The whistle we all heard: a re-conceptualisation of the ‘dog-whistle’ in politics and journalism

On November 24, 2007, eleven years of John Howard’s leadership of Australia came to an end. In much of the subsequent media analysis of Howard’s loss to Kevin Rudd, journalists suggested that the public were ‘no longer listening’ to Liberal party rhetoric (see Atkins 2007, p. 53; Beattie 2007, p. 55). Howard’s previously successful communication about trust, terrorism and Tampa, with all their inaudible appeals to conservative politics, seemed to fall on deaf ears during the campaign. Much academic work has been published on Howard’s penchant for this type of ‘dog whistle’ politics, especially his seemingly veiled Hanson-esque coupling of immigration, asylum seekers and terrorism in the children overboard scandal. While these quiet references may have been especially pertinent for a public still rattled by the events of September 11, 2001, seven years later, this fear of the Other, whether of Muslims or of a Labor-led economy, did not similarly translate into support for Howard. How such a seasoned political player, with so many resources for effective political communication, could fail to make himself heard is a question for further investigation. This paper is concerned with the conception of ‘dog whistles’ in politics and journalism as an effective mode of appealing to an electorate. In light of Howard’s election loss, understanding of dog whistle politics needs to take into consideration the complexities of politicised cultural discourses. [Introduction]