We seem to be in the middle of an interrupting crisis. I’m not sure how we got here. I blame Steve Price.
No, that’s not true. I don’t. But he does seem to have sparked a new movement where a certain type of person (white, male, middle-aged) is struggling with the idea of being interrupted. I’ve noticed it with men of that age in my own life and when I mentioned it to a couple of friends, they agreed.
It’s like at a certain age, men become unable to cope with how conversations are fluid and how interrupting is not necessarily a ‘screw-you’ act of aggression but sometimes just how things go when several people are rushing to communicate information at the same time.
I think we’ve all become more aware of interrupting after Donald Trump and also with all the post-election conversation about bubbles and people trying to shut down opinions different to their own.
But on TV, it's becoming a bit silly.
I was watching Q&A last night and it sparked me to write this on my Facebook page:
Look, I'm an interrupter. It's not my greatest quality. I'm not like, Donald Trump bad, but it's something I have to watch in my regular life (also when I'm interviewing people for No Filter). Here is the proof, a comment someone (very politely, thank you Julie) left underneath my Facebook post:
But this spate of men becoming upset at being interrupted on live TV panels is silliness. I've been on hundreds of TV panels in my career, including The Project and Q&A and there's a rhythm and an art to it.
It's harder than it looks.
A lot of giving good panel is about getting out of the way. But you have to add value by saying something.
But try not to interrupt. But speak your mind. But don't talk over anyone. But make an interesting point.
Top Comments
I find Q and A painful to watch. Several reasons, I find the twitter feed extremely distracting and wish their was some 'smart TV" option to switch it off. I wonder if they got rid of it would they still have ratings? I certainly would probably watch more often, because I can't concentrate on what the panelists are saying when the inane twitter feed goes by.
Also Q and A is only allowed to have two topics I think, gay marriage and refugees. Both are valid topics of discussion, but do they need to have so many episodes. Even if the topic isn't gay marriage or refugees it seems that someone starts talking about it. There must be a million other topics that are equally important, off the top of my head, dental care, medicare, homelessness, indigenous rights, euthanasia, disabled rights, AIDS research, other diseases etc. I can't believe that the only two groups in Australian society consist of either gay people or refugees. I'm sure if Q and A can find a gay refugee they will have hit the jackpot! Oh I forgot there is also the transgenderism too, you would think that every second person is transgender by the amount of coverage it gets.
Also the other problem with this show is they clearly set people up, they have the honourary right winger on but make sure it is stacked with left wingers. So for instance Pauline Hanson was on and they had Sam Dastyari next to her then they had two Muslims ask her questions from the audience. I don't vote for Pauline by the way but I do think surely one Muslim having a go at her was enough not 3, would it not have been fair to have another point of view?
Also they get people on who have extreme views on either side. Maybe that makes for good TV, but it gives me a headache. For instance the Hanson Q and A was an example, they get the greenies who want Australia to become an Islamic republic, then they get the One Nationers who want the Hitler master race. A an inbetween view would be good, e.g. the person who is saying, "well no I don't think we should have a ban, but yes there has been some problems with muslims integrating, I think we need to talk over some potential solutions." But no you never hear those views. And the problem is these polarising TV debates lead to polarising politics because it is like you are only presented with extremes on either side. For instance I did a political survey online and it asked yes or no for whether I support a Muslim ban. And I thought well if I say No, that will be interpreted like I think everything is fine and dandy with Islam. On the other hand a yes is pretty draconian. And I thought really are these the other two solutions! I mean no one has thought of just sitting down having a committee and actually trying to talk through the issues, e.g. the people who have the concerns with Muslim immigration and those that don't , and try and listen to each other and come up with some compromises instead of the current state of affairs.
Also people make lots of statements on these shows without any suggestions how to achieve any of it. For instance exactly how would Hanson's Muslim ban work, how would it be implemented. On the other side, with the Greens, they want to let everyone in the world here, so actually how can we do that sustainably? What processes can we put in place (if any) to ensure that none of the refugees are or will turn to terrorism. Etc etc.
But it would be impossible to even have this polite conversation on that show, because even if you said something incredibly mild, like "I feel sorry for the refugees but also have concerns about the possibility of terrorism increasing if we let them i" you will get the other side shout you down. Instead of both sides realising that there is actually a problem that needs to be addressed.
Ok, I see what you're saying.
But its also why I find Q&A incredibly stressful to watch & gave up trying a couple years back. I'm a young female, not a middle-aged man, and I find constant disruption to be rude and annoying. I'd never do it in real life. I listen to people even if I hate what they are saying.
When I've tried to watch Q&A in the past, its because there's a panelist or panelists I'm interested in hearing from. I hate when I can't hear them because someone is speaking over the top all the time.
You're right its the culture of these shows, but maybe this public outcry is worth listening to, just a little.
Not to condemn anyway like Jam or whoever else, but to