QandAnarchy

[cq_tech]

I was thoroughly disgusted by the appalling lack of manners displayed by the demonstrators in the studio audience last night and I was extremely gratified to see that following a short unscheduled musical interlude, they had been unceremoniously ejected from the studio. Not the best way to try to get their point across, and they did far more harm to their cause than good IMO. 😞

[tall_bearded]

I believe protest will only succeed where decorum is maintained.

Let’s look at the current example.  A bunch of rowdy, perceptually not too bright, placard waving ratbags, who got their few minutes of fame but whose message got lost by those who were still undecided because, in their mind, it was delivered by a bunch of ferals.

Now let’s look at an alternative.  No placards.  They all just all rose as one as sign of solidarity but only one spoke.  Now for the ambush.  Attempt to politely argue the point and when the Presenter tries to cut it short citing “due to time considerations” invite him/her (the minister) to an open public debate at a time and place of their choosing. Predictable outcome, the minister declines.  Then its happy days when the appointed spokesperson politely asks why, and the ministers’ responses get lamer and lamer.  That will get airtime because a politician weaving and ducking for cover always makes good TV. 

As for the ABC I’m a firm supporter, in that, only a publically funded broadcaster can, or in fact, will put to air those programs which politicians and or big business find “uncomfortable”.  However, to be creditable everything it does which proved uncomfortable, must be seen to be done in the total absence of bias, both perceived and actual, and if a program, any program, fails to meet the benchmark, remedial action must be taken.

Bluntly put, the ABC must regain the status of “If Auntie said it, it must be true” and as I love my auntie I will not accept an ABC which aspires to anything less.

[spotweldersfriend]

Like I posted on another thread-latest Newspoll puts Labor on 53% and Libs at 47%. Lets see what the polls are after the budget.No more Poor Me.More likely Poor Them:)

[icyfroth]

It's easy to be popular with voters when you throw all sorts of benefits and entitlements at them as the previous government did.

It's harder to when you have to take tough measures to get some sort of balance back into the budget as the current government is forced to do.

[freakiness]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

It's easy to be popular with voters when you throw all sorts of benefits and entitlements at them as the previous government did.

It's harder to when you have to take tough measures to get some sort of balance back into the budget as the current government is forced to do.

---

Are you sure you don't mean as Howard did?

It was the legacy tax cuts that affected the budget bottom line more than anything.  What about that baby bonus, good of Labor to introduce that before they came into office and those family tax payments.  Yep sure it's always Labor to blame, what else can we blame on them?  We ran out of vegemite, and it's all Labor's fault!

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

I believe protest will only succeed where decorum is maintained.

Let’s look at the current example.  A bunch of rowdy, perceptually not too bright, placard waving ratbags, who got their few minutes of fame but whose message got lost by those who were still undecided because, in their mind, it was delivered by a bunch of ferals.

Now let’s look at an alternative.  No placards.  They all just all rose as one as sign of solidarity but only one spoke.  Now for the ambush.  Attempt to politely argue the point and when the Presenter tries to cut it short citing “due to time considerations” invite him/her (the minister) to an open public debate at a time and place of their choosing. Predictable outcome, the minister declines.  Then its happy days when the appointed spokesperson politely asks why, and the ministers’ responses get lamer and lamer.  That will get airtime because a politician weaving and ducking for cover always makes good TV. 

As for the ABC I’m a firm supporter, in that, only a publically funded broadcaster can, or in fact, will put to air those programs which politicians and or big business find “uncomfortable”.  However, to be creditable everything it does which proved uncomfortable, must be seen to be done in the total absence of bias, both perceived and actual, and if a program, any program, fails to meet the benchmark, remedial action must be taken.

Bluntly put, the ABC must regain the status of “If Auntie said it, it must be true” and as I love my auntie I will not accept an ABC which aspires to anything less.

---

5 points:

Firstly, they weren't rowdy at all. They were loud. Which is what generally happens when you protest. People take notice when you make noise. That was the point.

Secondly, the message was far from lost. Aside from the mega spreads in the news and coverage by other TV stations, everyone was/is talking about it. Including you right now. Seems to me their message came across loud and clear.

Thirdly, the students were hardly rabble or feral. They were well dressed and well organised. And they purposefully got their point across on national television. Hardly the work of students lacking intelligence as you suggest.

Fourthly. It was protest. Protests aren't generally 'polite'. And your suggestion that they should 'invite' a Liberal Minister to a debate and go through that debacle would hardly raise an eyebrow. That is a pointless suggestion. It is also not what defines a protest. I'm not even sure why you included that paragraph.

And lastly, your comments about the ABC make no sense. They did exactly what YOU would want them to do - pulled the show, got rid of the protesters. Personally I think they should have given the protesters air time  and dealt with their issues. But then again I am left winged and biased. Unlike (obviously given their actions) the Q&A producers and Tony Jones.

[freshwater-2]

The audience of this particular Q&A was.....Coalition 47%,.Labor 38%..Greens 9%..Not stated 6%.

Hardly a stacked audience.

The protest during the program was democracy at work.  And I applaud what they did.

Those of you who have never felt strongly enough about an issue and marched in the streets, been involved in a protest action, and been involved in civil disobedience (and been willing to suffer the repercussions of such actions) will never understand  this.

I suggest that those who disagree take the time to read David Henry Thoreau's essay on The Duty of Civil Disobedience.

[freakiness]

---

@freshwaterbeach wrote:

The audience of this particular Q&A was.....Coalition 47%,.Labor 38%..Greens 9%..Not stated 6%.

Hardly a stacked audience.

The protest during the program was democracy at work.  And I applaud what they did.

Those of you who have never felt strongly enough about an issue and marched in the streets, been involved in a protest action, and been involved in civil disobedience (and been willing to suffer the repercussions of such actions) will never understand  this.

I suggest that those who disagree take the time to read David Henry Thoreau's essay on The Duty of Civil Disobedience.

---

Without civil disobedience women would not have the right to vote and our factories would still dump their waste in the nearest water.

At least they're honest about the motive and purpose, unlike the sneaky black ops who quietly turned up to hijack the program last week when Turnbull was a guest. Nothing wrong with a bit of excitement on QandA  😄