I heard from a pal working in RTE that Q&A is being axed. Has anyone else heard this? It would be a sad day if it were true. Q&A - while at times can be nauseating - is a great programme and is one of the only 'original' pieces of programming to be shown on RTE (everything else, especially during the summer) seems to be a repeat.
Does anyone know if this rumour is true? If so, are there plans to replace it with anything similar??
They shouldnt ditch it. However, it needs major surgery. Difficult I know, but they have to cleanse the audience of all the party hacks and youth wing bores. More importantly, they need to get decent, interesting guests rather than the usual collection of 3 pols, 1 journalist and 1 other worthy like a barrister or psychologist or something
Maybe it is just to rigid. This whole 'talking through the chair' stuff is a bit too formal. It is an important programme because it does, to a small degree, encourage audience debate. I agree with your 'party hacks and youth wing bores' remark though. The audience is supposed to represent the general public and is not supposed to be a battle ground for wanna-be radicals and politicians.
I sure hope it isn't true, but it would not surprise me. The current affairs/political content of radio and TV is decreasing all the time - even though they are a public service and significant ratings-getters. Similarly, the axing of Vincent Browne's show means there is no dedicated political show on RTE Radio.
One thing is certain, though: if the RTE heads wish to do it, there will be no stopping them.
Perhaps this muting of political debate - a classic tactic of the left - is further confirmation of the sentiments expressed in this thread on the "increasingly liberal media"?
Marxists, Feminists and Leftists operate on the basis of "liberating tolerance" - i.e. their ideas should be tolerated, and any opposition should be suppressed.
They should keep it - it's one of the few ways of holding the politicians to account between elections. What should be axed are the commercial breaks and the slow throughput of questions.
It was a good post, why did you have to ruin it at the end?Originally Posted by Electro
A shake up of the format would be good. Why do the same old faces always keep appearing - by that I mean the journalists and the 'other one' (is barrister, solicitor, psychologist etc). Many of the people who call themselves journalists and who frequently appear on the programme are not actually journalists - they are merely columnists. To me a journalist is someone who researches and writes news stories. Columnists are simply talking heads who like to vent their opinions as if they are the only ones who matter. Get members of the public on the panel. If the issue is something to do with health, get someone who is working on the coal face of the health service rather than some union plank. If the issue is crime, get a working Garda on the show rather than a GRA muppet. I could go on, but I won't bore you.............!!!!!!
If Questions and Answers undergoes a radical overhaul its likely that the imput will be reduced to little soundbites, which would mean it becomes more sickening then it already is.
Its boring because its the same faces week in week out. John O Donoghue, Mary Coughlan, Richard Bruton, Eamonn Colleran, Breda O Brian. Its never ending.
Even when there has been a potentially explosive show, it hjas been moderated and becomes mundane. About Five years ago I remeber a panel constructed of Michael McDowell, Gerry Adams, Patricia McKenna, Justin Barrett and two others I cant remember. Even that panel, where the former minister was the moderate !, produced a show which was as dull as dishwater.
The current problems derive from the length of time given to the questions, the selective process of the questions, and the downright unknows who frequent the panel week in week out. But a radical overhaul of the programmes structure would lead to serious problems anyway. I say keep it the way it is, only the show should try to get more interesting guests every week.
Bowman is just awful. Brian Farrell was way better when he filled in for him ages ago, but he is retired now. It will probably eventually go to someone like Mark Little if they keep going with it. They should consider going more like the format of 'let's talk' which is far more interactive. Also, Mark Carruthers is a far better presenter. As far as I know, that show was once done in the 'question time' format like Q and A is, but it changed, perhaps Q and A should too. I hardly ever watch it anymore and I used to be a regular watcher. In the same way as I don't watch the week in Politics as much since Seán Duignan left.
"John Bull has got his hand down your pants and his fist around your bollox and you can't see it."
While more often that not the panelists can be less than inspiring in their responses to the questions asked, the fundamental flaw with Q&A is the fact that the audience is packed with party hacks, ready with what appear to be prepared responses pushing their particular political party's line regardless of the preceding panel discussion. Also there is to much deference given to Government Ministers who seem to get a right reply to audience responses, while the rest of the panel are rarely allowed to respond to challenges to their points.
Average expenses per TD in 2011:- FG €36,412, Lab €28,756, FF €45,219, SF €44,413, SP €23,654, PBP €31,866, WUAG €49,911, IND €37,805, CC €13,112.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote