Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
After watching last night’s effort, it’s past time for a tired ABC Q&A programme to be given a rest, says Ash Kelso.
After watching last night’s lame effort, I don’t think it’s going too far to say that the ABC’s Q&A is now a tired formula — and that the producers are basically flogging a dead horse. Now, I’m aware of the irony of complaining about a show that is essentially about complaining, but my real complaint is that the show didn’t have to develop this way.
The formula of the show is plain to anyone watching.
Each week, they wheel out largely the same bunch of politicians, chain them to the good ol’ proverbial whipping post, and let angsty idealists from the audience take turns at giving them six of the best with the same old questions each week — about how the failure to legislate same-sex marriage is causing climate change because it’s such a hot issue.
Really, the show is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the one side, we have strong party discipline that won’t allow politicians to think, answer, or vote, according to their own consciences. As an example of this, Joe Hockey’s unfortunate remarks about same-sex marriage, while sharing the panel with Penny Wong seem like a shining example of party discipline forcing a man, who is essentially a jolly teddy bear, to say extremely ugly things.
On the other hand, we have audiences week after week who’s interest in the issues extend only so far as the finding of an excuse to take aim with rotten fruit. Surely, it’s plain to anyone that the questions are almost word for word the same questions that the politicians have been asked all week by the media — and invariably follow the same structure as year 12 essay questions (‘with the rise in [some issue I have taken out of context] please confirm my prejudices in a manner disfavorable to yourself’ or ‘given [insert wild approximations of the facts taken from a newspaper I found on the train] please confirm that the country is doomed and we shall all soon have to start devouring each other brains for food’).
Perhaps I’m being harsh, but my contentions are these: one, that the march to the moral high ground on an issue is far easier when one is not burdened with actual responsibility for it and, two, any society that is more impassioned by the opportunity for a witch hunt than it is about actually solving its problems is cutting its nose off to spite its face.
It is, indeed, a great shame that Q&A has gone this way, it could have been an excellent opportunity for the general public to pick the brains of a wider spectrum of accomplished individuals and sprout new thinking into the public square. What if audience members actually floated questions about how a problem might be solved rather than complained about? What if the panel were limited to including no more than 2 politicians each week, to minimise the time spent on point scoring and ‘staying on message’? And what if, dare I suggest it, parties developed a convention to let members off the leash on such occasions to answer according to their own conscience?
It is genuinely unfortunate that a show with such potential had shown so little ambition. In doing so, it has painted itself into a corner to the point where it functions as little more than a complaint hotline for pretentious audiences to thrash politicians who they surely know by now have about as much freedom to offer insight as McDonald’s staff do to vary the Big Mac recipe.
(Access all managing editor David Donovan’s research and writing on the ABC Q&A programme by clicking here.)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
12 Comments
Good analysis and I agree, however, you’ve let Tony Jones off lightly.. He has sole control of the programme direction once on air unfortunately he does not make enough use of the “I’ll take that as a comment.” to ward off piddling nonsense questions, The programme requires the best studio audience moderator in the country for it to be relevant – bring in Jennie Brockie.
NOOOOO! Leave Jenny Brockie where she is, doing a great job in a truely interesting and informative program that has real integrity. She and a program such as the one she has now would be destroyed by the ABC machine that has gone to the dogs. It is a lost cause, with the likes of Tony Jones, Chris Uhlman, Barry Cassidy, Ema Albarichi and Leigh Sales all wanting to win headlines for themselves rather than being informative and engaging with their guests.
Ash is 100% correct in the analysis here. My solution is to look elswhere immediatly after Media Watch and not waste any time watching any of this tripe from any of these ABC hacks.
Ash I love Q&A. Your comment “that the questions are almost word for word the same questions that the politicians have been asked all week by the media” might be true but unfortunately we dont see or read their answers in the media unless it improves the polls for you know who!
i had to laugh last night at the irony of a question about civility in public discourse being followed by incessant booing from half the audience. also i think they should have an IQ test for questioners, i think having an age:IQ of at least a 1:1 would be a good start. but i do appreciate that it’s queensland, so they might be a bit light on content if that were the case.
I watched last night’s programme. George Brandis is a disgrace to be in such a position in Government. He didn’t seem to get it right when he spoke of Paul Keating/howard. We are talking about men in Parliament talking to a female PM. Of course that is like all the mancho Aussie men, don’t like a female leading the Country, keep her in the kitchen.
It is becoming a tad tiresome but one reason is the endless appearances by Brandis & Pyne who are verbal bully boys.
There must be other Coalition MPs who can speak up for their party apart from these two ghastly spin merchants. On the plus side I am seeing Katter as not quite the nutter we are led to believe.
Also if they are going to have guests like the QLD based singer who refused to answer the quite ludicrous redneck style claim that QLD’s mineral wealth should all remain in that state, why have her on?.
And I agree : Jenny Brockie does a wonderful job on a program that is far superior so let’s leave it and her untouched.
Leave the politicians off altogether – they are a waste of time because they have nothing to offer except the party line and we’ve heard that already. Last night’s Q&A was one of the most disappointing with the person who had the most to contribute, Debbie Kilroy, hardly getting a look-in. It was a prime example of men shouting and hogging the show and not giving the woman a fair go. At least Tony Jones could ensure that all guests get a more or less equal amount of time. And five guests is too many.
I agree with the thrust of this article. My family and I no longer waste our time viewing this purile, poor excuse for a current events Q and A. Sometimes the people reading the questions can barely read them let alone understand them. Obviously written by someone else. The only decent panels are those that contain no politicians and discuss matters that are not politically current. Time for a big change.
I watched last night and have to agree with Oscar, Katter though I didnt agree with all he said appeared to me to have a high level of Integrety, of which I rarely notice in M.P.s
Ash Kelso lament for the "missed opportunity" of ABC's #qanda http://t.co/6Ut76M5k
As someone who’s given up on Their ABC I can say I’ve never watched an episode of the so-called QandA. I don’t watch or listen to any ABC programs.
I’m here to support Bob Katter Jnr (although since he named his son the same, and his dad is dead, he is now Snr.
Bob grandfather and Bob father have represented the electorate of Kennedy since the Cambrian (actually I have no idea, but it is ages…). I lived in Townsville and did fieldwork south of Charters Towers. Talking to landowners, they trust the Katters, and will vote for them as long as they choose to stand.
To all you southerners (now there’s irony, since I am now south of most of you) I say: Bob may be mad as a cut snake, but he represents his constituents, who are also mad as cut snakes, and the ‘mad as cut snake’ demographic deserves representation in Canberra.
That said, I too trust Bob, and if given the chance would vote for him. I do not agree with every thing he says or believes, but he represents rural interests and issues like no other.
While I am here I will put in a plug for Tony Windsor. I am proud that I was able to vote for Tony in New England in 2000, the year he entered Ferderal politics. He had just served ten years in state politics, representing the same area. The man impresses me every time I hear him speak.
Both represent the country. Why is the National Party dying, why are Country Independants on the rise? Because when the Coalition gets into power, the Country Party (now the National Party) toes the line and forgets to advocate for their constituents.
I look forward to more Country Indepenents in the next federal parliament.
Statement of bias: I live in urban areas, but I work in rural areas. Canberra does not do enough for our non-urban citizens
I totally agree with the above analysis: a political junkie all my life, I rarely watch because it’s so predictable and mired. Tony Jones is in the wrong place. He wants to be centre stage and ask the questions of the week. Instead, QandA should live up to its promise of letting the audience ask the questions, with a bias to questions that have not been those avoided all week from the Gallery. “Failure to legislate same-sex marriage causing climate change” indeed. Jones is too apt to allow interesting questions to be avoided, and to bend the discussion back to the topics of the moment.
The need to ‘balance’ the panel is also loading it up with filler. The same scrutiny should be applicable to the non-politicians. For example Judith Sloane a few weeks ago cited the FWA report as clear evidence of Thomson’s criminality. The same episode saw Stephen Mayne demanding his immediate resignation. Both will return to the show, and neither will be asked about this.
James Adelaide, you make sense. We could all do well to ignore the party and vote for the best candidate put up in each seat. Parties are havens for the mediocre, mendacious and grasping.