Gen Z Creators in the Budget Conversation: Complementing, Not Replacing, Journalism

The Australian government’s decision to invite a group of Gen Z social media creators to its recent budget lockup sparked both intrigue and criticism. For some, it represented an innovative step toward making national policy more accessible to younger audiences. For others, it raised concerns about the dilution of professional journalism’s role in explaining and scrutinising complex economic decisions. The creators themselves have responded with clarity: they are not here to replace journalists.

The budget lockup is traditionally a space reserved for experienced journalists, economists, and policy analysts. It is a controlled environment designed to ensure that the details of the national budget are studied in depth before being released to the public. The presence of social media influencers whose platforms often favour speed, personality, and engagement over long-form analysis marked a departure from tradition that was bound to stir debate.

To understand the government’s rationale, one must consider the shifting patterns of news consumption. Reports consistently show that younger Australians are more likely to encounter political and economic information on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube than in newspapers or on television. Inviting digital creators into the lockup is a recognition of this reality: if you want to reach Gen Z, you need to meet them where they are.

Critics argue that this risks turning a serious policy briefing into a publicity exercise. Journalism operates on principles of independence, accountability, and verification. While many social media creators bring creativity and audience reach, their work does not always conform to the same editorial standards. The fear is that by blurring these lines, governments may prioritise messaging over scrutiny, and personality-driven content over fact-based reporting.

The creators counter this perception by emphasising that their role is complementary. They are not investigative reporters or policy experts, but communicators skilled at translating complex information into formats that resonate with specific audiences. In a media environment where attention is a scarce commodity, this skill has value. A detailed budget analysis in a broadsheet may influence a few thousand dedicated readers; a concise, well-crafted video could reach hundreds of thousands within hours.

Daniel Kahneman’s research into cognitive ease explains why this matters. People are more likely to engage with and retain information presented in familiar, accessible formats. For younger audiences accustomed to short-form content, a well-designed TikTok can act as a gateway, prompting them to seek deeper coverage from traditional sources once their interest is sparked. In this way, social media creators can function as the entry point to more comprehensive journalism rather than as a replacement for it.

Examples from other democracies show the potential of this approach when executed responsibly. In the United States, collaborations between reputable newsrooms and digital creators have helped break down barriers between political processes and younger audiences. In Europe, public institutions have engaged social media personalities to explain climate policy, voter registration, and public health measures, often with measurable impact on awareness and participation rates.

The key, however, lies in maintaining transparency and role clarity. Audiences must understand the difference between content that explains and content that investigates. Journalists remain the guardians of accountability, holding power to account through rigorous questioning and fact-checking. Social media creators, by contrast, excel at distribution and engagement. Both roles are essential in a healthy information ecosystem, but they serve different purposes and carry different responsibilities.

From the government’s perspective, the inclusion of creators in the budget lockup can be seen as part of a broader communications strategy. In a fragmented media environment, relying solely on traditional channels risks leaving large segments of the population disengaged from national debates. The choice is not between inviting creators or journalists, it is about leveraging both to ensure that key information reaches as many people as possible in forms they will actually consume.

For TMFS, the lesson in this controversy is about adaptive communication and strategic positioning. Brands, institutions, and leaders must recognise that audiences are not monolithic. Effective messaging in 2025 and beyond will require multi-channel strategies that combine depth with reach, analysis with accessibility, and authority with relatability. The partnership between traditional journalism and social media creators may be unconventional, but when managed correctly, it has the potential to strengthen, not weaken, the public’s connection to important issues.

The arrival of Gen Z creators in the budget lockup should not be viewed as a threat to journalism, but as a sign that the ways we share and consume information are evolving. Just as the printing press gave way to radio, and radio to television, the rise of digital platforms is expanding, not replacing the landscape of public discourse. Journalism’s role is no less critical today than it was a century ago. But if its findings are to have influence, they must find pathways into the conversations happening in feeds, timelines, and stories.

The future of informed citizenship lies in this collaboration. Journalists will continue to dig deep, uncover facts, and challenge assumptions. Creators will translate those findings into language, visuals, and narratives that resonate with audiences who may never read a broadsheet editorial. Together, they can bridge the gap between the complexity of policy and the immediacy of public attention.

By acknowledging the distinct strengths each brings to the table, the criticism surrounding the budget lockup can give way to a more productive conversation: how to ensure that every Australian, regardless of age, media preference, or attention span, has access to the information they need to engage with the nation’s most important decisions.

All rights belong to their respective owners. This article contains references and insights based on publicly available information and sources. We do not claim ownership over any third-party content mentioned.