Do you like Stan Grant or prefer Virginia Trioli? Believe the ABC was bonkers to move Q+A to Thursday from its Monday night slot? On such trivial matters, reasonable people can disagree.
But on the core question of whether Q+A’s viewing audience will ever return to its average high of 840,000 in 2010 — it sits on a paltry 200,000 today — there’s only one sensible response: never.
The peculiar and particular nature of the first two decades of the 21st century is key to understanding why Q+A shot to national prominence, and why its heyday is long past. Q+A launched in 2008 and was a massive disruption to the way Australians were consuming information generally, and news in particular.
The internet was on its way into everyone’s homes, threatening audiences and the business model for public interest journalism. Newspaper readership was collapsing and radio, sensing the threat, began shifting to more on-demand products and conversational formats like talkback. The exception to this was free-to-air TV, which was largely unaffected because streaming services were still years away.
Membership of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter skyrocketed, as did Silicon Valley’s recognition — along with the former media giants now chasing them — that opinion was the new black. While shared facts were still presumed, opinion was no longer seen to be the province of experts. Instead, everyone wanted to have their say.
This was the brilliance of Q+A. It was pitched to an audience that, in 2008, was still used to getting its in-depth news coverage on TV, but which was keen to use new technologies to be more involved. I was a guest on the show several times in its first few years, but it was the live tweet stream that began in 2010 that brought home the enormity and engagement of its following. In addition to having my name trend while I was on air, in the space of hours after the credits rolled, I’d gained thousands of followers on Twitter.
That this all seems quaint now speaks volumes about the show’s ability, in its current format, to regain even a sliver of its former appeal.
For one, who broadcasts anymore? Indeed, the persistent and tedious complaints about the show’s bias by, well, pretty much everyone reveal precisely what our current tastes and expectations are of “good” political commentary: essentially, anything with which we agree. A formula for success to which only narrow-casted media can aspire.
And who needs more barely informed or ill-opinion these days? My social media and news feeds are awash with the stuff, while in-depth, expert analysis on important issues outside the daily news agenda — once the mainstay of Fairfax’s broadsheets and the ABC — is as scarce as hens’ teeth. And if I’m desperate to hear the day’s talking points of our national leaders or the opposition, I can tune into the ABC news app to listen anytime. Why would I want to hear them repeated on Q+A?
The upshot? The end is nigh for Q+A, no matter what night it’s broadcast and who presents it, because the show’s formula — so perfectly attuned to the mix of new and familiar that audiences craved in 2010 — is now past its use-by date.
Are you still watching Q+A? Why? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
QandA was an attempt to copy the venerable of Beeb progs, the 60+yrs if Any Questions on radio and the mere stripling of 40yrs Question Time on TV.
The changes to format and content of QandA have not yet settled down – 5 panellists is too many, too often one of the talking heads had a film/book to spruik and the pollies utterly useless and tooafraid of crossing the party line to answer truthfully about anything put to them.
Nutters like Barnyard & recently Kieth the Pitts can be diverting but not sources of information nor enlightment, except by default.
Smarm Grant is no-one’s idea of disinterested chair – he has too many barrows to push and often speaks over panellists to ‘correct’ their views.
Last week’s show was fantastic, mainly for the diversity of views, expressed by clearly intelligent, switched on panellists. I agree about the negative impact of the new timeslot. My Mondays were once wonderful with Australian Story, Four Corners and Q&A. Now that has changed.
I believe there is still a place for the show, probably the only opportunity on the box for informed debate.
Barnyard, Keith the Pitt, and the rest of the LNP almost without exception, when on the program, display they have little to offer beyond partisan, non sensical lack of policy or common sense logic at almost every turn. BTW, love “Keith the Pitt”, a perfectly suited joke for his mindset.
Morrison’s slap-down of Pitt’s offshore drilling proposal was a surprisingly positive incident, despite it being all about political survival and nothing about looming environmental disaster. Madelaine King, in Labor, seems to follow Pitt’s exact mindset, sadly, likely a fossil fuel trojan horse implanted in the wrong party.
I agree that sometimes Q&A has excellent panels with overseas guests and Stan Grant can be a good host. But when venal Nationals and mendacious Liberals are present Q&A sinks to a low level. Bundaberg “farmer Pitt” brings to mind peanut farmer Sir Joh and his rotten regime.
The panels made up of young people only are inspiring.
No surprise that you thought that – they took bathos to new heights.
I look forward to Leslie’s companion piece on the entropy and demise of Insiders. That is truly a national tragedy.
I would occasionally tune in to Q+A, but would tune out as quickly, because the show to me was more about creating heat than light… save for the one magnificent occasion (which should be in the National Archives) when Malcolm Turnbull comprehensively handed Paul Kelly’s arse to him live on national television, over the behaviour of News Corp on climate denialism and political activism generally. That was a moment to savour!
That was a beauty. I used to get a laugh out of Q&A when they had Alan Jones on, with his facial expressions, his answers and comments showing his obvious bias and bigotry to the point of it being almost comical.
I used to be addicted to Q&A. My domestic world was put on hold for the duration of the broadcast. However, since the retirement of Tony Jones it has gone down-hill markedly. I now view Q&A as an adjunct to the Liberal / National Party. The hosts, particularly Stan Grant, don’t seem to be able to keep their opinions to themselves and talk over the guests when they are of a more progressive political stripe. I feel my time can now be better spent reading on-line newspapers and journals to give me an overview of where we, and the world are at.
Pollywollydoodle.
Any time Stan Grant’s mug appears on my screen I hit the off button. His personal point of view (a very weird view) dominates all discussions. Virginia T. on the other hand is a skilled, knowledgable and very talented host. She gets way too little screen time.
Don’t know how (or by whom) the guests are selected but they are seldom worth watching.
Same for “Insiders” – pathetic incompitant trash.
Poor old Aunty – after around 90 years, is now the Alzheimer’s Broadcasting Commission. All the once excellent talent has all vanished. Probably the result of the way the organisation is now run (and by who)..
Get out the meat chopper Albo.
Get out the cheque book, Albo. It’s broke, so fix it.
Drastic, I have to agree with you.
The ABC was once mandatory viewing/listening in times past, not so much for me nowadays. I suspect, from the comments here, many feel the same way. Format changes, personnel appointments, and reduced funding have produced output not so dissimilar to the commercial offering. There’s no reason why this can’t be reversed.
It seems the changes have been a deliberate consequence of government policy for quite some time (ahem, since at least 2013). The organisation was too popular to dispense with outright, but if it could be undermined from within then eventually the people themselves will decry it a waste of public resources.
I hope the current govt will reverse the trend, but I’m cognisant that certain media moguls still hold influence in the corridors of power.
If nothing is done, well… mission accomplished!
I stopped watching regularly under Jones. I will occasionally watch if there is an exceptional panel, but political ideologues, barrow pushers or ill-informed guests asked only for the sake of variety do not make for stimulating or thought provoking conversations.