0/5

ABC Board backs Q&A’s future but issues formal warning to producer

Shaun Brown & Ray Martin to oversee external review of Q&A.

2015-07-01_1623

The ABC Board has issued a statement following last week’s Q & A controversy, indicating it agrees Zaky Mallah should not have participated in the programme.

Executive Producer Peter McEvoy has been issued with a formal warning from the Board.

But the Board also acknowledged the valuable contribution of Q & A. An external review of 2015 episodes will be conducted by former SBS managing director Shaun Brown and journalist Ray Martin.

They will assess:
· audience selection;
· panel selection and make-up
· subject selection
· social media strategy, including on-air tweets

ABC statement in full:

The ABC Board has reviewed the chronology of events relating to the Q&A program broadcast on Monday 22 June.

The Board agrees with ABC management’s statement last week that the decision to allow Zaky Mallah to appear live on the program was wrong.

The nature of the Q&A broadcast made this program different to Mallah’s other media appearances.

Given his criminal background and past public statements, the live broadcast meant that the ABC was not in a position to manage unpredictable or inappropriate actions or responses.

There was inadequate consideration given to important issues around his presence in the studio, considering his previous actions, his desire for the media spotlight and some of his public comments.

He should not have been allowed to participate in the program from the studio audience.

In addition, as the Q&A program indicated on Monday 29 June, the vetting of Mallah failed to detect some comments on social media that should have confirmed him as an inappropriate studio guest.

The issues involved with considering Mallah’s appearance should have been referred up to senior management in the television division under the ABC’s Editorial Policies.

The Executive Producer of Q&A acknowledges the failure of editorial process and judgment around this episode. He has received a formal warning under the misconduct provisions of the ABC’s industrial agreement.

The ABC Board was updated today on the most recent security briefing from the AFP, which it found to be very valuable. The ABC treats security of staff and studio audiences as a top priority and will continue to consult with the appropriate agencies.

Any future advice will be considered by management’s risk committee and the Board’s Audit and Risk Committee.

To the extent that any changes to security procedures are recommended, they will be implemented immediately.

The Future of Q&A

Q&A is an important program in the ABC television schedule. It attracts a large, loyal and engaged audience. The Board considers that the program should have a long future on the ABC and decisions to make any changes to its format and operational practices should be made after careful consideration.

As announced prior to last week’s broadcast, the ABC Board had determined that a comprehensive independent review of the Q&A program should take place, looking at full range of programs over the first half of 2015.

In looking at the show’s performance over 22 episodes, the review will take into account the key editorial decisions that impact on the delivery of the program including:

· audience selection;

· panel selection and make-up

· subject selection

· social media strategy, including on-air tweets

The review will be undertaken by the former Managing Director of SBS, Mr Shaun Brown and the television journalist, Mr Ray Martin.

Their report will be published later in the year. Its findings will continue to inform the thinking of the Board as it oversees the performance and structure of Q&A over time.

This is part of a series of reviews commissioned annually by the ABC Board in fulfilling its requirements under the ABC Act.

15 Responses

  1. I think Peter McEvoy got off , to excuse the pun. Scott Free. The usual ABC procedure is to move the EP to another department or program where he becomes bitter and twisted and finally resigns or waits for his super. I guess in this case as he started the program and has been around for awhile they just gave him a warning which really means nothing. He should do the right thing and move on. An EP for that length of time can’t contribute something fresh to a program consequently letting mistakes go through. The program needs new blood from someone who will restore the balance and get rid of those stupid, annoying and intrusive tweets. They might have been a novelty at first, but now they are very 2012 or whenever they began.

    1. Agree! The “Formal Warning” seems like a wet blanket slap

      Move him on, and get some fresh young blood in and balance the show back to its former glory.

      Sick of seeing guests from overseas coming in and rubbishing Australia, making snarky comments cheerleading ala episodes of Jerry Springer

  2. If members of the coalition refuse to appear on the programme, naturally it is impossible for Q&A to get balance. Are they afraid of having their policies dissected? What are they afraid of?

    I fear Q&A will become a mere shadow of itself and it will be our loss and that is precisely what the Liberal Party wants.

    1. It is a knee jerk and petulant stance from coalition members. A show like Q&A is too valuable a platform for them not to appear on to put across their policies. Libs and Nats need the show; especially a year out from an election. 40 + eps a year of the program is a gift for them. They’d be fools not to appear. And if not; who needs conservatives when there are dozens of them who crave the attention – Miranda Devine, Janet Albrechtsen, Gerard Henderson, Rowan Dean….

    2. It’s really a pathetic gesture from the Liberal Party. Like a child throwing a tantrum. Q&A should carry on happily without them, putting forth the issues with only the Left to discuss. They’ll soon see they are missing a vital opportunity to put forward their point of view to a wider audience. Without shows like Q&A what other ways do they have to speak to the public? Through biased talkback radio? Through biased Murdoch media? They’ll be preaching to the converted and not winning anyone else.

  3. Which is pretty much what the ABC said on the Tuesday after the show.

    Most of the panel, audience and tweets are are progressives. It’s just the sort of show that appeal to them, run by similar people in the Inner West of Sydney. The ABC has always struggled to achieve balance. It often ends up being the host, 4/5ths of the panel, the audience and the tweets against one panelist who doesn’t toe the progressive line. Recently recently they have resorted to trying to get people to make headlines in the SMH on Tuesday morning and control the newscycle.

    The Drum has similar problems. It won’t be easy to fix.

    1. I say Thank God we have the ABC who are not obviously biased like the Murdoch press or those awful Talkback radio stations. We need a balance of views in the broader media. There seems to be way too many voices for the right-wing side.

      1. @CB – When you take Tony Jones into account its actually 4/6 which is the norm on the show. The insiders is usually 3/4 as well when you include the host.
        @Tatiana – If you take don’t like the Murdoch press there is always the Fairfax press. The ABC shouldn’t be there to provide balance to non-taxpayer funded media.

        The ABC charter is to be neutral and unfortunately Q&A and the ABC in general have shot themselves in the foot here. All it would take is a couple of token “conservative” hosts on their news shows that they could point to for the balance argument and the Hadleys and Bolts of the world wouldn’t have an argument. At the moment the only “conservative” host I can think of through out the whole ABC network is on Switzer on Radio National. Hardly a high rating platform

        1. The ABC does not need any token conservative hosts since all of the hosts you mentioned behave with neutrality, providing people from the left, right, and centre with the opportunity to address points that are brought up.

          If you have ever watched Bolt when he has someone “fron the left” on, he doesn’t give them an adequate opportunity to address talking points or put their point of view. In fact, he talks over them and cuts them off, sometimes shouting them down. You won’t see Cassidy or Jones do that.

  4. Look, the Q&A issue was nothing until News Ltd papers (I do not call them newspapers anymore) and the usual suspects – 2GB, 3AW, Ray Hadley, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman – all had a spray. Just deal out the same punishment ACMA would, if this were a commercial network. “Don’t do it again, send staff a memo, say three Hail Marys”, and take a year to respond.
    Frankly, I found the “cartoon” of a decapitated Tony Jones in the same area as a “Heads should roll” (repeat that 3 times) spray from Tony Abbott in the Murdoch press far more offensive.

  5. Good, I think this can only be a good thing, Tim Wilson was quite right on Monday night when he indicated Q&A was a vastly different program to what it was in 2008, it is a show that really has lost its way.

    Hopefully the balance is restored and a once fine show is able to regain its mojo, without resorting to having gone so down market and tabloid as happened with the Mallah episode.

    You can bet if Mallah was suggesting a similar fate to a Fairfax journo, or ABC journo, there’d be protests and hysteria (ala Clementine Ford and her Social media instance recently), unfortunately if you work for Murdoch, you are classed as receiving a different form of misogyny which is apparently, only somewhat vile, not like that other bad kind…..

    1. I could not disagree more!

      I think Q&A does a great job of being balanced and at least allows a discussion about issues. But saying that it is a challenge to be balanced when Lib members don’t appear on the show. And why is Abbott so scared to appear? Maybe it’s the verbal diarrhoea that will come out of his mouth? Howard had the balls to appear…. And was shown to be a great leader.

      But if there was a prime example of reporting being unbalanced then all you need to do is look at News Ltd. The outcry over this Mallah situation is ridiculous.

      The panelists reply added fuel to the fire… And was in no way an appropriate parliamentarian response to the question that was asked.

  6. If they are going to strain Q&A through a sieve…it will not be the same program..
    And if that person is so dangerous to that audience…why is he still walking the streets…what about the rest of the public…hindsight is a fine thing.

Leave a Reply