Although it may appear that our politicians are more accessible due to the continuous coverage of politics on TV, radio and the internet, the amount learnt from this access is decreasing; the science and art of spin has given us less, more often.
When I heard that Tony Jones was to host a new show that would fill in some of the blanks, I was keen to be involved. After registering on the Q&A website and attending the pilot episode, I was invited to the first live-to-air screening at which the Prime Minister was to be a special guest.
The process of getting your question to the guest is an interesting one; the Q&A team are trying to find a balance between allowing the audience freedom to engage with the guest, and structuring a program that flows and makes good television. Questions are submitted by the audience before the show by email or, written down on cards (as below) and handed to the Q&A team, who then sort through the pile (it was suggested that this was somewhere near 1,000 submissions), identifying key topics and then ordering the questions into a logical flow.
Tony retains a fair degree of power as a moderator; after kicking off a topic with one of the pre-screened questions from either the audience or via sms, he selects follow up questions from the studio audience. This is where the real opportunity for participation occurs; however those selected came only from within Tony’s line of sight and the first half dozen rows.
Having been to the pilot episode, I had learnt a little of what questions the Q&A team were looking for. Tony and the Q&A team are quite open about this: make it relevant to the issues of the day. Combine this with making it a little personal and you will be in with a better than average chance.
The thing that sets Q&A apart from other shows with audience interaction, however, is that the guests are not told the questions before the show.
The studio audience last night was relatively well behaved. It appeared to me to be a mix of respect and comfortable curiosity. Respectful in that there wasn’t as much booing or challenging as there had been at the pilot with panellists such as Tanya Plibersek and Tony Abbott. Comfortable, in the way the audience missed addressing the Prime Minister by his title.
Prime Minister Rudd appeared genuine and open throughout the hour. He joked about his chair not being able to swivel; he engaged Tony and the audience in friendly banter; yet he appeared to carefully consider each answer.
The real benefit of this show is the ability of the audience to push the guest when they believe the guest is simply toeing the party line. The issue of gay marriage was the best example last night. The audience made it clear that they weren’t happy with Prime Minister Rudd’s rehearsed response in a way that no respected journalist would be able to – with loud boos.
I would recommend participation in Q&A for the interested citizen. If you’re growing tired of scripted sound bites and pro-forma responses, get involved and ask a politician yourself. Just make sure you sit up the front, put your hand up strong and high and are prepared to challenge the answer you get. There’s hope for democracy yet.
Look, good luck to youse and all but frankly I’m not buying: 1. The ABC is nothing if not as effective at choreography as any other mendicant to federal govt budgetary processes. It’s naive to ignore the national broadcaster’s relationship to politicians, or any big media for that matter, in a revolving door dynamic. In short these are rich people by which I mean above 50 or 60K pa (really). Not an original point either – Warren Beatty in Bulworth 2. Tony Jones is smart but he’s not the final word on anything, just as Andrew Ollie never was either, least of all pulping of forests (had a bad experience, very condescending). (Uh oh hope the sacred cows don’t trample me.) By which I mean, the audience might know better than him what’s a good question, line to pursue. Like say hyper immigration affect on inflation? Like coal paying for their own research into CCS, and accepting all liability. 3. To be honest when I listen to talk back on local Sydney abc it’s 90% boring at least to my wonky ear. Too small a sample to reflect widely. Sincere but often too busy to be really informed. As Plato said democracy gives the stupid as much say as the wise. (Yeah I know points 2 and 3 aren’t really consistent, maybe it’s the last 10% who carry it off.) 4. Even on SBS Insiders you see a similar set up rush to fit the limited tv format but it’s a good show, well done. 5. Margaret Meade had a pithy saying about only a small group of people really change things, because it’s only a small group that ever has – a corollary is that a bunch of folks chatting and pollies waffling, pandering, flattering, squirming – well it’s going nowhere really isn’t it? Where is the strong research, analysis and leadership in a Q & A really? Pretty unrealistic. So it’s a social event and another free platform for the same ole same ole stuck in their 20C political economy and recent budget confusions with bugger all real vision for sustained solutions except the hackneyed step 1 ‘grow the pie bigger’, step 2 give me a donation, repeat first step. I’d trade Q & A for one Earthbeat with Alexandra De Blass and some hard hitting green science like the story on Catalyst last night on micro energy generation City of London.
mmmm seemed to me like the gay marriage issue was the only curve ball the PM was thrown. what about the numerous occasions when Rudd received rapturous applause for his answers, which were often simple policy reiterations. should we really be applauding him for pointing out (yet again) the faults of the previous government? i’m getting sick of that line Kev.
i think it will work better when there is a panel of guests but this seemed far too much like “A Fireside Chat With PM Rudd”. which is scarily reminiscent of the Berlusconi hour of Italian TV infamy…
can we do it again with truth serem? now that would be good tv…
err I meant SBS Insight show, talk forum with expert guests, Tuesdays 7.30-8.30 pm
Agreed. I would have prefered that too. I am realistic enough to understand that the control and question screening is the price that the ABC demands for promoting the forum.
I’m suggesting that if you have a particularly curly question, that you hold it back from the pre-screening and bring it up in the debate.
There’s hope for democracy yet. _ Maybe but it appears that the questions are hand picked by the presenter. It might be a little impractical but I would have thought democracy would be better served if the questions were selected at random i.e. they would be more representative of the view of the audience than the presenter.