Simple really, they do it by focusing our attention on the shortcomings of a sub group of fellow Australians.
Some Australian subgroups who have been targets of this divide and control tactic include alleged bikie gangs, alleged street gangs, smokers, drinkers, environmentalists, welfare recipients (but not corporate welfare recipients)and renters.
The media's attempts to divide and control and thereby pit Australians against Australians, has now reached a point where they are inventing alleged subgroups of wrongdoers so they can vilify and criminalize that subgroup.
In recent times we have seen the emergence of a new subgroup "fine evaders" The media is now focusing our attention on this group and wants us to support the government who wants to dock people’s welfare payments to recover ‘what the media claims is 'lost revenue.' Mind you, such docking will quickly spread to inlcude wages and salaries.
Some question arise here.
How does someone by not paying a fine, that is illegal and void as per section 8, sub-section 12 of the Imperial Acts Application Act, until conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction, deprive anyone of any money anyway?
Until we have been found guilty of an alleged infringement in a court of competent jurisdiction, we are guilty of absolutely nothing.
Why is the media so desperate to focus our attention on these so-called "fine evaders" vilify them, make out they are criminals of such elk that we should feel compelled to support the docking of their wages, salaries or dole?
Also, why and for whom does the media divide out a subgroup of Australians, vilify that subgroup for the purposes of pitting Australian against Australians, if it's not for the purpose of dividing and controlling people?
The conclusion here is that we can now easily recognize how the media picks out subgroups of the Australian people, portrays them in a negative way and encourages the rest of Australians to vilify them unless it's for the purpose of dividing and controlling them and preventing them from unifying their collective and potent potential to control Australia's future.

Quote "welfare recipients" There are times the MSM do the right thing to inform the taxpayer how we are being taken advantage of by some people.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5213817/Drug-addicts-disability-pension-abuse.html

Almost 27,000 unemployed Australian addicts are on disability pensions because of the damage they've inflicted on themselves by drink and drugs

Almost 1,400 Australians get the disability pension due to drug and drink abuse
About 1,500 DSP recipients list substance abuse as 'primary' disability condition
Almost 27,000 jobless Australians list alcohol and drugs among their problems
PM Malcolm Turnbull insists government still intendes to drug welfare recipients (( Why not star by doing something about these ))

For those over 21 or under 21 with children the maximum fortnightly DSP payment is $894.40, while the maximum Newstart Allowance for a single unemployed person is $538.80 a fortnight.

The article is a bit sensational in they are showing the payment for person with children $894.40 right before the single person Newstart payment $538.80, I think a lot of people will not see the difference only one figure is $355 more They should have put the figure for single person on DSP.

So this is a perfect example of the media dividing us, but in this instance it is also informing us.

What a load of baloney. Only silly weak people take any notice of the media which, in the main, is controlled by Left wing crackpots. Australians are 'pitted against each other' without any help from the media. Any Australian who is 'ruled' by the media is as soft as a boiled turnip, incapable of thinking for himself.

Perhaps Referundemdrivensocienty hasn't been paying his finesand has a personal axe to grind.

Those 'misunderstood' bikies that the media are 'maligning',

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-19/warnings-of-bikie-gang-war-on-tasmanian-turf/9273770

Anyone who watches, listens to, or reads the "media", obviously has nothing worth doing in their lives, so might as well be lead around by the media. They will require leading by someone.

The media
provides instant coverage of social events and
social changes, ranging from news and opinions to
fads and fashions. It offers role models, viewpoints,
and glimpses of lifestyles that we might never have
access to.

The fact that many of these images are not very
realistic doesn't necessarily lessen their influence.
Through media advertising, too, the young learn
about their future roles as consumers in the marketplace
and about the high value the society places on youth, success,
beauty, and materialism.

Changing social norms and values are quickly reflected in
the media and may be readily adopted by people who
might not otherwise be exposed to them. The rapid spread of
new trends in youth culture, for example, depends
heavily on such media as popular DVds, television, Youth-
oriented magazines, movies, the internet and so on.

We have access to a flood of information but much of it is
highly selective or distorted.

News programs, for example,
tend to feature the visually exciting or emotionally
moving stories that draw large viewing audiences - even if
this means omitting issues that are more sober but perhaps
more significant also.

Fictional portrayals too, often
over represent some categories of the population, such as
the wealthy or famous, and under-represent others such
as the aged, the poor, or minorities.

Of course it isn't just the media that influences us.
There are many other agents of socialization -
religious groups, youth organisations, and later in life,
such agents as employers, voluntary associations, clubs,
political
movements and retirement homes.

The influences of the various agencies are
not always complementary and can often be in outright
conflict. The church, for example, may hold quite
different values from the military, the peer group from
the school and so on. It is also obvious that people do
not always learn what they are supposed to learn.

We have to remember that personality and behaviour are
never entirely stable. They change under the influence
of our experiences throughout our life course.