The Larrikin Paradox is concerned with the unexplored nexus between Australian journalism's larrikin tradition and Enlightenment-informed normative theories relating to journalism's public responsibility in liberal democracy. Australian journalism's larrikin tradition, with its connotations of irresponsibility, has so far been considered an inappropriate lens through which to conceptualise Australian journalism's public role. Yet, paradoxically, it is the larrikin's capacity for irresponsibility that gives him, or her, the potential to be an enacting agent of Australian journalism's public responsibility. Using a form of Cultural Historiography, The Larrikin Paradox tests this Thesis Statement: In Australian history, larrikin journalists have been responsible for facilitating and protecting democratic freedom in the public sphere from authority. Because this freedom is in a state of vulnerability, contemporary Australian journalism still needs its larrikin tradition to vouchsafe a work culture capable of maintaining its declared responsibility to 'inform citizens' and 'animate democracy'. However, the dearth of theory concerning the larrikin as a democratic figure has meant that The Larrikin Paradox has had to conceptualise it, more or less, from scratch. After first assembling the figure from over a century of references to the larrikin, The Larrikin Paradox approaches this conceptualisation using a process of historiographical recovery and interpretation. Using a literature review of larrikinism in general, The Larrikin Paradox investigates a possible larrikin axiology relevant to Australian journalism micro-culture. This axiology is gleaned from an analysis of the term's meanings in sources such as dictionaries and commentaries on Australian English, as well as biographical and autobiographical material directly related to Australian journalism. Once gleaned, this axiology is used to inform an investigation into the history of larrikinism in Australian journalism. The history is drawn from those salient sources of journalism as a micro-culture: biographies and autobiographies by, or about, Australian journalists. Here we assume that our axiological 'compass' can help us seek out the larrikin elements in those micro-cultural sources; thereby identifying manifestations of larrikinism within almost 150 years of Australian journalism history. With larrikinism's historical and axiological significance established, The Larrikin Paradox moves on to a comparative analysis of Australian journalism during the Whitlam (1972 - 1975) and Howard (1996 - 2007) eras using oral history and industry-specific publications. This part of the investigation finds there is marked divergences in Australian journalism's cultural interpretation of its larrikin tradition arising from distinct socio-political contexts. In short, the Howard generation (1996 - 2007) of journalists is found to be less larrikin than those of the Whitlam generation (1972 - 1975). However, with the cultural theories of Stuart Hall (1978) and Raymond Williams (1958, 1977) in mind, The Larrikin Paradox concludes that the larrikin, as a democratic figure, can be re-constructed within the micro-culture of Australian journalism.