smh.com.au
Lambie Most Likeable, Thorpe Least in Australian Voter Survey
A Resolve Strategic survey of 1606 Australians from December 4-8, 2023, found Senator Jacqui Lambie the most likeable federal politician (14% net positive rating), while Senator Lidia Thorpe was the least likeable (-41%). Prime Minister Albanese's rating fell to -17%, down from 34% in late 2022.
- How do the likeability ratings of key figures, such as Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Anthony Albanese, reflect their political positions and recent events?
- This contrasts sharply with the low overall likeability scores, highlighting a public dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price's 8 percent rating reflects her strong stance against the Indigenous Voice referendum, while Prime Minister Albanese's rating dropped to minus 17 percent from 34 percent at the end of 2022.
- What is the most striking finding of the Resolve Strategic survey regarding the net likeability ratings of Australian federal politicians, and what are the immediate implications?
- A Resolve Strategic survey of 1606 Australian voters reveals Senator Jacqui Lambie as the most likeable federal politician, with a net positive rating of 14 percent. Conversely, Senator Lidia Thorpe received the lowest rating, at minus 41 percent, a significant drop from minus 29 percent last year, likely influenced by her October protest during King Charles' visit.
- What underlying factors might explain the significant disparity in net likeability ratings between Senator Lambie and Senator Thorpe, and what are the long-term implications for their political careers?
- The decline in Prime Minister Albanese's and other high-profile politicians' likeability suggests a growing public frustration with the political establishment. The survey underscores a desire for authenticity and alignment with voters' values, favoring politicians perceived as genuine, even if unconventional, over those deemed less relatable.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the survey results by highlighting the stark contrast between Jacqui Lambie's high likeability and Lidia Thorpe's low rating. This framing immediately sets the tone for the rest of the piece, emphasizing the differences in public perception rather than delving deeply into the reasons behind these perceptions. The headline itself focuses on Lambie's high likeability rating, leading readers to assume this is the central point of the article before even reading further. The placement of Lambie and Thorpe's ratings at the beginning reinforces this emphasis.
Language Bias
While largely neutral in tone, the article employs some loaded language. Terms like "outspoken," "firebrand," and "protest" when describing Lidia Thorpe carry negative connotations. Similarly, describing Lambie and Price as "real" and "raw" implies a positive judgment, while phrases like "federal government's slump in popular support" present a negative opinion, not an objective fact. More neutral terms like "vocal," "prominent," and "demonstration" would be less judgmental.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the likeability ratings of politicians, neglecting other crucial aspects of their performance and policy stances. While likeability is mentioned as not being equivalent to electability, the article's heavy emphasis on it might mislead readers into believing it is the most important factor for voters. Omission of policy positions and voting records prevents a comprehensive understanding of each politician's contributions. The article also omits discussion of the methodology used to select the 60 political figures included in the survey, which could impact the results' representativeness. The lack of information about the margin of error in the survey results also limits the ability to accurately assess the significance of the findings.
False Dichotomy
The article subtly presents a false dichotomy by heavily emphasizing the contrast between likeability and electability, suggesting they are mutually exclusive. This simplifies a complex relationship. Competence and policy positions are also presented as separate from likeability, instead of being interconnected aspects of a politician's appeal. Further, the framing of 'authenticity and alignment' versus other qualities implicitly positions likeability as the most important trait.
Gender Bias
The article mentions several female politicians (Lambie, Thorpe, Price, Ley, McKenzie, Henderson, Wong, Plibersek), but doesn't explicitly focus on gender-related biases in their portrayals. While there is no overt sexism, a more in-depth analysis of how their likeability is discussed relative to their male counterparts would provide a more complete picture. The description of Lambie and Price as 'real' and 'raw' could be interpreted differently if applied to male politicians. Examining if such language is used consistently across gender would be beneficial.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the varying levels of public likeability among politicians, reflecting diverse opinions and potentially influencing political representation and policy outcomes. Addressing this disparity in public perception is crucial for ensuring equitable political representation and reducing societal inequalities.