His social following… means he has the freedom to speak directly to his supporters with as much falsehood, lies and bad information as he wants.’

TRUE. But this is less true of the city’s residents, who make up the majority of the electorate and are apparently still large enough to sustain mainstream media outlets economically; although this is now mostly done through digital distribution systems. These city residents still largely determine the outcome of federal elections.

Moreover a 2026 study i found this ‘Television to hang around ‘as the main news source (57%)’with ‘almost half Percentage of news consumers who say public service media [ABC and SBS] ‘It has a positive impact on life in Australia’.

The report by the University of Canberra’s News and Media Research Center shows the majority of Australians still get their news through mainstream media. The top five offline (radio, television and newspaper) sources: ABC News, channel 9, channel 7Sky News and AustralianThe top five online resources are news.com.auABC News online, 9news.com.au, Guardian Australia online and skynews.com.au (p.104-5). All but one of these ten sources have increased their share of the news market since 2025.

It is therefore still vital that the mainstream media take responsibility for criticizing Hanson or, if banned, boycotting his socially corrosive statements and “values.” If they instead choose to amplify Hanson’s voice with seemingly unbiased, non-judgmental reporting, then as media consumers we too should boycott these media outlets.

There are worse professional fates than Hanson not being allowed to attend press conferences and campaign speeches. But the easy way is to let the FOBB win the day and retain the right to ask him soft and non-controversial questions.

The more uncomfortable way is to lean into the tough questions and say: “Come on, Pauline. Shut me out if you dare.” I encourage journalists to sit down and upend the moral compass they crushed as they listened to Hanson speak and attack his colleagues.

They should reopen and do whatever they can to hold Hanson accountable, even at the risk of being left out of future media events.