The traditional media haven’t been the gatekeepers for a while now
Hanson banned three major outlets from her press conference. They reported the story anyway — and that tells you everything about who actually lost power.
Pauline Hanson banned the ABC, The Guardian and The Age from her Melbourne press conference on Monday, where she announced One Nation's Victorian leader ahead of the November state election. The response from the excluded outlets was predictable: indignant statements about press freedom, the public interest, and the essential role of a free press in a functioning democracy. All of that is true. It is also somewhat beside the point. Because the actual power those organisations are defending — the ability to deny a politician an audience by withholding coverage — evaporated years ago, and everyone involved seems reluctant to say so out loud.
The press conference used to be the only broadcast in town
There was a time when being shut out of a press conference was a genuine penalty for the politician, not the journalist. If the ABC wasn't in the room, a significant slice of the country didn't know you existed. The press conference was the mechanism: you performed for the cameras, the cameras decided what aired, the audience received the result. Control of that chain was real power, and it sat with the editors, not the subjects.
That chain no longer holds. One Nation's "Fire the Liar" campaign — referenced in Hanson's own statement about James Ashby's elevated role as national director — was a social media operation that bypassed traditional outlets almost entirely. The party reached its target audience directly, without a single sympathetic editorial decision from Fairfax or the ABC required. Hanson's press conferences, when she does hold them, are often livestreamed in full by the party itself or by smaller sympathetic outlets. Her supporters watch those, not the edited two-minute package that runs at 6pm.
The ban is less a blockade than a seating arrangement.
The Conversation piece covering Monday's event ran detailed quotes, vote numbers, and candidate profiles regardless. The Age published its own account from outside the room. The Guardian issued a statement. None of them needed to be physically present to report what happened. The conference was embargoed but not secret. In practical terms, One Nation's media ban is less a blockade than a seating arrangement.
Hanson has stopped pretending the rituals matter
None of this is unique to One Nation. The Bearing has written about how politicians across the spectrum have been scrambling toward podcasts, social video, and direct-to-follower content precisely because the traditional gatekeepers no longer control access to voters in the way they once did. The difference with Hanson is that she has dropped the performance of deference entirely. Most politicians still attend the press gallery's rituals while quietly routing around them. Hanson has simply stopped pretending the rituals matter.
That said, traditional media still carries something that raw social reach cannot fully replicate: editorial credibility and, particularly for the ABC, a claim to public trust that extends across demographics. A voter who distrusts One Nation and wants independent scrutiny of its candidates is not looking for the party's own livestream. The Age's reporting that Pickering advised a candidate to use a personal bank account for campaign donations — a potential breach of electoral law — is exactly the kind of journalism that requires editorial infrastructure, legal support, and sustained attention. Hanson's ban does not make that story disappear. It just ensures her candidates don't have to answer for it in a room she controls.
The Victorian numbers concentrate the mind
The Victorian numbers do concentrate the mind. A Newspoll taken late July had One Nation at 19% statewide. In Pakenham, Pickering is contesting a Labor seat on a margin of 0.4%, in a seat historically held by the Liberals, with Labor's incumbent not recontesting. If One Nation can convert some of that polling support into lower-house seats, it will have done so while treating three of the country's most established news organisations as optional furniture.
The Guardian says "holding public figures to account is the role of a free press." That is not wrong. But the mechanics of accountability have changed. A ban from a press conference is not what it used to be when the press conference was the only broadcast in town. Traditional outlets retain importance, but it is now earned rather than structural, and the sooner that is accepted honestly, the sooner the real work of understanding what accountability journalism looks like in this environment can begin.
The dusty CRT in the corner still turns on. It just isn't the only screen in the room anymore.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can politicians ban journalists from press conferences in Australia?
Yes. Press conferences are private events and organisers can choose who attends. There is no legal right of access, though professional and democratic norms have long treated open access as the default. Hanson's exclusions of the ABC, The Guardian, and The Age are unusual in their explicitness, not in their legal standing.
Why does Pauline Hanson ban certain media outlets?
Hanson's stated and implied rationale is that outlets like the ABC and The Guardian are hostile to One Nation and produce coverage that frames the party negatively. By excluding them, she removes a venue where her candidates could be pressed on uncomfortable questions — such as the Pickering campaign finance allegation — while still reaching her own supporters through livestreams and social platforms.
Does a media ban actually hurt a political party's coverage?
Less than it once did. Excluded outlets can still report on events using written statements, outside-the-room accounts, and publicly available material — as The Age and The Guardian both did here. The practical effect is that the party avoids hostile on-camera questioning rather than avoiding coverage altogether.
What is One Nation polling in Victoria ahead of the state election?
A Newspoll conducted in late July placed One Nation at 19% statewide. Whether that translates into lower-house seats depends heavily on preferences and seat-by-seat margins — in Pakenham, One Nation's candidate Pickering is contesting a Labor seat held on a margin of just 0.4%.
Has traditional media lost its power to hold politicians accountable?
Not entirely, but the nature of that power has changed. Social media has broken the old gatekeeping model where editors controlled whether a politician reached an audience at all. What traditional outlets retain is editorial credibility, legal infrastructure, and the capacity to pursue stories — like potential electoral law breaches — that require sustained institutional attention rather than just reach.