According to Crikey there were a few reasons that the protests were difficult to cover.
The most prominent reasons was the complex number of issues that were being protested at the same event - making simplifying the march into a 300 word hard news story very difficult.
However, social media played a prominent role in the coverage of the protests, and people tended to turn more towards sites such as Facebook and Twitter to hear about or discuss the event.
I think that - despite its lack of coverage in mainstream media - the Abbot Government protests were certainly a significant and well-known event across Australia. I believe that most people today consume their media through the use of new media such as Facebook and Twitter, and perhaps this was the best way for the story to be covered anyway.
New media is unique because it hands over the power to 'the people'. People who are covering the story, people commentating on the story - everyone has a say, and isn't that what the March in March was all about?
Everyone got to voice their opinions on the matter through online forums, and perhaps some people even became more aware of some of the issues in the Australian Government in this way. Although mainstream media is still very important, as it has been said previously, the event was just too complex to be covered in a 300 word news story.
So while the March in March didn't receive extensive mainstream media coverage, I think it was still adequately covered through new media, and not by an outside party, it was covered from within the event, and by the people which I think makes for a better story anyway.



