1  

‘Tools for citizenship’? Public Service Media and Civic Engagement: An Australian Case Study. Mary Debrett, La Trobe University. Version 1 of article subsequently revised and published in Television and New Media, September 2015; vol. 16, 6: pp. 557-575. First published online on November 28, 2014. DOI: 10.1177/1527476414557951 Abstract

Innovation is blooming among public service broadcasters across the world, with the term public service media (PSM) now in common parlance as services are extended across “new” media platforms and experiments undertaken into new interactive content forms. Driven by both an institutional instinct for survival and a traditional remit to innovate, the new phenomenon of PSM invariably entails risks for publicly funded media, provoking increased hostility from commercial rivals, new and old, and invoking new regulatory hurdles and benchmarks for proving public value. Exploring how one incidence of PSM innovation is endeavoring to address “balance” and accountability and to provide a broader scope for viewer participation and interaction in political public discourse, integrating multiple media platforms, this article discusses the potential implications of such ventures for the public service remit. Keywords public service media, political TV talk, the media and democracy, public service innovation, climate change communication, political communication Introduction

The provision of impartial news and current affairs has long been a key ingredient in the charters of

public service broadcasters around the world, tacit acknowledgement of the value of public media free

from vested interests and the importance of informed civic discussion and debate in a democratic

society. With the commercial news media sector in crisis as a result of the loss of classified advertising

and increased competition from new media platforms, concern for the future of coherent public

discourse and the public sphere places public service broadcasting (PSB) in a special position as the

legacy media best equipped to make the necessary adaptations to engage the public in political and

social affairs in the digital era. While integrating the tools of digital media and adding a new goal,

‘connect’ (Martin 2002:57) to the Reithian trilogy—to inform, educate and entertain—promises to re-

legitimise the role of PSB, transformation into public service media (PSM) is likely to require

something more than just expanding across new platforms:

  2  

PSBs have an online window in which to develop media forms that serve the

interests of both publics and user/citizens. … it would appear in the interests of a

more vibrant, relevant PSB practice that broadcasters increase their engagement with

online communications, in order to enhance their understanding of the citizens,

rather than audiences, they ostensibly serve. Otherwise they may simply apply the

rationales of radio and TV production to the Internet, or broadband services,

reproducing the polarized audience relationships characteristic of broadcasting

(Martin 2002: 58).

However, innovation is invariably fraught and while many, like Australia’s public service broadcaster

the ABC, have produced highly successful digital innovations such as the online catch-up service

iView, the digital reinvention of analogue television formats in the quest for new audiences risks

alienating old ones (Cunningham 2012). In 2008, the ABC launched the TV talk show, Q&A, which

set out to engage the wider public in live political talk, inviting participation via the web and social

media. Making comparisons with citizen websites theyworkforyou.org and www.mysociety.org which

had impressed him when he was living in the UK, Q&A’s producer Peter McEvoy says its purpose is

to offer, ‘Tools that allow people to organise themselves more effectively as citizens (McEvoy 2009).

Now in its sixth season Q&A is becoming ‘event television’, regularly drawing sizeable audiences and

media commentary. Openly populist in its approach to political discussion, the show nevertheless

stands apart from political talk shows produced by Australia’s private commercial broadcasters

because of its consistent engagement with serious issues, routine inclusion of senior politicians, solid

quotient of public participation and its online archive. The host, Tony Jones, a senior political

journalist also offers Q&A a key marker of difference from commercial fare. Jones’ political

interviewing experience has equipped him with special knowledge, skills and status to serve in a

hybrid role as host, participant and ringmaster, managing the conversation and maintaining the show’s

pace.

  3  

The case study

The format of Q&A, which integrates online and mobile platforms and features a live Twitter feed,

offers an instrumentalist case study (Stake 1998) that promises insights into the public interest value of

such innovations. Drawing on ABC transcripts and videos of the 2011 Q&A season, a content analysis

was undertaken of topics covered and voices represented via panelists and audiences, alongside a close

reading of an onscreen discussion including onscreen tweets. The focus of the latter is Julia Gillard’s

minority Labor Government’s commitment to put a price on carbon, which faced intense resistance

from the Opposition in 2011 and prompted many questions. While the Q&A hashtag (#Q&A) receives

an estimated 20,000+ tweets per episode this study deals only with those featured as a ‘selection’ on

the website, along with those that appeared on screen during the broadcast. The program slogan

‘adventures in democracy’ and the producer’s personal aspirations, as stated above, indicate very

definite civic goals. In assessing public interest value three issues confronting PSM were considered: i)

increasing pressure to prove/perform editorial balance as a requirement for public accountability; ii)

declining youth engagement in news and current affairs which threatens a democratic deficit (Author);

and iii) institutional commitment to innovate and integrate interactive on-demand media to

reinvigorate public participation. Building complexity into the ABC’s relationship with the public,

Q&A integrates the lean-back medium of television, in which viewers’ expectations of relative

comfort and familiarity are served by relatively predictable formats and conventions, with the lean-

forward mode of on-demand web and mobile use, in which users engage in diverse, highly

personalised and individualistic forms of participation.

This study begins by looking at Q&A’s approach to editorial balance, then discusses the representation

of transparency and diversity in the themes and questions selected in 2011 before moving to explore

factors that impact on how the studio discussion develops—talk-show conventions, the host’s role, the

panelists’ rhetoric, argumentation and discursive strategies along with the onscreen tweets. In the light

of these findings the final discussion investigates how well the show serves civic debate, concluding

  4  

with an assessment of the new tensions between ordinary and expert voices and the wider implication

of these for PSM in the digital era

Performing balance and diversity

Members of the public visiting the Q&A website to apply to be part of the studio audience are greeted

with an online form requesting their political affiliation–Australian Labor Party (ALP),

Liberal/National Coalition, Green and Other–along with the explanation that this is to assist in

‘selecting a diverse and balanced audience’ (ABC 2012). The audience is generally broadly

representative of the political affiliation of the Australian public (Figure 1) according to contemporary

political polling, apart from a slight upward distortion in the numbers of Coalition and Green Party

supporters, which perhaps suggests deliberate skewing to increase conflict. Audience political

affiliation (Figure 1) was acknowledged onscreen from April onwards in the 2011 season, which

included 41 shows.

Figure 1: Audience affiliation Q&A 2011

Efforts to reflect cultural and occupational diversity are evident in the background of the panelists

(Figure 2) and have been a constant in the program. As a discussion program that is largely about

political issues the presence of politicians on the panel is to be expected and representatives from the

  5  

two main political parties have been central to nearly all panels, with some politicians becoming

regulars. The balance of the five member panel is made up of a mix of occupations with Anglo-

Australian journalists, authors, comedians and academics (represented across several categories in

Figure 2) over-represented alongside other professions and cultural ‘others’. Panelist composition

does, however, sometimes shift when Q&A broadcasts from regional centres or focuses on special

events such as the Sydney Writers Festival where the panel was comprised of authors participating in

the festival.

Figure 2. Panelist background Q&A 2011 season

The efforts taken to provide balance within the studio audience and diversity across the panelists in

terms of political affiliation, cultural make-up and role are thus quite visible. Inclusion of much of the

background planning on the Q&A website blurs the front/back distinction that conventionally

distances the audience from the production process. This gesture towards transparency offers a

strategic buffer against the accusations of left or right wing bias that have dogged the ABC over the

decades. Editorial balance has been a special priority for the ABC since Senator Richard Alston, then

  6  

the minister responsible for broadcasting, lodged sixty-eight formal complaints against bias in ABC

radio Iraq War reportage in 2003 (Nolan 2006). This conspicuous ‘performance’ of balance reflects

that visible ‘proof’ appears to have become a significant issue in legitimising public funding and

maintaining public trust. The ability to offer onscreen evidence of consistent endeavour to provide

‘balance’, in addressing a frequent criticism, serves to better and more rigorously defend the public

interest value of the ABC and the benefits of a mixed broadcasting economy. On appointment as

Director of Editorial Policies in 2007, Paul Chadwick referenced his new role as a marker of difference

for the ABC noting ‘it will be interesting to see which, if any, commercial media follow’ (Chadwick

2007). With little evidence of the latter the ABC’s commitment to editorial balance (albeit an

oversimplification of impartiality) offers a critical marker of difference. Emphasis on quantifiable

performance measurement of accountability by PSM reflects the new reality of the digital

multichannel era, where the justification for public funding of broadcasting is more contested (Meijer

2005; Moe 2008; Author). The more critical test of public interest value in Q&A, however, perhaps

lies in the implied claim of the show’s slogan—‘adventures in democracy’—and its producer’s

aspirations to drive citizen engagement in the social issues of the day.

Despite the claim that this is ‘the show where you ask the questions’ and online and onscreen

invitations for the public to submit questions, the selection process for those used on air is opaque. The

public is invited to participate in various ways: to submit web or video questions online; to indicate if

they want to ask a question when applying to be part of the studio audience; to rate/like the questions

that have been submitted by others for the latest show when logging in to the Q&A website; and

occasionally to ask spontaneous questions as part of the studio audience. There is also an open

invitation to the public to join the ‘discussion’ via the Twitter feed both during and after the broadcast.

However, there is no direct or traceable relationship between the questions contributed and those that

are actually asked on-air. Whether or not the show’s agenda is an accurate reflection of the public’s

input must thus be taken on trust.

  7  

Categorization of the discussion themes (Figure 3) proved problematic with political topics often

ending up in the gossip category because of the flippant nature of panel responses. Trivialization, such

as the ongoing bagging of Julia Gillard, the former Prime Minister, over the carbon price legislation, is

a key factor in the show’s popularity. Some categories were dominated by single topics; much of the

discussion in the large ‘social policy’ category related to asylum seekers while the ‘world’ category

largely related to discussion on Wikileaks and the claims made against Julian Assange by Australian

and US politicians. With contemporary issues foregrounded, discussion begun in one week often

flowed into the next. In the website archives the shows are given names which reflect dominant

discussions, locations or panel composition. The 2011 season offered a vibrant mix of topics running

the gamut from sober and serious to trivial scuttlebutt although to what extent, if any, this reflected the

concerns of public submissions is far from clear.

Figure 3: Discussion themes Q&A 2011 season

The studio discussion

Noting the significance of ‘reasonableness’ in TV talk shows, van Rees (2007) observes panelists are

frequently in competition with one another in representing their arguments as the most reasonable. TV

talk provides politicians with a space to self-present as ‘ordinary’ people, to perform their party’s

ideological position, to legitimise policies and win audience applause, while also offering diverting

  8  

ways of discrediting opponents’ arguments and enhancing their own public profile. Although rudeness

and abrupt contradiction between panelists across the political divide is relatively commonplace,

panelists’ responses to the audience are invariably carefully couched with words such as ‘respectfully’

inserted when offering a counter viewpoint. In the ‘show conversation’, Hess-Luttich argues, the

speaker must relate to two groups of listeners and so ‘performs’, presenting a pseudo character holding

a pseudo conversation or partaking in a pseudo debate (2007: 1363). Identifying debate as the key

component in such ‘show conversations’ Hess-Luttich says it ‘was and remains today a “cooperation

between enemies”, a form of contra-operation by co-operation’, noting rhetoric, rituals and ‘(mock)

verbal battles’ of this kind originated in ancient Greece (2007: 1362). Negotiating a fine line between

populist and serious TV talk, with humour and hubris on regular display, Q&A epitomizes the show

conversation.

While the slogan ‘adventures in democracy’ stakes a claim for audience empowerment, the show’s set

and structure follows studio talk show conventions with panelists shielded by a semicircular desk at a

distance from the studio audience who sit in tiered seating, constructing a space that shares more with

the lecture theatre than forum or colosseum. Camera direction also follows studio conventions with

much of the show consisting of mid shots and medium close ups of the panelists, questioners and host.

Closer shots, it has been observed, aid the construction of a parasocial atmosphere, whereby the at-

home audience is drawn into an intimate, albeit remote, relationship with panelists and primary

participants (Livingstone & Lunt 1994). While panelists are able to prepare and rehearse their

performances, receiving discussion topics three days ahead of the broadcast (Guthrie 2012), a

spontaneous question from Jones, taken to shift the pace, can leave politicians on the back foot, having

to speak without party-approved talking points. These often result in foot-in-the-mouth moments,

adding a little schadenfreude for viewers, making the ‘show conversation’ more entertaining. As host,

Jones mediates between panelists, the studio audience, other participants, and home viewers, regularly

intervening to shift the pace—debunking panelists who over-perform, redirecting the speaker to the

  9  

question or challenging his/her interpretation of events—mixing the roles of interviewer, trickster and

ringmaster and clearly establishing his status as final arbiter.

Evoking Bakhtin’s theory of the carnivalesque, drawn from medieval folk traditions - whereby the

disempowered find temporary catharthis in a ‘world upside down’, taking on the role of the powerful–

the ‘anything goes’ rollicking pace and tone of Q&A, as maintained by host Jones, draws both

panelists and audience to join in bagging authority (Bakhtin 1968). Thus in 2012 we had Australia’s

most famous feminist, Germaine Greer, deriding our first female prime minister for the size of her

behind and the cut of her jackets and British actor, Miriam Margoyles ‘empathizing’ with Australia’s

richest woman, Gina Rinehart, for being ‘fat and ugly’. Such comments invariably draw shocked

laughter–from the audience and other panelists. Described as a Punch and Judy show by former prime

minister, Paul Keating, who has said he ‘wouldn’t be caught dead on it’ (Hurst 2011), Q&A

nevertheless continues to attract many senior politicians, who, despite the risks entailed in live

broadcasts, presumably see it as a means of connecting with the public, showing their human side. The

show’s video mash-ups also invoke the world upside down; sent in by aspirant satirists, these are

archived online and sometimes played at the end of a show (ABC 2012). The conspicuous provision of

‘balance’ across the political divide assists in legitimising this debunking of public figures.

‘Cate’s Carbon Controversy’

With nineteen of the forty-one shows in Q&A’s 2011 season featuring questions on the carbon pricing

legislation one could scarcely say the topic was neglected. Included in these nineteen were two shows

in which Prime Minister Julia Gillard appeared alone with Tony Jones responding to viewers’

questions, many of which were about the proposed carbon ‘tax’.1 In the show that screened on Monday

30 May–titled ‘Cate’s Carbon Controversy’ in Q&A’s online archive–Jones began with two questions

from the studio audience about Cate Blanchett’s participation in a campaign to promote the carbon

price legislation–‘Say yes to cutting carbon pollution’. Funded by the Australian Conservation

Foundation, trade unions and activist organisation Get-Up, the campaign video featured two well

  10  

known actors as themselves, Michael Caton and Cate Blanchett, and four others representing

‘ordinary’ Australians endorsing the need for action on climate change and explaining the ‘tax’ and the

consumer compensation scheme (Wootton 2011). The video was not screened in the show. The two

questions took different perspectives, the first challenged Coalition criticism of Blanchett’s

participation on the basis of her wealth, given previous endorsement of mining magnates’ protests

against the mining tax.2 The second question aligned with the Coalition’s position, querying

Blanchett’s eligibility to offer advice to Australians ‘struggling under the cost of living’. The panelists

on the show were: George Brandis, shadow attorney-general in the Coalition; Kate Lundy,

Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration in the Gillard Labor Government; Jackie Kelly, former

Howard Coalition government minister; Guy Rundle, ‘roving’ reporter for Crikey (an independent

online daily news publication); and Joe Hildebrand, columnist and blogger for The Daily Telegraph (a

Sydney metropolitan daily owned by News Limited). There were two other questions in the show: one

a web question challenging News Limited on the newsworthiness of its attacks on Cate Blanchett and

the other from a climate denier, directed to Kate Lundy, questioning why the Government refused to

‘have a mature discussion with skeptics, as opposed to just vilifying them’. The studio discussion

about the video and the controversies surrounding Blanchett’s role and the carbon tax continued for

eighteen minutes. Taking account of the role of the host and the panelists’ three-way performance, the

following analysis explores the rhetoric and discursive strategies used within this single discussion.

In the opening discussion segment (Table 1) Brandis begins by politely correcting the first questioner,

affirming Cate Blanchett’s right like ‘anyone else’ to ‘express her point of view’; this is a common self

presentation strategy, to persuade by appealing to some ‘normative standard of reasonableness’ (Van

Rees 2007: 1455), in this case the right to freedom of speech. Within the same sentence that he

corrects the questioner, Brandis positions the video as a government campaign, and ignoring the

questioner’s reference to mining magnates mixes subterfuge with his ‘ritual rhetoric’ on individual

rights and free speech, in order to frame the discussion in terms that will best serve his party’s political

ends. Building his arguments indirectly (another camouflage tactic), Brandis implies government

  11  

failure in ‘trying’, then aligns himself with ‘ordinary Australians who are struggling’, before rising to

the assertion that the proposed legislation will exacerbate ‘cost of living pressures’. The last, a claim

that ignores proposed compensation for consumers (part of the legislation and the campaign video) and

the second act in the Coalition narrative, serves to legitimise their position (the final act)—that the

carbon tax should be ‘put to the people at an election’.

Delivered with carefully modulated conviction, Brandis’ opening response in the ‘show conversation’

ends to audience applause. Jones congratulates Brandis on ‘shifting the course of the questions’ (with

an irony that its recipient studiously ignores) before refocusing discussion on Cate Blanchett and

Australian attitudes to the ‘cultural elite’ (Table 1: no. 9). With Jones’ BBC quote casting Blanchett’s

critics in an unflattering light Brandis invokes his past (and more prestigeous) role as Minster for the

Arts to compliment Cate Blanchett, adeptly reaffirming both his status and reasonableness. In his

trickster persona, Jones tempts Brandis to criticise the popular Blanchett, the closest he comes to the

adversarial news interviewing style (Harris 1991). But Brandis instead aligns himself with ‘people

who are struggling’, returning to the Coalition mantra–artfully segueing from Blanchett’s limited

experience of ‘kitchen table issues’ to the ‘cost of living’, to his second call for an election on the

issue. In his first two minutes of airtime, Brandis achieves repeat mentions of the Coalition’s key

slogans against the carbon ‘tax’, self-presents as a free speech advocate and empathetic with struggling

ordinary Australians and ‘name drops’ passing acquaintance with Cate Blanchett, all the while

avoiding any mention of the major focus of the advertisement—climate change and its troubling

effects.

  12  

Table 1: Segment 1: Cate’s carbon controversy, Q&A 30 May 2011

  13  

In the continuing discussion News Limited journalist, Hildebrand, shifts the focus from Blanchett to

the creative judgement of the advertisement’s producers, incorrectly asserting it neglects the message

on government compensation, an error that remains uncorrected. On the opposite side of the political

divide, Kate Lundy, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration also begins by defending the democratic

rights of those who took part in the advertisement and clarifying its funders, before invoking key

Labor party rejoinders, the Coalition’s ‘low level of public debate’ on climate change, the need for

economic transition to a low carbon future, framing the Coalition as climate deniers, finally restating

Cate Blanchett’s right to an opinion alongside that of ‘any other person in Australia’. In the ensuing

tussle over the rights/suitability of a wealthy celebrity to offer public advice and the function/fairness

of the proposed carbon price—the urgency and environmental context of the legislation are sidelined,

even though these are central to the video in question. While a spontaneous question from the audience

temporarily shifts discussion briefly to the position of climate deniers, Jones’ move to include the

other side of the panel brings a rapid change in tone (Table 2).

Although a well known journalist, Rundle, as a member of the independent online media, is an

outsider in comparison to the other panelists. His testimony to the contemporary state of climate

change brings a marked shift in rhetoric and emotion in the ‘show conversation’. With less invested in

self-presentation than the politicians Rundle makes his points more directly. While his opening pun

against Hildebrand’s employer—‘Anti-News Unlimited’ draws studio applause its intended purpose is

to delegitimise the tabloid press and the Blanchett video story to reframe the discussion in terms of the

climate crisis. Invoking the authority of the ‘International Energy Authority’ he cites statistical

evidence of ‘this extraordinary global planet emergency’ dismissing the video as poorly conceived,

before returning to his main point regarding the ‘frivolity’ of the story at the centre of the discussion.

Rundle’s attempt to shift the discussion to the climate crisis is effectively terminated when Jones

invites the final panelist, former Coalition politician, Jacquie Kelly to speak on the topic. Having

momentarily aligned herself with Rundle, Kelly co-opts his term ‘beat-up’ to emphasise how

  14  

unpopular the carbon ‘tax’ is in her electorate, citing it as unfair to those who have been cutting back

on electricity use, redefining the discussion in partisan political terms and lifestyle impacts, while self

presenting as reasonable and empathetic. Although the environmental impact of climate change is the

very reason for the carbon price legislation and the focus of the video, Rundle’s comment, incisive and

substantiated, falls too far outside the pre-existing political frame and is also perhaps too potentially

alarming for the ‘show conversation’. With nearly five minutes of the segment still to run and with all

panelists having spoken Jones had time to return to Rundle’s point if he had wanted to.

While the inclusion of the balanced studio audience, and the integration of the Twitter feed and video

and web questions maps broader scope for audience participation than is common in TV talk shows,

the power balance amongst the voices more often than not follows the status quo. Here the two

politicians and former Liberal Senator Jacky Kelly continue their faux debate, performing what

Scannell has called ‘the double articulation’, for studio and home audiences (1991:1).

The Q&A website features a selection of the tweets generated for each show. Of this selection one

hundred and fifty-eight related to the Say Yes campaign advertisement. Microblogging enables

members of the public to share their responses with a one hundred and fifteen character limit imposed

for tweets featured onscreen (Given 2013). The combined liveness and speed of Twitter invites

spontaneity, which alongside reasoned retorts to panelists’ comments or would-be witticisms also

prompts declarations of non-comprehension that seek affirmation and empowerment from the Twitter

‘community’ which comprised close to 1.8 million Australians in 2011 (Given 2013). Detailing the

filtering and two stage moderation applied in the selection of onscreen tweets Given and Radywyl

(2013) note the preference for tweets that many have been retweeted—the ABC’s endeavour to

represent what the Twitter community is thinking. Once tweets are broadcast on the TV screen they

acquire special influence. The fact that there are generally 20,000 or more tweets with the Q&A

hashtag each week indicates many wish to get their tweet on screen. Like those who participate in

online comments threads, users form an ‘unruly’ fan base (Goode et al 2011) often wandering into

  15  

their own carnivalesque discourse as evidenced by the tweet likening Labor MP Kate Lundy to Sarah

Palin (Table 3: no. 11). The moderators’ criteria for tweets are that they are concise, timely, on-topic,

witty and entertaining, add a fresh perspective and ‘make a point without being too personal’ (ABC

2013).

  16  

Of the hundred and fifty-eight selected tweets on this topic, fifty-one were witticisms, twenty-six

indicated support of the carbon tax and twelve were negative towards the carbon tax. Of those featured

on-screen during this discussion, three (Table 3: 3, 11, 12) appeared ‘just for laughs’ while the rest

indicated some connection to the TV discussion, the topic itself or other tweets on the topic and

generally signal engaged (albeit often ill-informed) participation.

Table 3: On-screen tweets – ABC Q&A 30 May 2011

When the onscreen Twitter feed broke down on one occasion TV viewers flocked to the Q&A website

to register their relief. Generally onscreen within one to two minutes Tweets stay up for no longer than

  17  

ten seconds but can have an impact that goes beyond that onscreen time. The appearance of tweet no

11 (Table 3) shortly after Kate Lundy began clarifying misinformation on the carbon price and the

campaign video funding, would have been very distracting for anyone interested. Certainly the

onscreen Twitter feed builds another interactive audience strand for the show, but achieves this at a

cost, turning off many potential TV viewers.

Discussion

Routinely scoring good ratings, Q&A is even acknowledged a success by The Australian, a News

Limited owned newspaper that is more often associated with criticism of the public broadcaster

(Simper 2011). Yet, any assessment of the public interest value of Q&A as a multiplatform talk show

needs to look beyond its popularity, while still taking account of this. Given the slogans ‘adventures in

democracy’ and ‘this is the show where you ask the questions’ it is perhaps unfair and too easy to

identify the show’s shortcomings. It is demonstrably more substantial in its preparedness to seriously

engage with contemporary issues, to invite open public participation and quest to make politicians

accountable, than anything produced by its commercial competitors. And while one could imagine a

more democratic question selection process–such as that used by OurSay.org.au, where public ranking

of selected questions ensures more open (if not absolute) representation of public opinion–this could

make for a more predictable and less entertaining and less popular program, one perhaps condemned

as worthy but dull, which would challenge its relevance in the multiplatform media marketplace.

Q&A has devised strategies for demonstrating accountability with the onscreen performance of

political balance in its selection of audience members and panelists, and demonstration of cultural

diversity in its mix of discussion topics and detailed online transcripts. It has also arguably engaged

youth in political debate via Twitter and mash-ups and facilitated public participation via

multiplatform options for the submission of questions. These innovations reflect evolution of the

postmodern style of political TV talk that emerged in the 1980s. Shifting away from the elitist

prioritizing of expert voices expounding an objective ‘authoritative’ truth, to a style that sought to

  18  

illuminate the human condition through the layperson’s subjective experiential truth, it was widely

seen as a democratizing trend:

Placing together ordinary people and representatives of established power

in the same space and with familiar rights is, if not an inversion of authority,

at least a suspension of it. (Livingstone and Lunt 1994: 173)

Commenting on the shift in emphasis to the personal as opposed to the political in popular factual

programming, Jon Dovey (2000) coined the term ‘emotional democracy’, observing that the notion of

objective truth is now deemed untenable with subjective points of view seen as more valid in pluralist

society. Calling the shift towards first person testimony ‘the new guarantor of truth’ he makes the

important point that ‘difference is now more celebrated than explained or defended in terms of social

justice’ and that identity and truth are increasingly accepted as matters for subjective assessment.

While this style serves discussion where human rights and social values are of central concern, it is

less helpful for topics of a complex scientific nature, with the multiplicity of lay interpretations arising

from that celebration of difference, frustrating the communication of clear accurate information and of

scientific research protocols and practices. It is a style that also allows plenty of scope for controversy.

Jones’ strategy in beginning with two questions reflecting opposing political allegiances positions the

panelists for conflict, yet constrains the terms of the show conversation. Writing on the topic of

political communication Hess-Luttich notes:

Argumentation in talk shows serves to stage politics as symbolic action rather

than to argue for better solutions to existing problems. The debate is presented

as a controversy, contest, even as a battle, rather than as rational discussion and argumentation

(2007: 1369).

  19  

Yet while controversy is fostered, conventional power relations are largely maintained as reflected in

the abortive attempt by Rundle, an independent online journalist, to reframe the discussion in terms of

the climate crisis (Table 2). With most of the talk about the carbon tax focused on consumer/economic

issues rather than on the societal/environmental costs of global warming, it appears Q&A’s

conspicuous performance of political balance fails to produce a truly balanced conversation. Balance

as a concept is one now routinely attacked from two sides, with those such as the former Senator

Alston finding bias in a lack of balance and arguing for more rigorous monitoring, while bloggers and

many others refute the validity of objectivity and position professional claims to it as a ‘conceit’

(Holmes 2013). Recently another perspective on balance emerged from the BBC Trust Review of

science coverage, with reviewer, Professor Steve Jones, cautioning against the ‘false balance’ that

occurs in uneven contests between opinion and fact (Jones 2011). While the carbon tax appeared

regularly as a topic in the Q&A 2011 season the absence of relevant scientists left it an unbalanced

conversation dominated by a political battle driven by Coalition sloganeering. The 2011 season

included only one scientist but his field was not climate science and the topic was not raised on the

show in which he appeared.

Conclusion

With its rising popularity in the latter half of the 20th century, television has become the most trusted

source of news and emerged ‘as one of the most promising spaces for the conduct of civic debate’

(Coleman 2013). The empowerment of ordinary voices and celebration of difference has democratised

political TV talk shows and helped to make them engaging and entertaining. How to integrate the

democratic potential inherent in online social networks into TV talk is the next challenge and Q&A’s

innovations, mixing the ‘spectacle of deliberation’ (Coleman 2013) with multiplatform participation,

signal the way forward. However, the favouring of controversy in such show conversations precludes

the elucidation of complex topics such as the climate crisis, with the discursive strategies of politicians

often exacerbating public confusion.

  20  

One point that might be taken from this case study is that if PSM are to successfully add that fourth

aspect–to connect–to their relationship with the audience, the next digital evolution of political TV talk

must better apply digital wizardry and integrate its disparate content more cohesively in the interests of

maintaining public trust, which need not mean being worthy but dull. Given indications that scoring an

on-screen tweet represents a prized goal, achieving this should perhaps be more challenging and

contribute something relevant for TV viewers, while the addition of some form of on-screen fact

checking could address the problem of ‘false balance’, establishing clearer differentiation between fact

and opinion. Observing the centrality of the problematic concepts of impartiality and balance to the

public service ethos, Holmes (2013) notes their continuing significance to the high level of public trust

invested in the ABC. Enabling the onscreen performance of trustworthiness, such changes would

foreground the public interest value of PSM, alongside the abundance of opinionated unaccredited

commentary online.

  21  

REFERENCES ABC, 2013. “Q&A's moderated twitter feed”. Accessed November 16,2013. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3222272.htm Bakhtin, Mikhail 1968. Rabelais and his world. Translated by Helene Iswolsky Cambridge, Mass: M. I. T. Press Chadwick, Paul 2007. “Legitimacy requires accountability”. Walkley Magazine February. Coleman, Stephen 2013. “Debate on television: the spectacle of deliberation”. Television & New Media. 14 (1): 20-30. Cunningham, Stuart 2012. “The new normativity, the innovation imperative”. Paper presented at Ripe@2012, September University of Sydney. Accessed October 30, 2013. Debrett, Mary 2009, “Leveraging trust: The politics of accountability and risk taking at the ABC”. Refereed conference paper. Proceedings of the Australia & New Zealand Communication Association Annual Conference 2009, ed Terry Flew, QUT, Brisbane. Dovey, Jon 2000. Freakshow: First person media and factual production. London: Pluto Press. Given, Jock and Natalia Radywyl 2013. “Questions & Answers & Tweets”. Australian Policy Online June 30. Accessed from http://apo.org.au/node/34833 Goode, Luke, Alexis McCullough and Gelise O’Hare 2011. “Unruly publics and the fourth estate on YouTube.” Partic@tions: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 8 (2): 594-615. Guthrie, Bruce 2012. “GetUp, fall down - it's the natural reaction to talkshow stress”, Sydney Morning Herald, July 8. Accessed 20 August. Harris, Sandra 1991. “Evasive action: how politicians respond to questions in political interviews”. In Broadcast Talk edited by P. Scannell, 76-99. London: Sage. Hess-Luttich, Ernest 2007. “(Pseudo-) Argumentation in TV-debates”. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1360-1370. Hurst, Daniel 2011. “Keating's 'mace' spray at Q&A”. The Age, November 3, 2011.

Jones, Steven 2011. “BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science”. BBC Trust. Accessed September 20, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/science_impartiality.html Livingstone, Sonia and Peter Lunt. 1994. Talk on television: audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge. McEvoy, P. 2009. Old media/new media – tools for political engagement. Presentation at the Public sphere on government 2.0 with Senator Kate Lundy, June 22. Accessed December 10, 2011. http://vimeo.com/5331389 Martin, Fiona 2002. “Beyond public service broadcasting? ABC online and the user/citizen”. Southern Review 35 (1): 42-62.

  22  

Meijer, Irene Costera 2005. “Impact or content? Ratings vs quality in public broadcasting”. European Journal of Communication 20 (1): 27-53. Moe, Hallvard 2008. “Public service media online? Regulating public broadcasters’ internet services-a comparative analysis”. Television & New Media 9 (3): 220-238. Nolan, David 2006. “Contesting the middle ground: the regulation of objectivity in ABC journalism”. Paper presented at the ANZCA conference, University of Adelaide, July 4-7. Rees, M. Agnes, van 2007. “Discourse analysis and argumentation theory: the case of television talk”. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1454-1463 Scannell, Paddy ed. 1991. Broadcast talk. London: Sage. Simper, Erroll 2011. “Just quietly aunty has a success story”. The Australian 11 April. Stake, Robert 1998. “Case studies”. In Strategies of qualitative inquiry edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 86-109. Thousand Oaks; Calif: Sage. Wootton, M. 2011. “Say yes Australia (to carbon tax)” Accessed August 20, 2012. www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZabB8NhwF0                                                                                                                1  The  carbon  ‘tax’  legislation  was  being  drafted  in  May  2011  and  was  subsequently  passed  in  September.  Australia’s  most  significant  policy  to  mitigate  climate  change,  it  set  a  price  on  carbon  emissions,  to  be  paid  by  the  top  500  polluters,  as  the  preparatory  stage  for  an  emissions  trading  scheme  commencing  in  mid  2014.  It  is  thus  more  correctly  termed  a  carbon  ‘price’.  However  campaigning  by  the  Tony  Abbott  led  Opposition  that  it  was  an  unfair  ‘tax’  saw  this  term  accepted  into  common  parlance  contributing  confusion  about  its  purpose  and  who  would  be  liable.  The  Abbott  Coalition  Government  elected  in  September  2013  subsequently  rescinded  the  legislation.      2  In  June  2010  mining  magnates,  Andrew  ‘Twiggy’  Forrest  and  Gina  Rhinehart,  addressed  a  1200  strong  protest  rally  against  the  Rudd  Labor  Government’s  proposed  mining  tax.    The  ‘axe  the  tax’  campaign  advertisements  on  national  television  saw  a  decline  in  the  popularity  of  then  Prime  Minister  Kevin  Rudd,  contributing  to  the  Labor  Party’s  decision  to  replace  him  with  Julia  Gillard.