The problem with Q&A politics

Q&A has been a staple of Australia's media and political landscape since its inception in 2008. Based on the BBC's long running Question Time, the show has seemingly given the public a stronger voice regarding important political, economic and social issues. It consistently rates well for its timeslot (around 900,000 in total), and every Monday night, like clockwork, #QandA will be trending on Twitter.

So, it sounds like the show is a win for everyone, right?

Wrong.

There are many people who could potentially benefit from a show like this. In theory, all Australians should be reaping the rewards of such a show, in some way or another. Holding politicians to account, and bringing important community issues and opinions to the forefront should be a good thing.

But in reality, Q&A simply is not the broad ranging, powerful and interesting place of discussion that it attempts to be. It does not benefit all those it should. Most importantly, it quite often cannot break through the increasingly bland political discourse this country is full of, instead being a vehicle for it.

The ABC loves Q&A. And why wouldn't they? It's one of their highest rating programmes and isn't particularly expensive to produce. In an era when they (unfortunately) need to keep justifying their existence, the ABC can point to Q&A as one of their great successes. It also keeps them 'in the conversation' on social media, which is of ever increasing value.

The other people who quite enjoy Q&A are the major parties. Specifically, the more prominent members of these parties, some of whom can attribute their prominence directly to their almost constant rotation into the show. Gone are the days of Rudd and Hockey, Gillard and Abbott being all jovial on morning television to get people to pay attention to them. No, these days Q&A is the lightning rod for political discussion instead – something surely confirmed by Today host Lisa Wilkinson appearing on the show last Monday. We've gone from politicians making small talk on morning shows to morning show hosts having serious discussions about politics.

And when I say constant rotation, I do mean constant rotation. Of the top ten most frequently appearing guests (to the end of 2014), nine of them were part of either the ALP or the Coalition. Of the top twenty, seventeen are from the two majors. The remaining three are two journalists from The Australian (Janet Albrechtsen and Greg Sheridan) and the leader of the Greens, Christine Milne. Of the 44 episodes to air in 2014, 28 featured a member from both of the major parties. Of the remaining 16, three were one-person specials (of which two of those featured government ministers) and eleven were specials focusing on a particular topic, mostly featuring people relevant to the topic. That leaves a whole two 'regular' episodes of five panellists talking about the big issues of the week.

To be fair to the ABC, they do seem to have tried a bit harder in recent years to make sure that people outside of the major parties are the focus of episodes from time to time. Thirteen episodes with a member from each of the major parties is a significant step up from 2010, where only four of the 41 episodes featured a five member panel and did not include two major party politicians. But it's still not enough. By making the specials into the episodes without the majors, it places the episodes with the majors as the status quo, and, politically speaking, that is the problem.

There is not necessarily anything wrong with having politicians on the show regularly. In fact, it is a good thing that they are willing to show up and answer questions, especially members of the government. But there is something wrong with having one from each party on the show basically every week. The problem is this: it reinforces the idea of two parties in total opposition to one another. Q&A is not at fault for this idea gaining traction – it is embedded into the current Australian political system – but the programme does little to challenge it either. For example, last week's show saw Jamie Briggs (Assistant Infrastructure Minister) and Chris Bowen (Shadow Treasurer) sit either side of Tony Jones. The two of them managed to degenerate into petty arguments a number of times, which is business as usual between the two majors on the show. Furthermore, the two nearly managed to speak as much as Alan Jones, which is quite an achievement in itself. Normally, when someone not so happy to talk until the cows come home is on, the two pollies will be the ones with the most airtime. Neither of these things are healthy for political discourse.

By placing them on either side of Jones and allowing them to snipe at each other, they become the centre of our attention, and our attention is being drawn to whatever political point they want to score. How can we have good political discourse when the dominant parties' idea of discourse is stale one-liners and repeated talking points? All that the viewer sees is that a) these are our only choices for government and b) our choices aren't very good. What is even more problematic is that these tired talking points are inevitably the things that get the most airtime. On a typical five person panel, there will be these two politicians, an expert of some kind, an artist/comedian/writer type, and a wild card (could be a journo, another expert, another politician, another artiste, anything really). The other three may all have something interesting to say, or only some of them, but often they only get one or two chances to properly answer a question. The two politicians will almost always take up the most time, and the result is a diluted discussion.

There is another problem. I said earlier that it was specifically the prominent members of major parties who like Q&A at the moment. The reason for this is that the show is all about individuals. Individuals are asked questions, individuals answer the questions. How they answer the questions, and not necessarily what they actually say, will determine how people think about them. The more important the individual, the more weight is put to their answer, and the more focus is paid to their answer after the show is over. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the more members of parliament the public is aware of, the better. However, when you're trying to engage in important political discussion, is a televised forum the best place to do it? Does the policy remain as the focus? You may have heard of the classic debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, where those listening on radio believed Nixon won, but those watching on television believed Kennedy performed better. The latter was, quite literally, about style over substance, and that is what the medium of television is built for. If you can combine the two, great, but time and time again we see politicians picking style first. A pithy soundbite for the evening news will be more effective at grabbing attention, after all.

So when you bring two politicians from parties vying for government and put them in front of a television camera, and you tell them to speak freely, do you really expect them to go into any great, significant detail about their vision for the country? Because as it stands now, you probably shouldn't. The style wins over the substance, and such is the media cycle of today that the style has actually become the substance.

But how can I say that Q&A sets the tone for political discussion in this country, and that it turns the focus from the parties and their policies towards the individuals and their image? Well, let's look at a recent example. One of the people joining Wilkinson on the panel on Monday was Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull has been at the centre of leadership speculation since the spill motion was called against the Prime Minister recently. He was meant to appear on the show as the Minister for Communications, which he did, but for many in the media in the days since, his appearance was really about presenting himself as 'alternative Prime Minister', a nonsense title that is endemic of the focus of personality that the media so loves.

For the next couple of days, his appearance on the programme was a major talking point for the media. David Crowe in The Australian claimed that his performance offered an alternative to Abbott's leadership. Mark Kenny for Fairfax proclaimed that the fight between potential Prime Ministers was the most interesting part of federal politics. Catherine McGrath from SBS called Turnbull a flirt. Most importantly, News Ltd proclaimed his performance as being 'Prime Ministerial', which is basically meant to be our version of 'Presidential' (even though the PM is not like a President). Here we see how easily Q&A set the tone for discussion in federal politics for the rest of the week. And what of this is not about image? What of this is not focussed on the individual? 

What of this does not, little by little, weaken our political system every time it happens?

So, how do you fix these problems? Well, I have a few ideas, but I'm sure there are more. I'm also sure the ABC isn't that interested in them, but no matter. First, don't have a pollie from each major party on every week. When you do have one on, you don't have to have one from the other on for the sake of 'balance'. Make Jones, or whoever is moderating, clamp down on the soundbites that they so love. If you have two on (which will be fine occasionally), make them sit next to each other. Put them on one end of the desk. They're not going to be as likely to have a go at each other if they are physically next to one another, and they won't be the centre of attention if they're way down one end.

Television's place as a visual platform means that it is difficult to change the focus back to being about policy instead of image. This means that it is up to the media to stop focusing so much on what does and doesn't look good, and to instead hone in on the substance. Ultimately, Q&A can't change too much. Not because it's so great that it shouldn't be changed, but rather that it's a difficult format to change. These little changes would be positive, but you're not going to suddenly improve the quality of discussion tenfold. The show simply isn't designed for anything too high level. It's a fine balancing act between levels of acceptable style and substance, and I'm sure the ABC will have many more years to tweak it.

Well, as long as the government doesn't privatise it.