This is the best theory I can come up with ...
It seems clever and entertaining, right? But try rewatching that clip over and over for an hour every week. At some point, I'll bet it starts to wear a bit thin.
Tuesday, 11 March 2014
Why can't I watch Q&A anymore?
Last night I tried watching Q&A and ended up lasting about 10 minutes. Since then, I've beem wondering why I can't stand the show anymore. I used to watch it fairly regularly.
This is the best theory I can come up with ...
It seems clever and entertaining, right? But try rewatching that clip over and over for an hour every week. At some point, I'll bet it starts to wear a bit thin.
This is the best theory I can come up with ...
It seems clever and entertaining, right? But try rewatching that clip over and over for an hour every week. At some point, I'll bet it starts to wear a bit thin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
7 comments :
But that's not a theory Alex.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
*
I have never really watched QANDA, only when certain people have been on that I wanted to see. I can't even stand being in TWITTER when the comments start coming about the show. I have to get off.
What do you really think has caused the change? Is it a shift in you or the topics? The guests? Is it possible that we can only fill ourselves with just so much shit before it starts to make us sick and tired of it?
Yesterday I watched Tony Jones interviewing Martin Amis at the Perth Writers festival. I was there in the audience but was writing a piece and wanted to look at parts of it again. Tony Jones is off-putting to me for a few reasons, so I think also that's why I never watched it much anyway. The first time I saw him I thought he was okay but then very quickly he started to grate. In the Amis chat his laugh was so grating and he made a schoolboy quip that was so cringe-making, fucking embarrassing. I think the other thing once I watched and it was Pell and Dawkins and the audience was idiotic and laughing and tittering, and Dawkins couldn't believe it, he even said at one point 'why are they laughing?' It was EMBARRASSING. So I think it presents itself as a real thinking-person's cup of tea, the person who's very discriminating and intellectual - it's for them. But it's not. It wet and weak and from the commentary I see, usually panelled by white male privileged types.
Things I don't like about Q&A:
1) The moderator: I think Tony Jones is terrible. I don't mind him interrogating pollies on Lateline, but on Q&A he tends to let certain people dominate the discussion (usually the pollies). I've seen Virginia Trioli host it couple of times, and I think she's much better.
2) The guests: If you're going to have mainstream politicians, lobbyists & “think-tank” fuckwits on the panel, you might as well have nothing but those pricks on and call the show “Monday Night The Drum”. Those people have no interest in discussion and have nothing useful to say. Most of the time they're just spewing the same old bullshit talking points at each other and drowning everyone else out.
3) The questions: They promote the show as a “live and unscripted forum where you get to ask the questions” and yet it's obvious that 90% of the questions are pre-organised. Mostly, they are boring, predictable and shit. The handful of questions that are genuinely off-the-cuff, usually get relegated to “comment” status or re-worded by Jones to mean something different or ignored by the respondent who goes off on a different tangent.
4) The answers: Any time any actual discussion with some depth threatens to break out, Jones quickly moves things along because of time constraints.
Melbs, I agree with what you said about the show promising something completely different to what it delivers. Here's my suggestion to remedy the problem: Break it up into two shows.
In the first one, pick a topic for the week; say “economics”. Have your guests be five people who are experts/specialists/pivotal-figures in the field of economics, none of which are politicians, journalists, commentators, columnists, lobbyists, think-tank fuckwits, or anything of that sort. Get them started and then let them have a really in depth discussion on the topic. Give minimal direction or mediation where necessary. Next week, have your topic be feminism, or disability, or education, etc.
In the second, have five politicians, journalists, commentators, columnists, lobbyists, think-tank fuckwits, etc on and just turn the audience loose on them. Let them throw out completely inappropriate questions, abuse, shoes, their own feces, whatever.
Sadly, the first show would probably struggle to find either guests or an audience, and the second show, well, if we're lucky, that's probably what Q&A might turn into in three or four years. It'll probably be a ratings sensation.
What about you? You got any suggestions for improving the format? And how's Writer's Fest going?
1) Agree
2) Agree
3) Agree
4) Agree
I like your ideas for both of those shows. My only improvement would be to somehow get a better audience with better questions and more gravitas. Or something. That might just be a problem with this country. I don't know. I just can't forget Richard Dawkins with that half puzzled/half irritated look on his face saying 'why are they laughing?' It was abysmal. What they need in terms of guests, and the people I would tune in for, are the solid names but the really big names, not the B or C list. I'm not interested in high-profile commentators eg the Mamma Mias and that ilk (not sure whether she's ever been on); I'm not interested in politicians because they aren't being themselves/aren't allowed to/are just cardboard cut outs with an agenda. What's great are the personalities and serious intellectual heavyweights but who have presence: like Miriam Margoyles and David Mann. I liked both of them when they were on. Barry Humphreys. Germaine of course. You know what, they are the only ones that should ever be on. Those four, and maybe some random pick like who would be a good lib politician to balance it out: your pick. And get rid of Tony Jones and have Trioli as you suggested or another woman who is a great moderator and doesn't need to make it about her.
The writers fest? That was the Perth one? Finished of course. I don't quite understand what you're asking...
I misread your comment and thought you said you were at the Perth writer's fest last night; which makes absolutely no sense once you think about it.
If I remember that night with Pell and Dawkins correctly, Dawkins was trying to be intellectual and raise the tenor and people were reacting badly to it, like they thought he was up himself; and Pell was going for the lowest common denominator and winning over the crowd.
Maybe you could improve the audiences by hosting it at a uni or something. I dunno. Maybe that one's a lost cause.
I'd have to see an episode of the Miriam, David, Barry & Germaine show before I pass judgment on that one. I can't think of a Lib I'd want to see on there. There probably are some decent ones, but they're not coming to mind. If I had to choose a polly, it'd be Nick Xenophon; I don't mind him. Or maybe Clive Palmer if your idea of “balance” is adding a touch of Buffoonery.
I don't know much about him but isn't Malcolm Turnbull meant to be 'okay' which is why they got rid of him, probably. Too reasonable. Too left.
I think Dawkins was just being himself, which is, yes, intellectual. Not sure if he was trying to do anything. Pell was just being himself too I guess. I interpreted as an audience uncomfortable with what was happening in front of them and reacting immaturely, unable to handle it. I'd have to watch more episodes to see whether the audience generally does that or not. But I'm not going to do that.
I can see how you misread my comment. I was there last month or whenever but there is a video of it online.
I like Malcolm much more than I like Tony. I would much prefer to have Malcolm as prime-minister. Yes, he was more left-leaning, and yes, as far as I could see, that was why they rolled him. If I remember correctly, former senator and climate change denier Nick Minchin launched an open revolt against Turnbull for supporting emissions trading.
And yes, I'd much prefer to listen to Malcolm speak than Tony, or Julie, or Scott, or Eric, or George, or Peter, or Mathias, or Barnaby, or heaven forbid, Christopher bloody Pyne*. But Malcolm is bound to the party line, and therefore, I don't much care to listen to him either.
*Christ they're a bunch of cunts. I just wish I could say that the other mob was all that much better.
Post a Comment