Comments on: Q&A plug: Marcus Westbury and Germaine Greer

By: Jaye

Jaye — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:42:36 +0000

Marcus, at 29 i don’t feel part of the ‘yoof demographic’ anymore either, even though my maturity level has yet to age. I believe you did a kick arse job in that token yoof role.
Greer, I just dig. Bishop could have almost been on any show with her empty rhetoric.
Carr and Sheridan, I won’t waste the space, and I wish they had done the same.

By: B.Lyle

B.Lyle — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:29:57 +0000

I admire Greer’s courage in writing about Indigenous males from her perspective, but I have to wonder, based on her Lateline comments(I haven’t had an opportunity to read the book yet, and let’s face it, the public/political discussion will be based more on her publicity work than the work itself), whether it’s wise to start pathologising a racial group as given to rage, whatever the justification might be.

Surely this rage could be used to defend all sorts of rascist situations, from higher incarceration rates, to unemployment, to less favourable housing. It’s not because we’re rascist, see, it’s just that these people as a group, even that nice Noel Pearson, are given to this irrational rage.

By: paul walter

paul walter — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:42:26 +0000

Dont, Marcus.
You should realise from this thread that some folk out are reaching the level of post traumatic stress disorder at the sight of the “New” media in action. You can’t realise what a contrast you made to the some of the hams and media tarts hijacking the process for purposes of self-presentation and obfuscation.
Greer was playing a lone hand in having to deal single handed with morons and philistines until you offered some decent mediation on issues concerning the realities involved with them, which of course salvaged Greer’s and the public ’s night, at the expense of the bullshit artists.
It was almost like the old ABC, briefly. Issues taking precedence over spiel and actually allowed briefly to “present”on merit- the likes of Dalton and Cameron must have had kittens!

By: Marcus Westbury

Marcus Westbury — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:13:15 +0000

I now realise that the secret to flying below the radar and getting lukewarm but mostly positive reviews is to surround yourself with far more polarising people! I am trying to work out how i can apply this approach elsewhere in life.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:45:31 +0000

(thought Germaine)

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:41:03 +0000

i think she was searching for ’spectra’…but pretty ordinary to settle on ’spectre’ after a few moments thought…tut tut silly head girl.

By: glen

glen — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:50:05 +0000

watching it now through abc website

i liked julie bishop’s slip “across the spectre” instead of “spectrum” when talking about how youth have been politically galvanised… lol

By: Pangur Ban

Pangur Ban — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:10:28 +0000

I’d really like to see Q&A feature an episode with a panel made up entirely of Indigenous leaders. But I won’t hold my breath.

Also, was anyone else as bemused as I was by The Australian’s rage against Germaine Greer in yesterday’s edition.

It devoted to her no less than 2 feature articles (one of which referred to her as a ‘contrarian feminist’ and the other a ‘polemicist’), one commentary piece, an editorial, a political cartoon and much of the Cut and Paste section. Much of this print space argued that she was so out of touch (I suppose with whatever The Australian is IN touch with) that she was really not worth bothering about.

By: Pavlov's Cat

Pavlov's Cat — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:08:27 +0000

Greer: some interesting material decades ago, basically a one-book wonder.

Really? How many of her books have you read?

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:25:15 +0000

Actually, I thought Germaine was sensational on Q&A.

Having her on the panel was a bit like dropping a pirhana into a goldfish bowl: Blood and fins everywhere.

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:50:52 +0000

I’m agreeing with you about the spurious notion of balance, paul, hence the scare quotes.

By: paul walter

paul walter — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:06:28 +0000

What “balance” Kim?
Since Howard and his mob ruined these public broadcasting sites, “balance” has become a lie as counterweight for each statement of truth.
BTW, good on you for trying to follow up elsewhere on the vicious wedge trick of welfare/ indigenes/ mut ob. Takes us back to what the original “intervention” was really about, in the first place.

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:29:37 +0000

silkworm, I get bored of having to say this when the board comes up.

There are two vacancies occurring on the board this year and the Rudd government has stated they’ll be filled by a transparent merit based process.

To sack the whole board would require legislation which would be most unlikely to pass the Senate, even if you don’t agree with Labor that it’s a bad way to go about changing the process from political patronage and ideological aims to merit.

But it’s more likely to be the “balance” thing than any direct influence from board members.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:54:05 +0000

@Kim, Ha! I think? You are right, she did loosen up a bit a couple of times but then the shutters came down quickly with a dose of pollie speak and a plastic smile.

By: adrian

adrian — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:52:25 +0000

They even have to have balance on shows like Spicks and Specks. One smug dick-head one team has to be balanced by another smug dick-head on the other team.

By: adrian

adrian — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:47:38 +0000

Well I think that the problem is a combination of exruciating questions, right wing hacks, politicians and Tony Jones. If the show was hosted by HG Nelson or John Doyle, it would be much better.

The problem, as with most ABC programs of late is laziness and lack of imagination. And of course we must have the dreaded balance.

By: silkworm

silkworm — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:41:26 +0000

Every single week we have had a climate change denialist/right-wing hack/contrarian fouling up the debate. This week it was Greg Sheridan. I blame the ABC board. Why doesn’t Rudd just sack the whole board?

By: Gummo Trotsky

Gummo Trotsky — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:31:04 +0000

A part of the problem with this kind of panel is the group dynamics, the correct composition brings out the best of everyone, something that has happened on Q&A this year, however this panel wasn’t it.

The biggest problem with Q & A is the excruciating questions. They’re always so wordy and overloaded because the questioners are looking more at scoring a point than getting answers or opening a discussion.

A more productive approach would filter the questions for issues that at least one panel member could answer knowledgeably; another alternative would be to hand over guest selection to the viewers and let the pros do the questioning (as long as they do it better than Leigh Sales did).

Lazy concept, lazily executed.

By: Darlene

Darlene — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:21:18 +0000

God, I am having a good one. I am scared now that when the word “Bishop” gets mentioned, I immediately think of Bronnie. Dr Freud, Dr Freud, where are you?

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:20:03 +0000

Julie not Bronnie, Darlene!