Political analogies about democracy aside, the student protest on Q&A confirmed what many of us suspected: it is boring, formulaic TV.
Tony Jones’ grovelling apologies to the education minister, Christopher Pyne, who was subjected to some tough questions (and quite frankly some of the better articulated ones) by students about the corporatisation of higher education, along with the unfurling of a banner, has one wondering just what our national broadcaster thinks is good TV.
And just to ensure that nothing exciting ever happens on Q&A again, the ABC is now “reviewing our procedures to make sure we reduce that risk [of disruption] and the program does what it should do”. And if you’re unsure what that is, it’s to “provide an opportunity for citizens to ask tough questions and get answers from our politicians”. Only not too tough. The ABC also maintained that “Illegible banners and chants aren’t a substitute for intelligent debate.”
I’m sure Q&A is not suggesting we keep our banners legible and our chants in key. Rather, our national broadcaster seems to be aiming to make Q&A the most dully conformist TV it can be, led by a white middle-aged man protecting the white middle-aged man’s idea of what does, and what does not, constitute “intelligent debate”.
The truth is that Q&A for the most part has become nothing more than politically inane conversation with a much more compelling sideshow, that is Twitter. That’s not the moderated feed that makes it on to the screens during the liveshow, but the unsanitised stream that is #qanda.
Of course the ABC can’t make it a free-for-all, declaring that it will “set the bar at civil”, but for those of us following at home, the best way to watch Q&A these days is to not watch it and to follow the Twitter stream. It’s certainly a lot less dull. You can get the cheap thrill of political derision, without the frustration of watching a middle-aged man try to stifle it.
So what can be done to improve things?
Answering the odd question from the Twitterverse (yes, that would mean that panellists were expected to have spontaneous answers!) might go a long way to spicing things up a little. With about 21,000 tweets an episode, there’s bound to be one question that is “acceptable”.
Q&A Twitter diehards, many of whom have become regular (second screen) viewing in their own right, might even be invited to appear on the show. They’ve been the stars for a while now, engaging with the issues and Q&A audience in a way that Jones could learn from. I’d even go so far as to suggest that one of the regulars have a shot at hosting. What’s the worst that could happen? There’s always Katie Noonan to cut to.
It would also be good to see a lady in the main seat. While Q&A have maintained they have long tried to address the issue of gender balance on the show, I can’t think of a better way to ensure it on a weekly basis than to have a woman driving the debate. The ABC certainly has access to a host of top female talent.
In short, what Q&A needs is less plodding and more spontaneity (maybe even a touch of protest). And yep, that’s a comment, not a question.
