Somewhere off camera, in the back of Pauline Hanson’s Victorian press conference, a sad little voice belonging to an MSM journalist called out:

‘Far be it from me to defend the ABC, but aren’t you cutting off your nose to spite your face? Don’t you need your message to get out to regional Victoria, in particular, and you need the ABC, the national broadcaster to be able to…’

He was cut short by Pauline Hanson leaning toward the microphone. ‘We’ve got Rebel News here. I’m happy with them. Thank you. Let’s go…’

And with that, she rolled out, just like the sunglasses meme GetUp! accidentally made famous during the National Press Club address (from which they were later banned).

These are the moments that deserve to be framed.

It may have slipped unnoticed through the news cycle, but we have arrived at a watershed moment for media.

One Nation has arguably the largest social media presence in the country. Certainly, the most enthusiastic.

It’s something that annoys other parties, although they hardly did themselves any favours passing legislation to demonise and censor social media which they refer to as a sewer of misinformation, radicalisation, and … free speech.

Disdain for the public forum, bewilderingly from conservative parties, has left people a bit miffed. To be gentle.

And so, having been largely disinvited from MSM, One Nation spent over a decade creating a whole communication ecosystem with voters outside the influence of broadcasters. One Nation may not have always had branches, but by heck they had Facebook groups.

This is not a Social Media Empire you buy overnight with some advertising cash and a few Gen Z interns prodding unwilling ministers in to stilted videos. One Nation’s algorithms are bound together with the glue of fandom, not shadowy Silicon Valley far-right digital witchcraft, or whatever it is their opponents think they have command over. MSM might have special relationships with Silicon Valley giants and government policy. The little guys have small, skilled teams who know their audience.

(I do not have the words to express how hilarious the conspiracy theories are regarding One Nation’s engagement online. The musing of their opponents says only one thing: they do not understand modern media.)

For many years, the election press bus has been the height of the political season.

Now, the most lucrative news story is not on the bus. It doesn’t want to be on the bus. It has its own transportation and MSM has been left peering through the windows, begging for second-hand quotes from independent media outlets. Some may dare to call this social justice.

It is my view that part of this concern is not about farming communities missing out on the ABC, but rather media missing out on clicks from regional customers.

Contrary to city opinion, regional communities were early adopters of social media. Long distances made the medium ideal for keeping in touch with family and friends. They were already online, waiting, when One Nation showed up on these platforms.

Today, TikTok is full of young farmers making humorous videos about how f-d the country is (their words). They are the tradies wandering around building sites showing up what they see as the poor work of these miraculous builders Labor imported. They complain about their taxes. They post AI-selfies with their invisible partner, Albo, who they call Mister 47 Percent. They document unpoliced criminality. They are their own citizen journalist network contradicting MSM. And they’re following One Nation online.

Young working men and women are one of the fastest demographics flooding to One Nation socials. The slowest demographic remains the 30-40 group. Understandable. They are too busy trying to stay alive and keep their family fed. They prefer Netflix and chill, even if they source the bulk of their news from social media. Engagement noise is what keeps an online political movement alive, and increasing numbers of Gen Z are rebelling against their far-left university programming.

For example, One Nation’s popular cartoon series, Please Explain!, fits neatly into the grassroots comedy skits and memes expanding through youth culture. They are becoming what my generation called ‘cool’ while the Coalition continues to completely lose touch with anyone under 70.

I still remember, back when I was a Liberal looking to get involved with the party, being told by a long-gone politician that they’d like me to consider standing … but I would of course have to delete all my social media accounts. Since that moment, I knew the party would struggle to adapt to a world where every candidate has a social media past. The days of polished suits and private schools are over. Conservatism is the soul of the working, business, regional, and middle classes.

This is not to say legacy media has faded from view.

MSM retains gatekeeping power on account of its enormous structure, but its influence has been rapidly undermined to the point voters barely trust them with a weather report.

Does Pauline Hanson need the ABC?

She could win an election on the singular policy of defunding the ABC. So no, she doesn’t need the ABC itself. Or want them.

There is a different question being rattled around through the headlines:

Is it undemocratic to ban the ABC, Guardian, and others, from press conferences…?

It would be possible to waste hours wading through historical arguments about the nature of democracy, the role of media, and the balance of information accessible to the voter.

Instead, I find it simpler to reverse the question on those doing the asking to see if they can work out the answer for themselves.

Was it undemocratic of the major parties, for years, to exclude independent media and journalists from press clubs, conferences, debates, the press bus, and other closed interviews?

Is it undemocratic for politicians to turn down interviews from independent media who are more likely to ask difficult, unscripted questions?

Is it undemocratic for the government to issue takedown orders to social media platforms to erase journalism from non-MSM sources during a pandemic or terror attack aka quite literally deleting the news?

Is it undemocratic for MSM to refuse interviews with politicians they don’t like or perceive as risky, thus shunning elected voices from the public conversation?

What, exactly, is the relationship between democracy, politicians, media, and citizens?

As Pauline Hanson said, ‘I’ve stood up to these ratbags for thirty years!’

Her answered continued:

‘That democracy doesn’t happen on the ABC at all. If you want to criticise and have a go at me, not putting the truth across, you’re not giving me the truth of democracy either and, so therefore, no, I’m not going to have them. I am not putting up with the spin, gotcha moments, wanting to have a go at me, or have or treat us totally different to what you do at the other major political parties. Enough is enough.’

Legacy media never saw their privilege monopoly over the news market as antidemocratic.