Former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger accused legacy media of hypocrisy regarding potential preference deals between the Coalition and One Nation [1].
The comments highlight a growing tension between conservative political strategists and traditional news outlets over how electoral alliances are framed to the public.
Kroger said the media’s outrage over a possible arrangement with One Nation represents a double standard. He said that traditional media outlets ignore similar strategic alliances formed by other political entities [1].
"The Labor Party does a deal with the Greens every election and we don’t hear howls of outrage from the legacy media about that," Kroger said [1].
He contrasted this lack of criticism with the reaction to right-wing preference discussions. Kroger said the media's response to the Coalition's potential engagement with One Nation is a consistent pattern of condemnation [1].
"When we talk about doing some kind of preference deal with One Nation, the old media, the fossil media, all say it’s outrageous," Kroger said [1].
The discussion centered on the political landscape in Victoria, where preference flows often determine the outcome of tight contests. Kroger said that the term "fossil media" describes an establishment that is out of touch with current political realities or biased in its reporting of electoral tactics [1].
By framing the issue as a matter of fairness, Kroger is challenging the narrative that certain preference deals are more ethically problematic than others. He said that the strategic necessity of securing votes should be viewed uniformly, regardless of which party is seeking the alliance [1].
“"The Labor Party does a deal with the Greens every election and we don’t hear howls of outrage from the legacy media about that."”
This critique reflects a broader struggle over the legitimacy of preference swapping in Australian politics. By equating Coalition-One Nation deals with Labor-Greens alliances, Kroger is attempting to normalize right-wing preference strategies by framing them as standard electoral pragmatism rather than ideological concessions.
