The Bloody Papers

[Scarfman]

Looks like I was wrong. The Post seemed to have got access to Assange so are playing fairly straight this time. Pushing the Pentagon line, but not irrationally.

Interesting to see if a single Australian journalist asked Gillard whether (1) she has access to such documents about the conduct of the war (which she ought to), and (2) what she has done about it (nothing).

 

[Jnor]

We know she doesn't know or care about foreign affairs. That, and the general level of debate on and serious discussion none on foreign policy in this country is a disgrace.

Then again, keeping it away from cheap electoral cycle politics may be a good thing. The level of ignorance can't be good in the long run though.

 

[Scarfman]

Half a day later, and none of the Australian papers are covering it. Front page news every other newspaper I've looked at - Times, UK Tele, NYT, WPost, etc.

Maybe if we learn that one of the insurgents are renovating their terrace the Herald will cover it.

 

[Scotty]

The ABC's left lean is a bit overstated IMO. Yeah Hardy wrote a poor quality rant about Chris Pyne, but that is harldy evidence of an organisation-wide bias. She copped a lot of shit for it as well.

You would suggest guys like Kerry O'Brien and Tony Jones would lean left but they hide it very, very well. I remember the Glass House was canned for being too left, which was absolute rubbish considering comedy shows (eg the Chaser) tend to satirise those in power more than those in opposition. I reckon the viewers/listeners are a lot more left than the ABC itself, as evidenced on a weekly basis by the crowd on Q&A.

Surely they choose their audience members, and also review their questions?

Also, don't forget this isn't the first time that Hardy has done it. She also wrote a piece on Abbott a while back. I haven't seen any criticism (or heard of) from her about the government.

 

[Scotty]

We know she doesn't know or care about foreign affairs. That, and the general level of debate on and serious discussion none on foreign policy in this country is a disgrace.

Then again, keeping it away from cheap electoral cycle politics may be a good thing. The level of ignorance can't be good in the long run though.

Don't believe everything you read. Of course Gillard is interested in foreign affairs. She has been told by the focus groups to say she isn't, so she can provide a counterpoint to the previous priminister.

I'm happy for her to stay away from foreign affairs though. It is an embarrassment having a priminister with her atrocious accent. I'm sure the English have had plenty of digs at our London based friends about this?

 

[barbarian]

Surely they choose their audience members, and also review their questions?

They don't choose the audience, it is just first come first served I think. And how would they review them anyway? Ask them who they voted for at the last election? They review the audience for the televised debates and that always ends up being a debacle.

On the topic of Q&A, did anyone see Howard last night? Cracker of an episode, had it all. Say what you like about his positions, Howard was a conviction politician and it was nice to see a politician talk straight down the line and not mince words. The appearance of a shoe-throwing hippie was also good fun.

 

[Ruggo]

That shoe thrower throws like a bloody girl. To his credit Howard answered all the questions straight forward and some of them looked like pretty difficult questions. I don't like the bloke and never will but I will give him credit for that. It was a shame that he got no questions on work place relations. That Q&A is a bloody good show week in week out.

 

[Moses]

That idiot threw like Howard bowls. Would be funny to see the two of them have a net session.

David Hicks question was a real curve ball, and I'm glad they did it. Howard's answer was his weakest of the night. If you leave our country then you can't expect Australian laws to apply? Well Hicks was in Afghanistan, clearly a province of Cuban law.

The argument that if we bought him back to Australia they'd have to let him go was poor, essentially saying what he did was not a crime in Australia so we'll let the Americans do what they want with our citizen, while similarly involved Brits and Americans are returned home and freed.

Five and a half years in limbo and Eyebrows can't even answer a question about whether his treatment was humane.

 

[Scotty]

They don't choose the audience, it is just first come first served I think. And how would they review them anyway? Ask them who they voted for at the last election? They review the audience for the televised debates and that always ends up being a debacle.

On the topic of Q&A, did anyone see Howard last night? Cracker of an episode, had it all. Say what you like about his positions, Howard was a conviction politician and it was nice to see a politician talk straight down the line and not mince words. The appearance of a shoe-throwing hippie was also good fun.

You don't think that they require the audience to submit their questions? Surely this is how they would 'review their questions'?

 

[Moses]

I'm certain they have the audience submit questions in advance, this allows Tony Jones to steer the conversation in a certain direction, and to research the topics in advance.

 

[barbarian]

You don't think that they require the audience to submit their questions? Surely this is how they would 'review their questions'?

Obviously they do, as Moses said, so they can work out the agenda for the show in advance. But the crowd reactions- clapping, jeering etc. is up to chance. I remember one week it was flooded with vocal Libs, which actually ruined the show because after everything the Liberal politician and said was greeted with a chorus of cheers, and everything any left-leaning panellist said was booed and jeered. Got sick of it after a while. More often than not though the lefties get all the applause, as was the case last night.

 

[Jnor]

It's completely first-com-first-served for the audience itself, and audience members are invited to submit questions earlier to give a better chance that they'll get to ask them at some point during the show.

Otherwise you put your hand up and hope Tony Jones picks you

 

[Scotty]

Obviously they do, as Moses said, so they can work out the agenda for the show in advance. But the crowd reactions- clapping, jeering etc. is up to chance. I remember one week it was flooded with vocal Libs, which actually ruined the show because after everything the Liberal politician and said was greeted with a chorus of cheers, and everything any left-leaning panellist said was booed and jeered. Got sick of it after a while. More often than not though the lefties get all the applause, as was the case last night.

Obviously. So why did you ask 'and how would you review them anyway'?

 

[barbarian]

Obviously. So why did you ask 'and how would you review them anyway'?

Was referring to the people themselves not the questions.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Am I the only one who doesn't watch these vox populi type shows? I've tried a couple of times and Q&A is the most civilised of the bunch, but all too often they degenerate into partisan name calling or some ignoramus member of the public saying something ridiculous.

 

[Jnor]

I'm kind of in the same boat, I admire the democratic notion of it, but like when too often it confirms my theory that everyone is an idiot.

Mind you, some of the 'informed' commentators out there aren't any better so while I don't watch very often, I'm defintiely in favour.

 

[barbarian]

TBH it varies week to week. Some weeks it will be hack politicians (Think Emerson, Bowen, Coonan, Arbib, Shorten, Dutton, Bishop) and boring panellists (like head of young libs/labor, some ethnic advocate, head of xyz institute). Other weeks there will be interesting politicians (such as Downer, Costello and Tanner in their day, now its Turnbull, Hockey, Joyce, Burke and Evans) and a few journos/others who are unafraid to speak their minds (eg David Marr, John Elliot, Julian Morrow) and the occasional wildcard who comes good (eg Magda Szubanski).

You don't have to agree with what they are saying, often it is better when you don't, but the good panellists are confident and don't run away from a fight and resort to cliches/party slogans. I look at the panel before deciding whether to watch now.

 

[Sully]

The Dude from Q & A was on the radio this morning. He said they spend just as much time picking the audience as the panel. All audience members have to answer questions by email and maybe by phone. and they look for trends in answers to try to see if they have been coached. The idea is to try to get a balanced audience. I rarely watch the show so I have no idea if they achieve a balance or not.

 

[Moses]

They seem to get a balance of both extremes, which I guess would be representative of the people prepared to go on the show.

 

[Scotty]

The Dude from Q & A was on the radio this morning. He said they spend just as much time picking the audience as the panel. All audience members have to answer questions by email and maybe by phone. and they look for trends in answers to try to see if they have been coached. The idea is to try to get a balanced audience. I rarely watch the show so I have no idea if they achieve a balance or not.

That blows the first come first served theory out of the water.