‘The world has changed': ABC axes political panel show Q+A after 18 years
The public broadcaster announced on Wednesday that it would 'discontinue Q+A after an outstanding 18-year run and look to new ways to facilitate discussion and elevate voices from around the country'.
The ABC's news director Justin Stevens said in a statement he was 'very proud of Q+A 's great achievements over the years'.
'The team has done a terrific job, including a strong performance during the federal election campaign,' he said.
'Discontinuing the program at this point is no reflection on anyone on the show.
'We always need to keep innovating and renewing, and in the two decades since Q+A began, the world has changed. It's time to rethink how audiences want to interact and to evolve how we can engage with the public to include as many Australians as possible in national conversations. We'll be working on how we can continue to foster engagement of this nature in an innovative way.'
Stevens said the ABC would be investing in more documentaries and building on 'high-end programs' such as the political documentaries Killing Season and Nemesis.
The broadcaster is also advertising the new position of executive producer, documentaries and specials.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'It's Covid all over again': Labor bending at the knee to eSafety Commissioner's advice on YouTube ban while turning blind eye to our freedom, education
There is nothing in politics more ominous than a government that wants to be seen to be 'doing something'. A government that feels something must be done on a controversial topic is likely to act so boldly and so quickly that they don't have time to consider the consequences, and those who suffer are left to pick up the pieces. The popular thing to do these days is find an expert on an issue and outsource all responsibility on policy to them. Trusting an expert sounds nice - they know a lot and often have a reassuring 'Dr' at the start of their name. It's never the case that this expert is democratically elected or answerable to the people that their decisions affect. They are there for the government to hide behind - don't look at us, we had to do whatever the expert told us to. This was all the rage during Covid. Various state governments' preferred experts would recommend all sorts of bizarre restrictions - shutting South Australia down over a pizza box, for instance - but the government could tell their voters they were taking the issue seriously, because they were listening to the experts. I thought after Australians were told not to touch a football if it came into the stands of the Adelaide Oval that Australians were done stomaching the idea that we should listen solely to the experts. But Labor's talking points over the social media ban - especially its backflip on an exemption for YouTube - is a test for my theory. Social media use in teenagers is an area the government really wants to be seen as 'doing something'. It's a hot topic and for good reason. Mental health in teenagers, particularly among girls, has nosedived since smartphones and social media became widespread. Parents feel helpless. They know that social media will hurt their child, but also know depriving them of social media when all of their friends have them harms them as well. The government has jumped on this and come up with their social media ban. They also found their expert and outsourced responsibility to her. Enter the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The level of deferral from the government to this public servant is galling. In Question Time on Wednesday, Minister Anika Wells referenced the commissioner four times in her one answer about the social media ban - including saying she 'was required by the law to seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner on the draft rules, and the eSafety Commissioner's advice was clear'. That's all well and good - but the Australian people did not elect the eSafety commissioner. They elected Anika Wells, and they elected her to do far more than ask Julie Inman Grant what to do then listen politely. The eSafety Commssioner's duty according to the government is to ensure Australians 'have safer, more positive online experiences.' But that is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to forming policy about the online world. Safety must be balanced with freedom, educational possibilities, economic concerns and a whole raft of other factors. We'd all be free of harm from social media if we never went on the internet again - but we'd also lose all of the wonderful benefits it gives us too. It's Covid all over again. Then governments outsourced responsibility to Chief Health Officers whose primary concern was safety and stopping the spread of the virus - because that was their area of expertise. Other concerns like students' education, mental wellbeing, individual freedom and the economy - issues that should have been considered with the same seriousness as the virus itself - were swept aside in the narrow view of stopping the spread. And now other factors are being swept aside in the narrow view the government and the eSafety Commissioner are taking when it comes to social media, and particularly YouTube. The government this week reversed its commitment to exempt YouTube from their social media ban for people under the age of 16. The problem with that is that YouTube does not behave in the same way as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook or the other social media networking sites. Those latter sites rely on users sharing information with each other, such as photos and updates. Teenagers spend hours cultivating their profiles to make their lives look idyllic, and spend further hours seeing the photos and lifestyles of people they know look even more idyllic - a vicious cycle that harms mental health. YouTube does not act like that. There is not as much person-to-person sharing as there are in the other social media networks. People watch videos and move on to other videos. In fact a survey released by the eSafety Commission itself found that YouTube is one of the safest social media websites for teenagers in terms of the risk of grooming, sexual harassment and bullying. Teenagers are more likely to be targeted over text message than over YouTube. The 'safety' concerns around YouTube are less about bullying and comparative lifestyles and more about what content is popular on YouTube, such as conservative opinions. Julie Inman Grant told the National Press Club this year that she was concerned YouTube's 'opaque algorithms' were 'driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against'. That's a whole different reason for enforcing safety and completely removed from the original conversation around protecting children online. But it's not unexpected considering the eSafety Commissioner's remit is to ensure online safety. It's up to the government to balance the desire for safety with other effects a ban on YouTube would have - especially education. Oxford Economics this year found that 72 per cent of parents agree that YouTube helps their children learn and 79 per cent of parents agree YouTube provides quality content for their children's learning. In an interview on Sky News this week, YouTube personality Leo Pugilsi said his teachers upload videos of themselves explaining what was discussed in school to help children out with homework. This is what the government is impacting when it listens solely to the eSafety Commissioner. An unforgivable sin from Covid was our governments letting experts tell them the education of children was a secondary concern. By listening solely to the eSafety Commissioner and ignoring the educational benefits of YouTube, Labor is making the same mistake again - all in the name of "doing something". James Bolt is a Sky News Australia contributor.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Hard Quiz: You better believe I'm here to judge you
Back again, I see. Haven't you been humiliated enough? Here's how it works: five points for a correct answer. Let's play, HARD! Stream new Hard Quiz episodes on ABC iview or watch Wednesdays 8pm on ABC TV.
Herald Sun
4 hours ago
- Herald Sun
Victoria's racial vilification laws under fire as anti-Semitism soars
Victoria's Office of Public Prosecutions has not approved a single charge under the state's racial vilification laws amid soaring multicultural tensions and the worst spike in anti-Semitism Victoria has ever seen. The state's legal defence against bigots who racially or religiously vilify an individual or group has been labelled a 'catastrophic failure' after attempts by police to charge potential offenders were thwarted by the state's Director of Public Prosecutions. The Herald Sun can reveal the DPP has rejected potential charges proposed by Victoria Police under the laws over six incidents since Hamas' barbaric October 7 massacre in Israel – followed by Israel's deadly bombardment of Gaza – sparked a cultural and religious firestorm. The charges are understood to be related to the Jewish community and other multicultural communities. The Office of Public Prosecutions said another five requests for criminal charges were still being investigated. It comes as racial and religious tensions reach boiling point once again. Among the cases still being considered is a shocking neo-Nazi protest which occurred on the steps of parliament on December 20 last year – seven months ago. The black-clad white nationalists who chanted 'the Jews must go' and held up a sign reading 'Jews hate freedom' are yet to face charges. Victoria Police confirmed that they had referred charges under the act to the OPP. The group responsible, the Nationalist Socialist Network, has since gone on to stage multiple offensive protests, including one at Northland in which they promoted a racial slur towards African-Australians. Jewish community advocate Menachem Vorchheimer said the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act – which has been in place for more than two decades – was 'inoperable'. 'This is a catastrophic failure,' he said. Under the rarely used legislation, police are forced to seek approval from the DPP in order to press charges against a someone they believe has incited or encouraged hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against an individual or group because of their race and/or religion. Following a last minute deal with the Greens, under the state's new anti-vilification or hate speech laws — which comes into play next month — police will also have to seek approval from the DPP in order to lay charges. The extra hurdle for police has raised concerns that the upcoming laws, regularly spruiked by the state government as the answer to the anti-Semitism crisis and rising extremism, has raised fears relevant charges may take months or be blocked altogether. Jewish Community Council of Victoria chief executive Naomi Levin said failing to lay charges meant potential offenders were given the green light to continue their offensive behaviour. 'An important aspect of the justice system is deterrence, but when no arrests are made for months and months that deterrence is eroded and individuals act with impunity,' she said. 'No one wants to see racist radicals roaming the streets and terrorising local communities.' Victoria Police's Operation Park, launched in response to increasing acts of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, has led to 149 arrests, with some dealt prison sentences. A police spokesman said the force regularly seeks advice from the Office of Public Prosecutions in relation to potential charges under the Act. He said a number of active matters, understood to be for lower level offences, were before the courts. A spokesman for the Director of Public Prosecutions said evidence from police, including all relevant statements, footage, interviews and other evidence obtained, can take several months to collate and hand to the OPP. 'Once the evidence has been collated and provided to the OPP, a careful assessment of the prospects of conviction for the RRTA charge can be undertaken,' she said. Opposition police spokesman David Southwick said police being blocked from taken swift action was a 'fundamental failure of Labor's so-called hate crime laws'. 'At a time when anti‑Semitic and racial hate has surged, police are doing their job with one arm tied behind their back,' he said. A Victorian Government spokesperson said charges were a matter for Victoria Police and the OPP. She said the new anti vilification laws included tougher penalties, including up to five years imprisonment, which would act as a deterrent. 'This hateful, extremist behaviour and the cowards who push it have no place here in Victoria,' she said.
