Lawful Dissent, Unlawful Narratives: How the Media Shaped the Freeman Story

By South Burnett Advocate Editorial Team

When gunfire erupted in Porepunkah, the man police later named as the suspect was no stranger to Australian headlines. For years, Dezi Freeman had appeared in news stories — first in An A Current Affair “neighbours from hell” segment, then in coverage of political stunts, and later in reports of courtroom confrontations. His journey from local curiosity to a figure embraced by fringe movements wasn’t simply organic. It was shaped, in part, by editorial choices that favoured spectacle over scrutiny.

“In chasing ratings, journalism can, even unintentionally, become part of the machinery that turns controversial men into enduring myths.”

Freeman’s trajectory — from neighbourhood disputes to a persona some supporters now mythologise — shows how coverage can help cement the very narratives it reports on. By omitting key context and leaning into the most dramatic angles, some reporting helped turn a man accused of repeated confrontations into a figure his supporters could romanticise.

Media Mythmaking Begins: Freeman on a Country Block

The camera pans across a quiet country block. A father leans on the fence, shaking his head at the roar of dirt bikes and chainsaws. An A Current Affair told viewers he was a family man trying to protect his children from “neighbours from hell.” What the audience didn’t see, according to Crikey, an independent Australian publication, was that another neighbour, Loretta Quinn, had a restraining order against him at the time. Her daughter later posted video allegedly showing Freeman trespassing on her mother’s property, body camera strapped to his chest, clipboard in one hand, phone in the other, firing off questions. Those details stayed off‑screen — inconvenient facts that didn’t fit the segment’s simple morality play.

For years, Freeman’s grievances were given prime‑time oxygen. Each appearance added another layer to a public image that was part fact, part fiction — and heavily shaped by editorial framing. When Daily Mail Australia ran a 2021 headline implying the Victorian Premier had been “ordered to front court” for treason, independent fact‑checking service AAP later found the claim misleading in several respects.

From Battler to Dissenter: Freeman and the Sovereign Citizen Movement

In 2018, An A Current Affair introduced Freeman as the archetypal battler: a father who’d swapped city life for the Goldfields in search of peace, only to be tormented by noisy, abusive neighbours. The segment was tabloid comfort food — a clear hero and villain. But the hero role, as widely noted at the time, was built on selective storytelling. Off‑camera, another neighbour had a restraining order against him, and there was footage allegedly showing him trespassing. None of that aired.

By 2021, the script had shifted. The pandemic had supercharged anti‑lockdown sentiment, and Freeman reappeared in headlines — this time linked to the Sovereign Citizen movement, a loose network that rejects government authority and promotes pseudo‑legal tactics.

“Even the illusion of a legal victory is potent currency in the sovereign citizen world.”

Courtroom Theatre: How Freeman Became a Folk Hero

The next acts came quickly. In 2019, Freeman attempted to “arrest” a magistrate in open court, according to contemporaneous reporting. Other outlets also described a 2023 court appearance where he shouted at a judge and spoke of arresting police. Each incident was covered as a colourful oddity — the antics of a man who’d gone from neighbourly disputes to anti-authority theatre. With every headline, the persona hardened: no longer just a wronged family man, but a defiant figure in the eyes of his supporters.

Omissions and Editorial Choices: Fueling Media Mythmaking

“What you leave out of a story can be just as powerful as what you put in.”

In Freeman’s case, the omissions weren’t trivial — they were facts that could have changed the entire narrative. Producers on the 2018 An A Current Affair segment were aware of the restraining order and trespass footage. They knew the neighbour was concerned enough to involve the courts. None of that made it to air.

This wasn’t just an editing choice — it rewrote the public record, creating a version of events his supporters could later weaponise.

Headlines as Ammunition: Fringe Movements Amplify the Myth

If omission is a whisper, sensationalism is a megaphone — and in this case, it broadcast a fringe narrative to a national audience. In 2021, Daily Mail Australia splashed an “EXCLUSIVE” across its homepage: Daniel Andrews, it claimed, had been “ordered to front court” for concealing treason and fraud — an “extraordinary win” for anti‑lockdown campaigners. AAP later found the claim misleading on several counts.

“Accuracy wasn’t the point — the headline did what it was designed to do: generate clicks, outrage, and momentum.”

The Feedback Loop: How Media Coverage Amplified Freeman’s Myth

Once a narrative takes hold, it moves. Each headline, each clip, each share becomes another turn of the wheel. For someone convinced the system is out to get them, sympathetic or sensational coverage isn’t just attention; it’s validation.

This is the feedback loop: a provocative stunt — whether confronting a neighbour on camera or trying to “arrest” a magistrate — draws coverage. That coverage, stripped of full context or dressed up in hype, is amplified in sympathetic online spaces. There, it’s reframed as proof of persecution or victory. The subject sees the reaction, feels emboldened, and escalates. And the media, drawn to the spectacle, comes back for the next act.

By the time Freeman was named as the suspect in the Porepunkah shooting, his myth was already circulating. In Facebook groups and Telegram channels, old An A Current Affair footage was posted as Exhibit A. The now‑debunked treason headline was Exhibit B.

The Human and Social Cost of the Porepunkah Tragedy

Behind the headlines lie real lives, loss, and lasting impact on families and communities. By the time the gunfire in Porepunkah made headlines, the story of Dezi Freeman was no longer just his own. It was a ready‑made narrative, stitched together from years of selective coverage and sensational headlines.

“This is the afterlife of flawed reporting: stories stripped of their original context, circulating endlessly in spaces where they are not questioned but canonised.”

Lessons for Australian Journalism from the Freeman Case

The Freeman case should mark a turning point for Australian journalism. The framing of volatile figures is never neutral, and its consequences often extend beyond the screen. Every editorial choice — what’s included, what’s omitted, how a headline is shaped — influences public understanding and, in some cases, the subject’s own trajectory. While Freeman’s choices shaped part of his story, media framing amplified and hardened his public image in ways with real-world consequences. Lawful dissent is vital to democracy, but when reporting relies on spectacle and selective storytelling, it risks distorting the public record. Australian journalism must rise to the challenge of telling complex truths — not just clickable stories.

Let’s keep the conversation going — share this story: