Political Spectacle: When the Show Becomes the Distraction
Can governments use sport, public personalities and emotional messaging to divert attention from deeper policy problems? That question sits at the centre of this conversation between host Dev Singh and economist Professor Gigi Foster.
Dev introduces the old idea of the coliseum, where rulers distracted the public with entertainment while more difficult matters remained out of sight. He connects that idea to Victoria’s reputation as a sporting capital while raising concerns about government debt and structural challenges. Gigi responds through what she calls the “manipulator’s playbook”, a process in which trusted values, emotional language and carefully presented stories can be used to build support for public policies. Their discussion examines COVID messaging, government accountability and why citizens should look beyond headlines before accepting an authority figure’s version of events.
A conversation between Dev Singh and Professor Gigi Foster on political messaging, public attention and critical thinking.
This article presents the perspectives expressed by the speakers during the conversation.
Can Political Spectacle Distract People From Government Failures?
Dev Singh: Can governments use major events or public spectacle to distract people when difficult things are happening behind the scenes?
Gigi Foster: Foster agrees that spectacle can be an important part of political communication. In her view, governments may draw attention towards an emotionally powerful event, public campaign or symbolic action while deeper structural problems receive less attention.
Dev compares this with the old coliseum, where a ruler could put on a show while avoiding scrutiny elsewhere. He offers Victoria’s strong sporting identity and concerns about state debt as a modern example of this hypothesis.
Foster’s broader point is that the public presentation of government can differ from the practical effects of policy. A positive story can become the main focus while economic, cultural or community problems remain unresolved.
This does not mean that every sporting event or public initiative is deliberately created as a distraction. It means citizens should examine whether the public performance matches the government’s underlying actions and results.
What Is the Manipulator’s Playbook in Politics?
Dev Singh: How does this idea of distraction operate across state and federal politics?
Gigi Foster: Foster describes it as a familiar chapter in what she calls the “manipulator’s playbook”. The central idea is that public support can be shaped by appealing to people’s strongest emotions and values.
Rather than asking citizens to support a policy only on its technical merits, political communication may connect that policy with love, safety, loyalty or concern for vulnerable people. Once an issue is framed in this way, questioning the policy can feel like questioning the value itself.
Foster argues that people’s care for one another can be reformulated into support for policies that may have wider consequences. The emotional message becomes easier to remember than the details of the policy.
Her concern is not that compassion is wrong. It is that compassion can be used as a shield against scrutiny. Citizens may therefore need to separate the emotional appeal from the policy and ask whether the proposed action genuinely produces the outcome being promised.
How Can Governments Use Love and Fear to Shape Public Support?
Gigi Foster: Foster argues that some of the most effective political messages begin with values almost everyone shares.
People want to protect their families, care for older relatives and keep their communities safe. A government message connected to these desires can be persuasive because it feels personal and morally urgent.
In the conversation, Foster uses the COVID period as her main example. She believes policies were presented through messages about protecting older people, keeping everyone safe and remaining together while physically apart.
In her interpretation, these messages encouraged people to associate compliance with care. This made it more difficult to discuss the economic, social and human consequences of the policies without appearing indifferent to public safety.
Foster’s point is that emotional framing can narrow a public debate. When one policy is presented as the compassionate choice, alternative approaches may be dismissed before their consequences are properly considered. Critical thinking requires people to examine both the intention and the results.
What Did COVID Briefings Reveal About Political Communication?
Dev Singh: How can a public presentation become more influential than the policy outcomes beneath it?
Gigi Foster: Foster points to the daily COVID briefings in Victoria as an example of how public communication can become a form of political theatre.
Public officials appeared regularly on television and became familiar figures in people’s homes. According to Foster, the personalities, slogans and repeated messages became part of a larger public narrative about safety and collective responsibility.
Her criticism is that this presentation did not, in her view, fully represent the wider effects of government decisions. She argues that the public-facing story focused heavily on protection while giving less attention to the consequences for the economy, community life and individual wellbeing.
The larger lesson she draws is that familiarity can create trust. When people repeatedly hear a message from an authority figure, the message may begin to feel like reality itself.
Foster encourages people to look beyond the confidence of the presentation and examine the evidence, trade-offs and practical consequences of the policies being defended.
Why Does the Conversation Focus on Victoria?
Dev Singh: Is Victoria an example of a gap between public spectacle and underlying policy challenges?
Gigi Foster: Dev raises Victoria’s sporting identity alongside concerns about debt, using that contrast to explain his hypothesis. Foster agrees that it can illustrate a wider tension between highly visible public activity and less visible structural problems.
She argues that the state faces challenges involving its economy, community life and culture. In her view, these issues require thoughtful, structural responses rather than symbolic actions that attract headlines without addressing the underlying problem.
The conversation also refers to government programmes and highly visible responses to community safety. Foster questions whether these actions deal with causes or simply demonstrate that something is being done.
Her central concern is the gap between the show and the policy. A government may present itself as responsive by highlighting one person, programme or initiative while failing people in another part of the system.
For citizens, the challenge is to examine the whole record rather than allowing one visible announcement to define their understanding of government performance.
Why Do People Believe Political Headlines and Authority Figures?
Gigi Foster: Foster suggests that many people begin with a natural willingness to trust institutions and authority figures.
When people are young, they may read headlines or listen to government officials and assume that the information presented is complete. If the language sounds responsible and compassionate, there may appear to be little reason to question it.
The difficulty is that a persuasive statement does not automatically explain every consequence of a policy. A message may focus on an immediate objective while leaving social, economic or long-term costs outside the frame.
Foster believes people can become less vulnerable to manipulation by thinking through the logical consequences of what they are being asked to support. This means asking what the policy does in practice, who bears its costs and whether alternative approaches have been fairly considered.
The goal is not automatic distrust. It is a more active form of citizenship in which people distinguish between an authority figure’s words, the emotional appeal of those words and the measurable results of government action.
How Can Citizens Look Beyond Political Distraction?
The conversation between Gigi Foster and Dev Singh is ultimately about attention. Political communication does not only tell people what happened. It can also influence what they notice, what they overlook and how they emotionally interpret a policy.
Foster’s argument is that governments and public institutions can draw upon love, fear, safety and collective identity to build support. Dev’s coliseum comparison adds another dimension, suggesting that spectacle can keep the public focused on the show rather than the structure behind it.
The takeaway is not that every public event, safety message or government programme is deceptive. It is that citizens should examine whether public messaging reflects actual outcomes.
Healthy scrutiny requires more than reading headlines. It requires comparing words with actions, considering consequences and remaining willing to question even a reassuring story.
Share Your Insights
Do you think political spectacle can distract people from deeper policy problems? How can citizens question government messaging without falling into automatic distrust or cynicism?
I’d value your perspective. Share your insights and subscribe for more thoughtful conversations, independent ideas and long-form discussions about economics, public policy and Australian society.
Dev Singh