A senior academic has issued a stark warning about the role of mainstream media in inadvertently legitimising and normalising far-right politics in Australia and abroad. The critique follows a series of controversial rallies and political scandals that have tested journalistic standards.
Softening language and shifting blame
This year, public outrage erupted across Australian cities as neo-Nazi groups organised a series of rallies. However, Imogen Richards, a senior lecturer in criminology at Deakin University, points out that significant portions of media reporting framed these events not as neo-Nazi gatherings, but as generic "anti-immigration rallies". This linguistic shift, she argues, downplays the extremist ideology at their core.
This problem extends beyond headlines. Richards notes that commentators have repeatedly misrepresented net migration statistics, while politicians engaged in partisan arguments about who was responsible for the far-right demonstrators appearing on city streets.
A parallel situation unfolded recently in the United States. A scandal involving genocidal and racist text messages among young Republican leaders – which included slurs, praise for Adolf Hitler, and jokes about gas chambers – was dismissed by Vice-President JD Vance as merely "edgy, offensive jokes". While some senior Republicans condemned the messages, Vance's minimisation highlights a broader normalisation of such rhetoric.
The media's active role in defining acceptability
According to Richards, who recently edited the book The Far Right and the Media: International Trends and Perspectives, the press is not a passive observer. Mainstream journalism actively helps define the boundaries of politically acceptable discourse, and currently, it is failing in this crucial duty.
The first failure lies in language. Outlets frequently opt for softening descriptors like "populist", "controversial", or "anti-establishment" when covering far-right figures and movements, avoiding more accurate terms such as "racist" or "authoritarian".
This has a demonstrable impact. Studies of Spanish and Portuguese media showed parties like VOX and Chega were often labelled simply "conservative", obscuring their racial nationalist roots. In Germany, reporting on the misogynist incel movement often frames violence as an individual issue, not part of a broader far-right ideology.
In Australia, the media often treats racialised fears about immigration as legitimate national concerns. Commentary warning that new arrivals might hurt "Australia's way of life" is presented as a neutral worry, rather than being contextualised within a history of settler-colonial logic used to control both First Nations peoples and non-white migrants.
Sensationalism and the illusion of balanced reporting
Far-right actors are adept at manipulating media through provocation, knowing outrage guarantees coverage. Under commercial pressure, news outlets often take the bait, amplifying far-right agitation while neglecting the deeper social and economic conditions that feed such politics.
Research from Loughborough University during the UK's 2024 election campaign illustrated this. Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right Reform UK party, was the third-most-covered political figure, despite his party's limited prospects. His visibility, achieved through spectacle, functioned as a proxy for legitimacy.
This is compounded by a flawed commitment to "balance". Some outlets feel compelled to include far-right denials or justifications to appear neutral. In the US, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 paved the way for partisan media and encouraged superficial "both-sides" reporting in mainstream circles.
This was evident in coverage of the Young Republicans scandal. Rather than investigating how racism became embedded in the party's youth networks, some reports drew false equivalences with a separate incident involving a Democratic candidate, reducing a moment of reckoning to mere partisan bickering.
A call for responsible journalism
Richards concludes that through these framing choices, media institutions have become active participants in shaping far-right visibility. To counter this, she argues for coverage that accurately labels far-right ideology, situates it in historical context, and resists privileging spectacle over substance.
Only by critically understanding these dynamics can news organisations hope to counter the forces they so often, however unintentionally, help to sustain.
