Why Tasmania will always be Australia’s biggest loser – and it’s not just because of THAT doomed footy stadium. Plus, Q+A is dead… but there will be more TV funerals to come: PVO

RIP Q+A – but there will be more funerals to come

The death of Q&A – once a marquee program on the ABC capable of attracting audiences in excess of one million – tells you everything you need to know about the slow and steady decline of free-to-air television.

While there were particulars that contributed to the demise of Q+A – such as poor hosting in the wake of Tony Jones‘ departure, a time slot change that made a bad situation worse, and a growing tendency to present humourless content – its failure is part of a broader challenge for legacy media – FTA television especially.

The three broad types of TV content that once thrived are news and current affairs, entertainment and sports.

‘Infotainment’ plays a role in fusing the three. Think the sort of shows that entertain and inform.

Q+A certainly did that when Jones was at the helm during its heyday. When he left, that important aspect of the show fell away. It became a lecture-thon without shades of colour thrown in.

In a word, it became boring.

And given that news viewing habits have been replaced by people accessing their information online, news shows that take themselves too seriously risk being unappealing.

While there were particulars that contributed to the demise of Q+A, its failure is part of a broader challenge for legacy media – free-to-air television especially

FTA television’s dominance of the triumvirate of news, sport and entertainment is no more.

News is mostly online where it can be quickly updated in ways television programming struggles with.

Sport is online too, often accessed via streaming services. The only reason to put up with FTA sports coverage is if it’s not available on a streaming platform.

For years, entertainment helped FTA stay relevant as it descended deeper and deeper into trashy reality programming. But even that isn’t what it once was. The streamers have more of that content from around the world than FTA networks can come close to offering up. And there are no ads or frustrating waits for next week’s episodes.

The library of past programs that are recommended by friends and family are also at one’s fingertips, avoiding the need to channel surf.

Where once newspapers were at the vanguard of the decline of the media, closely followed by talkback radio in some markets, they have stabilised to a certain extent.

In contrast, the costly exercise of FTA programming has not. Ratings are low and keep going down, and we haven’t even discussed the challenges of attracting younger audiences brought up on YouTube.

While the ABC as a public broadcaster has an advantage commercial TV channels do not – it gets north of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money each year – nobody does boring quite as well as Aunty. 

Q+A lost its soul when original host Tony Jones (left) departed. Hamish Macdonald followed 

And given that news is its bread and butter, modern consumers are more likely to hit its online platforms for updates than they are to search for a remote control.

To the extent anyone still bothers to check out what’s on TV, they are increasingly doing it via phones or checking out clips that have been uploaded to social media.

The days of hitting the couch to watch a show locked in a time slot are over.

When it comes to the specific demise of Q+A, who wants to hear a self-selected audience member – usually an activist these days – ask a loaded question then scowl at the response? It’s even more off-putting when the people on the panel are just as uninteresting and stale as the format itself.

To the extent anyone is still interested in chat-style forums, they are online these days. There, they can be dynamic and social media users can often filter out views they don’t agree with.

It’s hard to see much of a future for FTA TV. Commercial players will make their own decisions what to do based on the profit viability of their channels. If one or more players die out like the dinosaurs did, it might allow those left behind to thrive.

One thing is certain: jobs will continue to be cut and salaries will keep falling relative to other professions. Good luck to those media degrees still looking for new students!

While new media can absorb some of what’s being lost on traditional platforms, there is likely to be a deficit.

When it comes to the ABC, eventually we’ll need a debate about what a public broadcaster should look like. Its political coverage is clearly biased, and the organisational culture is skewed in one direction.

The fact that can serve as a counterweight to right-wing media is neither here nor there. The role of a public broadcaster is to be impartial, which the ABC is not.

Beyond addressing the bias within, taxpayers will need to think hard about whether we even need a public broadcaster. Or, indeed, whether that public offering should be less about broadcast content and more about content delivered differently.

In some ways, the death of FTA TV more generally might require a stronger public broadcaster to keep on keeping on. Or it might be a moment in time to walk away from such news-delivering altogether: either saving public monies or shifting that cash into growth media sectors instead.

In an earlier era, when FTA television commanded national attention and newspapers landed with a thud on every doorstep, the media felt like a public square: messy and imperfect, but central to democratic life. That world is vanishing and with it the Fourth Estate as a pillar of democracy is weakening.

Originally set apart from the formal estates of clergy, nobility and commoners, the press carved out its own domain. Not through title or tenure, but through credibility. Edmund Burke gave it a name and Thomas Jefferson gave it gravitas, writing that he’d prefer newspapers without government to government without newspapers.

The press was never perfect, but its ability to inform and hold to account gave democracy a pulse. Today, that pulse flickers, certainly on what’s left of FTA TV.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and former chair of journalism studies at UWA. He also previously hosted The Project on Network 10 and various political programs on Sky News.

The state of Tasmania

It might be a niche issue in a very small state, but Tasmanians heading to a fourth state election in just seven years screams dysfunction.

The premier narrowly lost a vote of no confidence against him 18-17, and with no viable alternative government capable of commanding the numbers, the governor of Tasmania had no choice but to allow another election.

The Tasmanian Devils are due to enter the AFL competition in 2028 – but they could fold if a vote on the stadium in Hobart falls over (pictured, fans with the new jersey at the MCG)

An artist’s impression of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium in Hobart (pictured)

Tasmania is in a state of political upheaval, with the governor granting a request by Liberal minority Premier Jeremy Rockliff who lost a no-confidence vote in parliament

It is ironic that fiscal responsibility is the single biggest issue in the Apple Isle, with a raging debate over the cost of building a new stadium to support the incoming AFL team yet to be resolved.

Nobody really wanted another election, but here we are. The problem in Tasmania is clearly the electoral system, known as the Hare-Clark voting system, which embraces upper house-style proportional representation rather than lower house-style majoritarianism.

What does that mean? Essentially a more fragmented parliament more often, which is invariably more volatile too.

The fresh election may well deliver something different, if only because Tasmanians are growing tired of all the uncertainty. But for such a small state there are enormously different constituencies across the island, so who knows.

Is it possible that the result kills off the dream of a full-time Tasmanian-based AFL team? You bet. If the money for the stadium goes away, the league will pull out.

Whether you agree or disagree with a financially weak state helping fund a football code with a multibillion-dollar media rights deal to build infrastructure designed to make it even more money, Tasmanians won’t like it if they again miss out.

Albo drags his feet on staff decisions

Six weeks on from the election, don’t make the mistake of thinking Albo is rushing his team back to work. They still haven’t finalised staffing positions in all the ministerial offices.

In fact, there was an email that went out recently outlining a new process for who gets what amongst the ministers, only for the email to be recalled 24 hours later and announced as redundant.

After elections, ministerial staffing roles fall vacant, allowing governments to rearrange their teams without pesky things like workplace laws getting in the way. But things don’t usually take this long, and I can tell you there is considerable disquiet among Labor staffing ranks. Some are even starting to jump ship already rather than waiting, moving into the corporate world instead.

For those unaware, all ministerial staffing roles need to be approved by the PM’s office, so that’s where the delays are coming from.

The slow-moving response to the beginning of Labor’s second term is so bad that it is almost as if it came as a surprise to Albo that he got re-elected. Luckily for the optics, there is enough going on overseas – such as the G7 summit Albo is attending this weekend – to paper over just how sloppy the government has been at getting its act together in the election’s aftermath.

When the PM announced that parliament would not return until the end of July, that seemed like a long wait for someone who, on election night, announced he would be quick to ‘get back to work’.

But the delay is now a necessary evil so that Labor can decide who works for whom so that when parliament does return ministerial offices are in working order.

***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk