Full Analysis Summary
Artist objects to song misuse
Colin Hay, the former frontman of Men at Work, publicly demanded that the March For Australia stop using the band's hit Down Under as a xenophobic anthem and told protesters to 'go write your own song.'
He described the track as a personal, tongue-in-cheek reflection on his experiences and rejected its appropriation for anti-immigrant messaging, urging people not to co-opt the song.
Hay's objection frames the dispute as an artist protecting the intent of his work against political misuse.
Coverage Differences
Tone / Emphasis
The Times of India (Asian) reports Hay’s direct rebuke and frames the matter as the artist rejecting appropriation — quoting him telling protesters to "go write your own song" and emphasizing the song’s personal, tongue-in-cheek origins. 7NEWS (Western Mainstream) similarly reports Hay’s stance but places additional emphasis on the song’s broader anti-xenophobia message and public support online, noting fans echoed that the song opposes xenophobia. Both sources report Hay’s view, but Times of India foregrounds the artist’s rejection of co-option while 7NEWS highlights the public response and the song’s history.
Context for Hay's view
Background details reported alongside Hay's rebuke give context for why he disputes the song's political use.
7NEWS notes that Hay was born in Scotland, moved to Australia at 14, and is married to Peruvian-born musician Cecilia Noël, facts that reinforce his immigrant-background perspective.
The outlet also highlights the song's cultural status, noting it was played at the 2000 Sydney Olympic closing ceremony.
The Times of India similarly underscores Hay's view that the song is autobiographical and not intended as a nationalist anthem.
Together, these accounts frame Hay's objection through both his personal biography and the song's public legacy.
Coverage Differences
Narrative / Background detail
7NEWS (Western Mainstream) supplies more biographical and historical context — noting Hay’s Scottish birth, migration to Australia at 14, his marriage to Cecilia Noël, and the song’s use at the Sydney Olympics — which it uses to underline the song’s inclusive, anti-xenophobic reading. The Times of India (Asian) focuses more narrowly on the artist’s intent and explicit rejection of the song’s appropriation. Both report Hay’s central claim but differ in how much contextual background they include.
Media framing of song use
Public reaction and media framing differ between outlets.
7NEWS highlights social media supporters who echoed Hay's stance, explicitly quoting users who wrote 'we are all immigrants' and stressing the song's anti-xenophobia message, giving the story a communal, inclusive angle.
The Times of India focuses on Hay's instruction to protesters and his insistence that the song not be repurposed for anti-immigrant rallies, framing a firmer confrontation between artist and demonstrators.
Neither outlet provides direct quotes from March For Australia organisers or the protesters using the song, leaving the protesters' rationale absent from available reporting.
Coverage Differences
Missed information / Omission
Both sources report Hay’s objection and public support for him, but neither includes quotes or statements from March For Australia organisers or protesters who used the song — a notable omission that leaves the protesters’ motivations unreported. The Times of India (Asian) conveys the artist’s rejection more directly, while 7NEWS (Western Mainstream) foregrounds online supporters and the song’s inclusive message.
Media framing of song dispute
Taken together, the two available reports show consistent reporting that Hay opposes the song’s use at anti-immigration rallies.
They differ in emphasis and in the perspectives they omit.
The Times of India frames the story as an artist’s refusal to have his work appropriated for nationalist purposes and quotes Hay telling protesters to 'go write your own song'.
7NEWS emphasizes the song’s broad, inclusive reception and online responses such as 'we are all immigrants', and adds biographical and ceremonial history to contextualize the dispute.
Because only these two sources are provided, other perspectives — including statements from March For Australia, direct protester testimony, or alternative media analyses — are not available, leaving aspects of the dispute unclear.
Coverage Differences
Narrative framing / Omission
The Times of India (Asian) foregrounds Hay’s explicit rebuke and intent, whereas 7NEWS (Western Mainstream) balances Hay’s objection with wider social reaction and historical context (e.g., Olympic use). Both lack on-the-record input from the protesters or organisers, an omission that leaves the protesters’ motives and claims unexamined in these accounts.