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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Impression

Overall this is a good paper which makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of how the ‘fair go’ idiom is used by the media in Australia. It highlights the complex ways cultural ideas of fairness, injustice and accountability are portrayed in the media.

The argument put forward in the discussion and conclusion especially well, that injustice framing can lead to fatigue and that the media’s injudicious choice of ‘battlers’ can obscure the true inequalities in society is plausible. I found some of the interpretations of why it was problematic to foreground the views of ‘advocates’ less well argued.

The paper is well grounded based on an impressive number of articles analysed using sound methods of qualitative research. However, I think that some room could be made in the methods section by shortening some of the description of data collection. This would give room to give better justifications for the choice of 2019-2021 as a time period, and perhaps reflect on how this might influence the kinds of stories which were in the media at the time. For example, the 2019 election was a time when inequality and the fair go were much used by the ALP, and the period also includes the onset of Covid and lockdowns. Despite this the paper makes an important empirical contribution which will be of use to other scholars trying to understand how this idiom is used.

However, I also believe that there are more generalisable theoretical contributions which the paper could be making, but which aren’t articulated by the authors. Overall, with some restructuring the argument could be strengthened, the article made easier to follow and the contribution more strongly articulated.

Specific Areas to Improve

Introduction

The introduction brings together the ideas of fair go, inequality and media framing well. However, it could more clearly signpost the later discussions about the complexities identified in the findings and discussion. Ie – the problems of overuse of empathy, intersectionality and the cynical use of the phrase to push forward agendas. Similarly, the authors could articulate how the paper will contribute to theoretical understandings of media framing of inequality – in particular there is a broader literature on the problems of meritocracy and how it justifies inequality that the paper could be in conversation with.  The arguments made in the discussion/conclusion could also be foregrounded here and how the paper goes about arguing for them explained. This would go some way to guiding the reader as to the paper’s broader significance.

Materials and Methods

This section describes clearly the kind of study that was undertaken and the data chosen. The quality assurance procedures are well explained and lend credibility to the later analysis. Although the authors suggest they’re following steps set out by Giles and Shaw, I think more could be said about why this method, and not some other, was appropriate. As well, the detail about the step-by-step process of data collection and cleaning could be shortened to give more room for discussion of the case selection, how this relates to a broader possible set of cases and how the choice of period influenced the results.

Many of the steps seem similar to other narrative analysis techniques like the Narrative Policy Framework and others used in political research. Some reference to these and an argument as to why this one helped answer your research question better, or which explained how your study helped advance or nuance the technique you chose might be desirable to demonstrate the paper’s contributions further.

As well, I think a table which explains the coding method in terms of ‘story, characters, reader identification' etc. could help the reader and may allow you to shorten some of these sections.

Results

I found the results of your analysis very interesting and useful for understanding how Fair Go is used in the media. The dichotomy between the formal partisan uses and the ‘human interest/advocacy’ uses was insightful. The ‘battler’ and ‘advocate’ archetypes were interesting as well. However, I think these results could have been structured more clearly and succinctly for the reader. I think its fair to say that you’ve identified two different ways ‘fair go’ is politicised (one by distrusted politicians for electoral purposes, one by advocates to highlight problems that need solving). These draw on different legitimation strategies – highlighting injustice, creating human interest and assigning responsibility in different ways. Some of the points raised about speaking for others put me in mind of the literature on Representative Claims Making, which might be useful for you.

Perhaps a table somewhere could articulate this more straightforwardly, with the sections explaining how those ideas were made manifest. I think as well that the arguments made about those without lived experience having questionable motivations or lower quality expertise are controversial enough to need some better theoretical justification.

Discussion and Conclusion

This section highlights a lot of very interesting points raised by the findings and in broader literature about the media and fair go. I think some of what is said in it could be foregrounded at the beginning of the paper and argued for through the findings – especially the points on p.14 and 15 – the avoidance of issues because of overuse of injustice frame, and the spurious leveling of inequality because the media doesn’t contextualise the relative injustices faced by different people. Finally, I think that some other literature you cite has highlighted the complexity of the fair go term, so that isn’t the paper’s contribution. Instead, perhaps your finding that the ‘morality’ code wasn’t analytically useful could be framed as a theoretical contribution you’re making alongside the importance of intersectionality, the platforming of only powerful voices and the overuse of injustice.  The final sentence is a very nice way to end however!

Minor Edits

Some sentences were quite long, and could be shortened. Overall, I think the methods and findings could be more succinct, which would help the paper flow better and allow you to focus on what is really important for your argument.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is particularly interesting!

The structure of the article is generally good, but in some places, the transition between paragraphs and sections feels a bit abrupt or not fully connected. 

While the theoretical framework is well-covered, it would be beneficial to include more recent studies on the topic.

The choice of the timeframe is justified by the political context, but it would be helpful to explain more clearly why this specific period is important for studying the use of Fair Go in Australian media.

More detailed information on the search process could be beneficial. For example, were any additional filters applied, such as article length or type of source (eg, regional vs national newspapers)? This would provide greater transparency in the data collection process.

It would be particularly interesting if the article included some graphs or charts to illustrate the results as well. It could also be enhanced by including some examples to support the findings.

The conclusions are adequate, though they could place more emphasis on the practical implications of the findings and connect more directly to the challenges posed by the current landscape of political communication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf