The Age: 2025 federal election editorial
A breakdown of the language techniques and tone of a masthead election editorial. This piece stays the property of its publisher, so the analysis is built on form and description, with a link to the original.
The Age
MelbourneFederal election 2025
Editorial — The Age’s view
Our recommendation for the 2025 federal election
A masthead endorsement that credits and criticises both sides before landing, reluctantly, on a choice.
Where this is from
- Author
- The editorial board of The Age (unsigned)
- Publication
- The Age, Melbourne (Nine)
- Date
- Around the 2025 federal election; The Age endorsed the return of the Labor government
- Form
- Masthead editorial (election endorsement)
- Read it
- theage.com.au — federal politics and editorials → · record of 2025 masthead endorsements
This editorial is copyright The Age. The page below is original analysis for study; it describes the form and does not reproduce the article. Please read the original at the masthead.
The editorial's shape
Move
Set out the stakes
How
the state of the country, what the election decides
Effect
frames the choice as consequential and serious
Move
Weigh both sides
How
credit and criticise each party in turn
Effect
establishes fair-mindedness before the verdict
Move
Land the recommendation
How
one plain sentence, near the end
Effect
the choice sounds inevitable, not urged
Key tones and their effect on the reader
Form and register in one line
An election editorial has to reach a recommendation while sounding fair. The standard shape is: set out the stakes, credit and criticise both sides in turn, then land, often reluctantly, on a choice. The register is formal, balanced and restrained.
Language techniques
-
The unsigned institutional voice
No author; the piece speaks as the masthead, often literally
The Age's view
.Effect: the recommendation carries the weight of a long-standing institution rather than one journalist, which is harder to dismiss as personal preference.
-
Balanced structure (“on one hand… on the other”)
Each party's strengths and failures are set out in turn before any verdict.
Effect: the visible weighing of both sides is a claim to fair-mindedness; by the time the recommendation arrives, it looks like a conclusion reached, not a side taken from the start.
-
Concession
The endorsed party is criticised, and the rejected party is credited with something.
Effect: admitting the weaknesses of your own recommendation makes the whole piece sound more honest and pre-empts the charge of barracking.
-
The language of the “lesser risk”
Endorsements often frame the choice in terms of stability, competence and risk rather than enthusiasm.
Effect: a cautious frame suits a mainstream masthead addressing readers across the spectrum; it asks for a sensible vote, not a passionate one.
-
Formal, periodic sentences
Long, balanced sentences; the main point often held to the end.
Effect: the measured syntax performs deliberation and gravity, matching the seriousness the occasion is meant to have.
-
A restrained final recommendation
The endorsement is usually stated once, plainly, near the end, without exclamation.
Effect: understating the conclusion after a long build-up makes it sound like the only reasonable outcome rather than a demand.
Practice angle
Read the original editorial and mark where it praises the party it does not endorse, and where it criticises the party it does. Write a paragraph on how this even-handed structure is designed to make the final recommendation more persuasive.
Write a response to this editorial
Draft an analysing-argument response using the techniques above, then send it for marking against the VCAA criteria, with detailed feedback in 72 hours.
See essay marking