Critics of the ABC’s Q&A often write-off the program with claims it is left-leaning and biased.
Even our former PM Tony Abbott labelled the flagship Monday night show “a Left-wing lynch mob” and “outta control”.
But veteran journalist Ray Martin and former SBS managing director Shaun Brown have audited the show and reckon those claims don’t hold up.
But they did find another problem – women’s voices are being heard less often than men’s.
The duo examined six months’ worth of episodes – they watched the 23 shows repeatedly, examined the transcript and pored over questions and tweets – as part of an ABC-ordered audit of the program.
Martin wrote for News Limited that the show wasn’t a “drag-‘em-out, knock-‘em’-down style of Town Hall public debate”, nor an out of control lefty lynch mob, nor “democracy in action”, as per the program’s claims.
“Q&A is a top-rating, professional but tightly controlled, live television discussion, in which the only thing that’s unpredictable are the panellists’ answers,” Martin writes.
Watch some highlights from the program (post continues after video):
He said one of the main issues with the show was that females were less likely to be picked as Q&A panellists than men – and those that were picked, got less airtime.
“If picked you will almost certainly get less time to voice your opinions than males,” he said.
“You will also be asked fewer times to comment.”
“There are arguably valid reasons for this gender imbalance, such as the chronic shortage of senior women in the Coalition government’s ranks.
This, however, is no excuse.
I can only assume that the program’s producers are not aware of this stark imbalance or else they would have corrected it, which causes me to ask: ‘If they didn’t know, WHY didn’t they know?”.
In 2015, the voices of Australian women should be heard as often and as loudly as men.
(Maybe this discrepancy can be explained away by the suggestion that Australian women are by nature less pushy, quieter and uncomfortable speaking over men. From personal experience I doubt that’s the case.)”
Martin also found the show was too Sydney-centric, likely as a result of tight budget constraints and logistics, and that it gives politicians greater time to talk to voters about policy and opinions than any other public forum, but also subjects them to greater scrutiny – an outcome he says “seems only right and proper”.
He said, while on rare occasions the show may be guilty of being biased or politically overcharged, overall it was a “balanced, entertaining and informative program”.
“With everyone from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and influential conservative broadcaster, Alan Jones, to the odd transgender guest and sometime terrorist suspect, Zaky Mallah, appearing and voicing an opinion or three,” he said.
“The simple fact is, like it or loath it, Q&A discusses serious politics and important social issues at a more intelligent level than anywhere else on Australian television.
“Could the program be improved? Undoubtedly.
“Is it a valuable part of the public debate? Unquestionably.”
Martin and Brown’s full audit report can be viewed here.
Top Comments
Ray Martin and Shaun Brown do an audit report on Q&A and say "women’s voices are being heard less often than men’s."
Really? And a female could not be found to say the same thing?
They did the report, why would they not be the ones to say it?
The report says that the split of the panel is 54% men / 46% women, not exactly a massive difference. Women having less time to speak is of course an issue.
Most of my retorts, Snorks, get censored so here goes nothing:
1. Why did we need two males to do an unnecessary report? Could we not find at least one female who was a veteran journalist? Given that we have just had the first female appointed as MD to the ABC, I am assuming we could be waiting a month of Sundays for the other auditor to have been employed in the same capacity;
2. Dare I suggest that the split would be reflective of the male/female split in cabinet ministers? No, that can't be right either because that would mean the split would actually be OVER representative;
3. The program is brilliant under the helm of Tony Jones and every "fill-in" including, if not especially, the females have not come close to Tony's genius banter;
4. Exactly how much did this audit on an "outta control" program cost?
Does it matter who did the audit? Do we know these men got hired to do it and didn't just take it into their own hands?
And if the report was so "unnecessary", why are you harping on about it so much?
I get what you're saying about the censorship.
1) I guess they didn't need to males, but it's an extremely small sample size to really read anything into. I guess the CEO of the competing company is a reasonable choice, and you can certainly argue that Ray Martin knows current affairs, but then so do a lot of women.
2) Reading the full report (well, skimming all 108 pages!) the make up does pretty closely represent the gender split in the parties. There were a few shows which were not expressly political that skewed the numbers e.g. the show on DV.
3) No arguments there. I'm not a religious watcher of the show, but I've seen a few.
4) No idea, but i'm sure now they'll form a sub committee to analyse the findings and then do precisely nothing.