Responsibility and hubris in culture war reporting

Reporting and commentary on the outcome of the 2025 Australian Federal election saw intense discussion of ‘culture wars’, from different perspectives. For some largely right-wing authors, the message was ‘we must continue to fight the culture wars’. Responses from many left-wing and Indigenous authors, voiced a hope for relief from the divisiveness of the culture wars. Culture wars were posited as a factor in the failure of the coalition to win office. They were also posited as a feature of the Voice referendum. They also emerged in the treatment of Indigenous issues, especially Welcomes to Country, as a political football at the end of the campaign. The election outcome has provided an opportunity for journalists and commentators of all sides to squeeze more juice out of the culture wars, but there is a case for prudence. This presentation is a primarily focused on media ethics. It offers a theoretically informed discourse analysis of some of the political commentary surrounding the election result. I summarise some of these features of culture wars from the scholarly literature, especially that they are choreographed by political elites. I then look at their operation in discourse. Waging culture wars can be seen as aligned with the core values of liberalism, akin to standing up for free debate. But built into this discourse is a tendency towards polarising politics, usually orchestrated by political elites. This paper asks, when journalists use the term 'culture wars' what exactly is being reported on? Even if culture wars were a decisive factor in the election, how do we go beyond hubris to report on it responsibly as a form of rhetoric about cultural change, as well as a potential feature of objective political reality?