The Twitterverse, fingers poised on keyboards and 140 characters at the ready, has been excitedly awaiting the resumption of the ABC’s hit current affairs panel show, Q and A. The usual suspects are being primed to play their customary roles on either side of compere Tony Jones, the constable in this televisual Punch and Judy.

Q and A began as an earnest attempt at 1960s round-table public affairs, but it seems to have morphed into something that the ABC never envisioned – a post-modernist circus in which the participants perform their verbal acrobatics on the issues of the day, largely unaware that a large part of the audience is deriving its entertainment from anything but the pre-digested arguments on screen.

Indeed, like the aforementioned puppet show, both the live audience and the virtual one are part of the show; the asides on twitter are sharper and more absorbing than the rehearsed guffe expressed by the glove puppets on stage. We know for instance that Gerard Henderson, the pious judge of this panto, is going to nasally opine about Robert Manne getting a fact wrong in an essay at Melbourne University in 1967, which gives us room to sit back on our laptops and smartphones riffing on his Gerard-of-the-sixth-form nerdiness.

Likewise, we can surmise that Janet Albrechtson, the Vaucluse-dwelling crocodile with an investment banker husband, is going to snap at the liberal educated, latte-quaffing “elites” who sneer at the real Australians of the western suburbs, which leaves us to speculate on twitter on whether she could play Lucrezia Borgia in a film adaptation of the Renaissance papacy.

And it seems so predictable that Julie Bishop, the evil-eyed roller pin-wielding Judy, is going to pound poor Punch (Peter Garrett) on his naked noggin. Sitting in the stalls in our loungerooms, wee can see it coming; we can shout a warning (“she’s behind you!”), but it is always too late.

So this is what our participatory politics has become – watching live mannequins mouth prepared and predictable talking points from either side of their self-constructed ideological ditch.

So why was this prefab partisanship produced in the first place? Because for the ABC, this is perfect television; it’s cheap to produce, it absolves the public broadcaster from having to look any deeper into issues and it spares it the accusations from the trainspotting Hendersons of the world about bias.”See, Gerard, we’ve got two from the red team and two from the blue team”.

Occasionally, though, the Q and A mould is broken by the appearance of someone who hasn’t been sent over by ideological central casting and who actually manages to say something that cuts through the boilerplate cant – like Craig Reucassel of the Chaser whose impassioned outburst on the morality of using refugees as political pawns had Christopher Pyne pursing his lips and clenching his buttocks even more tightly than normal.

But this is a rare event. And soon, we are back on our laptops, looking for ways to send up the tewwibly  cwoss Gerard or the mincing Christopher or, that harradin of harpiedom, Sophie Mirrabella. Q and A quite simply is a cartoon, a freak show, a pageant of publicity-seeking trolls and opinionators who very rarely have anything of substance to add to our public discourse. The fun is in making fun of it all.

At the peak of the popularity of Punch and Judy in the 19th century, Charles Dickens was asked about what he saw as the source of its appeal:

“In my opinion, the street Punch is one of those extravagant reliefs from the realities of life which would lose its hold upon the people if it were made moral and instructive. I regard it as quite harmless in its influence, and as an outrageous joke which no one in existence would think of regarding as an incentive to any kind of action or as a model for any kind of conduct. It is possible, I think, that one secret source of pleasure very generally derived from this performance… is the satisfaction the spectator feels in the circumstances that likenesses of men and women can be so knocked about without any pain or suffering…

Think about that quote when the ABC ringmasters bring the circus back to town this week.

See also Larvatus Prodeo: ‘Four Propositions About Q and A’


15 Comments

RET · February 5, 2011 at 11:13 AM

A better allegory I've yet to hear. I shall refer to the show as P&J from hereon, I think.

Seriously, I didn't bother with it much last year unless there was someone particularly unusual – and preferably none of the usual suspects – on it. The Gillard and Abbott episodes were reasonably good, but if Albrechtsen or Henderson are featured, it's hard to get excited about it.

And now it's up against Dexter on Channel Eleven as well 😉

Lyn · February 5, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Hi Mr Denmore

Well done again. Excellent post from you again,
most enjoyable, you made my imagination work overtime .

Happy New year and thankyou Mr Denmore, looking forward to many more enjoyable posts from you this year.

Cheers

Bob · February 5, 2011 at 2:34 PM

nail on the head. Q&A is badly broken.

Each panel has what I call a “Grenade” panellist be it Greer/Akerman/whoever. these panellists expode and the manner of the issue rather than its matter becomes the focus of discussion.

Q&A is political cockfighting or Current Affairs Wrestling and advances debate (and the standards of its conduct) not one jot.

It is a forum for Barrow pushers and soap boxers, not the exposition, analysis and debate its important topics deserve.

Q&A lost me when at its “what's wrong with Anzac” panel.. Henry Reynolds was in a catch-22 and knew it.
the format (and often the invited panellists) can't cope with detailed exposition his subject and thesis required and he was effectively muzzled.

Moderation is pallid and ineffectual as they fail to challenge dishonest and irrelevant rhetoric and often a snarling sniping shouting match ensues.

Formal rules for the conduct of the panel and its speakers would create more room for speakers to present their points of view.

what began as must see TV is definitively now must miss TV.
Bob/@juliusFlywheel

Anonymous · February 6, 2011 at 1:40 AM

Agree with Bob. Started out with promise and quickly degenerated into staged P & J.

Nick · February 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Thanks for the article. Amongst my circle of friends and acquaintances I am almost the only one who doesn't like (and these days rarely watches) Q&A. Too many guests. And is run more as light entertainment.

Ben Harris-Roxas · February 7, 2011 at 12:39 AM

You are absolutely correct, but is the show worth resuscitating? Its notional goal of (somewhat) participatory democracy seems laudable, no matter how vaudevillian it has become.

Mr D · February 7, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Ben, it might be worth rescuscitating if it got people who expressed something other than the agreed partisan line on subjects of public interest. It might be less entertaining that way, but would almost certainly be more informative – which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the role of a public broadcaster.

Brett · February 7, 2011 at 5:51 AM

Perhaps educating people to the vacuousness of the agreed partisan line(s) is what makes it worthy. There's something to be said for making fun of people who deserve it.
It all reminds me of something a young anarchist told me years ago, “This whole left/right thing is just bread and circuses for the so-called politically educated”. Hundreds of thousands tweeting that the emperors on both sides are naked will hopefully, eventually force them all to lift their game.

Amanda · February 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM

Agree agree agree. Always the interesting – most thought provoking – comments are from the non-politicians. And generally they come from the non-professional commentators/thinkers e.g. musos, comedians… audience members. But I guess that's a bit of a no-brainer. When was the last time you heard a politician of any colour say something really interesting?

Paul Cunningham · February 7, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I'm not sure about the 'role of the public broadcaster' argument. Surely watching Q&A, with all its faults (so wonderfully described above) and being somewhat engaged in political debate is better than not watching at all. Or worse – watching what passes as journalism on the commercial channels.

David Irving (no relation) · February 7, 2011 at 9:27 PM

To quote His Bobness:

They're selling postcards of the hanging
The circus is in town …

Mr D · February 7, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Very pertinent, David. To quote Bob exactly:

They’re selling postcards of the hanging
They’re painting the passports brown
The beauty parlor is filled with sailors
The circus is in town
Here comes the blind commissioner
They’ve got him in a trance
One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker
The other is in his pants
And the riot squad they’re restless
They need somewhere to go
As Lady and I look out tonight
From Desolation Row

RodH · February 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Or perhaps equally apposite from another song on the same album:

Now all the authorities
They just stand around and boast
How they blackmailed the sergeant-at-arms
Into leaving his post

Lad Litter · February 8, 2011 at 2:28 AM

Ah, Highway 61 Revisited. To call it a Classic doesn't quite go far enough

http://ladlitter.blogspot.com/2011/01/classic-albums-augmented-ii.html

Rhiannon Saxon · April 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM

A bit of a late comment here, but I do wish it would stop trying to be another Insiders packed with journos and opinion hacks and bring back actual experts and actual people working in the fields concerned, rather than analysts and 'just' politicians.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *