Tom Switzer, former op/editor of the Government Gazette and the Opposition Organ and subsaquently Nelson staffer is a panelist on tonight’s final instalment of the ABC’s Q&A. Switzer famously proclaimed that the right was now winning the Culture Wars. Let’s see if culture war logic stands up to questioning!
Ps: Media tart Peter Costello is also on, in close proximity to David Marr. Perhaps sales of teh book are disappointing? Can he revive them by starting another round of leadership rumours?
It’s all about $weetie, though Nicola Roxon is managing to get the occasional jab in!
Oh yeah! I actually came in halfway to see Switzer, read him but never seen him live, utterly unlikeable chap. And him comparing Palin to Truman…….WTF! I understand now why Nelson was unelectable; with staffers like Switzer on the team……
Costello keeps hammering nails into his own coffin, yesterdays man.
He’s giving Nicola Roxon an easy punching bag though!
David Marr is about to flip his wig.
He really needs to take up yoga or something.
That David Marr is a drongo on a scale sufficient to make Sir Les Patterson seem normal.
The others, a few disagreements aside, are a normal & agreeable bunch.
But where on earth did they manage to find such a bunch of weirdos to make up the audience?
I only watched half an hour but that appeared to be a contentious mix of panelists and the general thrust of the audience reactions will no doubt get Erica Betz wound up again. Firey ending by Marr.
Wow. That was great when Switzer jumped in about Siev X — so keen was he to prove his extreme Right credentials that it was Peter Costello who had to hit him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper…
Its skirted the edges of credibility for some time- particularly with that nasty piece of work Switzer and the Costello/Switzer love in.
But Kernot and Roxon trying to salvage Sarah Palin, particularly in the face of Marr’s devastating critique of Palin after video interviews and parodies vis a vis the Courec interview, finally crossed the line.
Culture wars, schmulture wars. If you believe Wikipedia, it’s as old as the battle for Hollywood - see the entries for Rio Bravo vs. High Noon.
The problem is, most people quite distinctly don’t give a rats.
As I said some months ago, Costello is a nowhere man - Australians don’t care for gutless wonders.
Roxon, Costello and the rest look pretty mediocre, until you put them up against something genuinely malignant like Switzer. You see the difference between humble cheese which is hardly crayfish, but infinitely more nutritious than chalk.
I think he would be thrilled that you thought so, SATP.
He’d be thrilled?
I’m happy to gladden the day of a retired dipo.
I’m guessing Switzer will write “gardening” for the period January - September 2008 in his CV…
D.D.McNicoll had this snippet on Switzers future prospects.
How dumb is Cheryl Kernot? to be fair, the financial crisis is opaque to the extent that it’s beyond comprehension for most of us mortal folk, but her ‘opinions’ proved the old mantra that it’s better to remain silent and be thought an idiot, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
I agree with Robert’s comments that Switzer was just out to prove his nasty-right-winger credentials. And taking a job in Nelson’s office demonstrates a severe lack of judgement.
David Marr was almost unwatchable, with his affected foppish accent. It was as bad as listening to Alexander Downer. He spent the whole program trying to come up with a pithy rejoinder that would have everybody applauding his (obviously superiour) intellect. Wanker.
Roxon was obviuosly out of her comfort zone on the financial crisis, but that’s true for all of them. Unfortunately her and Costello (who might have been able to say something interesting about how things are different in Australia) fell into a lazy catfight about whose version of history was more accurate.
All in all, that was a pathetic panel. I was left wondering how any of them actually have paid employment (especially Kernot - bloody hell, what a dope).
I’m glad Q&A is over for the year - I always wind up watching it, and always wind up shouting at the TV, because they always stack the panel with clueless morons (honourable mentions to Turnbull, Shorten, Tony Bourke, Joel Fitzgibbon and a couple of others who can actually think and talk at the same time).
So I didn’t miss much?
I reckon your point is a good ‘un David.
And what makes the whole Costello unwinding such an odd sight is that he keeps popping his head out to have it kicked one more time. He seems happy to trade in “the treasurer that saved Australia” for “he’s quite a good bloke after all” as a legacy.
Distinctly odd.
And David Marr’s attack doesn’t suit TV, never has. Fine in writing, but lord he’s iritating to watch. He and Bolt on Insiders reminds me of my children at the point where they’re locked outside to chill out.
Not so, Paul Burns.
Watching Roxon revealed her legendary and anal defensiveness, but when she relaxed enough to actually get into a subject some considerable ability to think clearly emerged. I like to see more of that and less of the timidity, but you could say that about most Labor politicians ( Tanner on Latteline later, was also drearily defensive ).
Costello found it difficult to get a word in, particularly when he could have offered something substantial. But that’s his own fault. The fellow is not now treated seriously and with virtually the first words from him last night a tout for his book, you guess why.
It is right to see why and how the “Australian” is so politicised, through the viewing of creatures like Switzer in action.
Marr sometimes came in with pretty reasonable thinking, a bit like Roxon, but he does have his hobbyhorses.
Cheryl’s a lovely old thing- bit lazy, perhaps. The broad brush stuff is not bad and she’s not poor in the sense that Palin is, as to truth and reality. But as above contributors have mentioned, she is deficient on much of the finer detail that could help her back up her instincts in a more convincing form.
Jones does good stuff with this material and last night was a good example.
………………………………………………………
Ps, note Auntie has sacked Helen Razer for nastiness. Fair enough to pull some one up for the sort of laziness exemplified in the Media Watch piece on her patronising interview with the playwrite, but sacking’s a bit draconian, what?
Why not just some anger management counselling, like as happens with certain other Australians caught out saying or doing something compromising.
Used to enjoy her cheeky, aggro stuff in the Age back six or seven years ago, as with Emma Tom’s stuff in the OZ. But both seemed a lot quicker on their feet back then.
Satire and humour seem to have short life spans, or is it just familiarity breeding contempt?
That particular actor/playwright (his name escapes me) is notorious for being prickly with the press. But Glazer was very stupid.She should at least havedone her research on his one man show, which, btw, got good reviews.
Steve Berkoff
Very good actor, though.
Indeed.
Was she sacked for incompetence? (not before time)
If people were sacked for incompetence SATP I’m afraid perfect workers like yourself would find an alarming economy to deal with.
Mind you, her effort with Berkoff was toe-curlingly embarrassing. Something for the CV I guess.
Razer has traded in nastiness and boringly longwinded ad lib for many years now. Can be entertaining in brief bursts.