★★★★★ 0/5

WTFAQ

Is a new question & answer show best use of ABC resources?

20
Leave a comment

When ABC first teased their new question & answer show I didn’t really understand the premise of presenters answering questions submitted by the audience.

After all we have Google to tell us anything we don’t know, right? And YouTube to show us how to change a tyre or repot an indoor plant.

So what can 6 wacky presenters on WTFAQ (pronounced What the FAQ?) add to the process that is going to demand 30 minutes of my time in the process? The answer to that question, is not very much.

It takes most of the first 1:47mins just to tell us how to submit a question, which strikes me as a little superfluous given this season is filmed and completed (unless Aunty has quietly greenlit a second season?).

The first question is “Does feeling cold make you more likely to catch a cold?”

Google gave me the answer in about 1 second.

Presenter Alex Lee, in a friendly hybrid of science and sketch comedy, explores the topic for 3 mins 35 secs  -although truth be told she answers it in the first 30 seconds.

“To get a cold you need to catch it from someone else, carrying a respiratory virus, like the rhinovirus. You cannot get it just from being cold.” Spoiler alert?

In a scenes reminiscent of The Curiosity Show, Lee flips a whiteboard, looks at a sneeze with a high-speed camera, cops a gust of air from a leaf-blower, meets Dr. Norman Swan and dodges a running gag from her mother (or actress-as-mother) insisting she just wear a warm jacket.

It’s all very elaborate and I’m already wondering how many crew set-ups and rehearsals were involved to give me an answer Google gave me for ‘free’ in 1 second.

Lawrence Leung explores the question “Should you keep your tomato sauce in the fridge?”

Again, Google answered in another one second search.

It takes Lawrence another 3.30 mins to justify the reasoning behind his answer with a one-month storage experiment and meeting Sydney Uni’s enviromental microbiologist Nick Coleman. His co-hosts join in on the bacterial test as a bit of light entertainment, and hey, Lawrence is wearing a jumper (another Curiosity Show nod?).

Chas Licciardello asks “Is it really dangerous to use my phone on the plane?”

Google: one second.

This one stretches to over 6.30 mins, and I’d like to submit a question to ask if actor Conrad Coleby will be adding this show to his CV after his cameo appearance as a faux-Civil Aviation Authority spokesperson?

Chas also hears from Central Queensland Uni’s Head of Aviation Prof. Doug Drury but mostly loves to act up in airport and plane simulation, joined by a few passenger extras, and even donning a parachute in a field for one moment.

The show also explores the questions, What came first, the chicken or the egg?; Does eating celery burn more calories than you gain from eating it?; Can I lift a car to save my baby?; Are phones dangerous to use at petrol bowsers? (the latter is sort of piggybacked onto the air safety question).

Also featuring are presenters Kirsten Drysdale, Cameron James and Lou Wall, which leaves Licciardello as the most seasoned of the troupe, now less anarchic than his Chaser days. But this feels like a broadcaster desire to regain a bit of The Checkout audience.

I suppose there may be ABC watchers grateful to be told the best place to keep their sauce bottle but seriously, even older viewers know how to search online in 2023. So what’s the point of this show?

If it’s to entertain I think the spend could have been diverted more wisely on the actors, crew, research and ‘failed comedy writers’ (their words not mine).

I don’t know if WTFAQ is planned to succeed Q+A but maybe ABC’s partnering with RMIT University for ABC Fact Check might have been a better concept for a show and would carry a bit more gravitas than five nerdy presenters and some hired extras. Sorry.

I also can’t quite grasp why the show has been given a primetime slot when it feels like it should be screened on ABC ME.

So I guess I have a few questions about this show that I could submit.

The first one is: Why?

abc.net.au/wtfaq

WTFAQ 9pm Wednesday on ABC

20 Responses

  1. With the greatest respect, David, I think you’ve missed the point on this one.

    Yes, it’s possible to Google search an answer to anything in a second. But it’s not entertaining. If the cast of this show can explain things in an entertaining way, with a bit of comedy – that’s better and more fun than just a sterile internet search. And from what I’ve seen so far, the cast does a pretty good job without dragging any specific topic on too long.

  2. We tried an episode after seeing on Gogglebox (quite often a good source of introducing new shows to watch). I think the idea is good, despite being able to look up whatever you want, but would be alot better if they stopped trying to be funny all the time.

  3. Why couldn’t this show just be seen as light entertainment with the answers to questions you never thought of? Most teenagers are now using TikTok or YouTube instead of Google, so your constant comparisons to the use of search engines shows your age. But yes, they’d be better off making 30-second answers instead of six minutes.

    1. YouTube is in the second sentence thanks. A search engine will give you the answers much faster than sitting through a 3 min YT clip. I also don’t see the show as being pitched at teens, but could work on ABC ME, as suggested.

  4. “Is a new question and answer show best use of ABC resources?”
    Based on this review, comments and ratings, perhaps not. I’d prefer something more genuinely insightful and informative, either entertaining or with a more serious and respectful tone.

  5. I have noticed that Google doesn’t understand questions. It doesn’t have to as it’s a search engine. It will search it’s database for the question and show any answers. If this fails it then does a combination key-word search. Google is a business and I expect it to prioritise the search results to maximise click-throughs. People can search their brains for answers but not as fast as Google but at least they understand the question. As for the best use of ABC resources, I would prefer a re-boot of “The Checkout” before it became sitcom-ised.

  6. So time to scrap all documentaries too because you can usually Google the facts on any topic and read up on it in a couple of minutes rather than sitting through a 12 part Netflix series.

    1. Documentaries are usually a “deep dive” into a specific topic with investigative journalism, interview subjects, new information, rare access and vision, character, point of view and above all, storytelling, such as Making a Murderer on Netflix that you imply. I’ll just leave it at that….

  7. It is interesting the comment made below about the show possibly being made to be social media friendly, e.g. shareable content for YouTube and TikToks. I would not be surprised too if that is the intended target audience. Though it still begs the question why did they think this was worthy of a mid-late night timeslot? 9.00?

    9.00 implies it’s a more adults-only focus. Should it be slotted in earlier to reach a more family-friendly crowd?

  10. They haven’t produced this to meet some quota of some kind (e.g. Australian produced infotainment shows)? Feels like they’ve gone “we need something informative and entertaining, like The Checkout, maybe using some of that talent, but in a format which is cheap to produce and isn’t already similar to anything else”. Sure, it keeps everyone involved in a job – and it’s nice to see some of the presenters back on the screen, but I agree with your review – the relevance of such a show is questionable given (a) just about everything can be answered with a 60 second Google search, and (b) chances are someone else has answered what they’re looking to answer on another TV format e.g. Mythbusters. Maybe the name is a nod to the whole irony of the show being given the green light… WTFAQ indeed!!

  11. If the they are going supply disinformation like this then no it’s not worth it.

    Your tomato sauce bottle will tell you where to keep it. They are conservative but I have had tomato sauce, and even low salt vegemite get Xerophilic fungus growth leavign them in a cupboard.

    Obvously feeling cold and wet makes you much more likely to catch a cold or flu, and the NSW Flu Tracking data shows this very clearly. Firstly it drives you indoors where it is warm and dry and there other people who could be infected. Secondly the cold dry air means that viruses survive longer in aerosols and on surfaces. Thirdly the cold dry air makes some of the immune system’s defences less effective and finally the concerntation of virus in the air can increase in unventilated, shut up spaces. Of course if you stay outside where you are cold and wet you much less likely to catch a cold.

  12. Yeah agree with you 100%. This show premise super derivative (seems like they were just trying to think of any old thing to give some comedians work). Also agree the Fact Check would’ve been a better idea to delve into actual complex topics, would’ve been a better watch and may have actually added something to society.

  13. Well it will give us a break from googling because sometimes my internet connection takes more 1.47 minutes to fire up…and worse I don’t always get what I want know thanks to predictive text…as for YouTube and solutions…there are plenty of disasters and you don’t need to look to hard there..…I’m an oldie (but a goodie) with failing eyesight so a nice big screen to watch to sit back and watch will suit me…and best of all someone else finding answers and solutions for me. 😂

  14. I think it sounds quite fun, something to just sit back and turn your brain off for half an hour and maybe learn something. True, you can find anything out from Google immediately, but sometimes you just can’t be bothered, and it’s always (semi) interesting to hear other’s people views on the sauce in the fridge debacle. Plus, I always loved Licciardello , be good to see him on screen again

    1. ‘Planet America’ is back on screen now-truly unmissable content-having it back on twice a week would have been a far more valuable use of ABC resources.

  15. I think this needs to be seen in the context of the ABC trying (unsuccessfully) to remain relevant to a younger demographic and to appeal to the growing cohort of nerds (sorry scientist) being fun and offbeat.

    It is not targeted at you or me David, but it would probably fit under their diversification brief.

Leave a Reply