“We don’t analyse by reading from different sources. We filter based on a private company’s algorithm. We are provided with the same content because they want us to spend longer on the platform so they can sell more advertising space to fund the freemium model,” writes political columnist ANDREW HUGHES. 

All through human history emotive messaging has been used by those seeking political outcomes. What has changed though is how we consume that information, and where that information comes from. 

Everyone will claim the “greater good” argument. That it is they who are the victims of the others. They who have to watch while the others squander opportunity, with no regard for cost, only narrow self-defined outcomes. 

And yet, for each side to be effective they need the other. Each side can’t exist without the contrast with the other. Labor’s messaging is less effective against the Greens than it is against the Liberals. The Liberals need a left Labor leader for the ultimate differentiation in their messaging. 

Yet the effectiveness of some of this messaging is like the message itself – narrow. Some, but not all. The right emotive messaging stirs up the base, acting as a call to action.

A great example of this were the “Cooee” posters, some of which are in the Australian War Memorial, which targeted those on the land with a direct call to action to join up. 

The 1949 Ben Chifley “Light on the Hill” address, borrowed from the Bible, is often still referred to by Labor luminaries in giving speeches to the base. 

Methods have changed since then, but the objectives are the same: to get the base fired up, something Barack Obama was brilliant at in the early uses of the digital platforms. 

With the advent of more and more social-media apps, and more and more of us carrying around communication devices in our pockets, we consume more media than we ever have. And we are also far more accessible. 

Before mobile devices we could switch off. Literally. Switch off the TV. The radio. Read newspapers that offer different perspectives and take nearly the entire weekend to get through.

But now we are flooded with information. Notifications. Pings. Alerts. We need password managers to remember things. Apps have replaced our memories and knowledge base. Yes, we have advanced in information and knowledge, but we have also left the front door unlocked and open to nefarious actors who only see opportunity. 

Now, that same device is also one of the most sophisticated political weapons on earth. It can do just as much harm as anything else. 

During the anti-lockdown and anti-vax peak period just a few years ago, I looked at the content the top influencers in that moment were making. It was smooth, well edited, filmed in HD, and made a good argument for their views. It moved and changed behaviours of people not just in that cause but some who were fringe to it or only connected digitally. 

That plausibility of their cause was assisted by questionable emotive messaging produced by the government at the time, notably the Sydney Woman ad. Why questionable? The woman depicted in the ad was in an age bracket who, at the time, could not access the vaccine. Disinformation? Maybe. 

It was fear messaging targeted at a group of people reminiscent of the influential but stereotyping Grim Reaper ad from the 1980s. This particular ad is still rightly hated by all in the LGBTIQ+ community. 

Why do these methods work in 2025? Because now we snack on information. We rarely digest. For those who’ve got this far, this is perhaps one of your longest reads this week. 

That means we don’t take it all in. We don’t analyse by reading from different sources. We filter based on a private company’s algorithm. We are provided with the same content because they want us to spend longer on the platform so they can sell more advertising space to fund the freemium model. 

If you are a small fish in a big political ocean, to capture our attention often means pushing the boundaries. 

We are seeing this right now. Rocks thrown in the morning at police lines so it makes the cut for the nightly news. Content with emotive grabbing titles such as “Protest turns violent”, or “Taunted by them, so we pushed them back”. It works, for some. 

The danger is that some information is seen as truth, and that truth to a very small minority means action. Threats against our politicians are at record highs. Many women who want to enter politics are deterred by threats and abuse. Even journalists face increased harm levels. 

It’s no longer time for debate on this. Action needs to be met with action. These aren’t just harmless barbs in video form. They are undermining what our democracy could be and should be as we enter the second half of this decade.

Dr Andrew Hughes lectures at the ANU Research School of Management, where he specialises in political marketing.