A war about meaning: A case study of media contestation of the Australian anti-terror laws

Following the 9/11 attacks on the USA, the Howard government introduced extensive amendments to the criminal act within Australia. The Australian mainstream media has been criticized for its ineffective contestation of the controversial legislation, effectively becoming 'seduced' by the Howard government's discourses around post-9/11 insecurity. This article examines the representation of the 'anti-terror laws' by the Australian government and mainstream newspaper media. I argue that competing editorial practices in mainstream newspapers diluted the possibility of effective contestation of the laws. More broadly this article will illustrate that discourses around the media's traditional role as the 'fourth estate' often does not account for the various internal and external influences and constraints placed upon journalistic practice.