Sunday’s “Great Debate” wasn’t a debate at all. More a polite, extended press conference with neither participant engaging his opponent – or the audience. It’s time for a new, fresh format next time the political gladiators meet. Our subscribers respond:

You asked: “do we need a more rebellious press gallery”?

After the insipid performances from the panel during the “great debate” on Sunday, it is so obvious that we do.

How those so called leading journos could possibly allow themselves to be put into the position of simply asking obviously prepared questions, only to receive, parrot like, responses [again, obviously prepared] should been seen as an insult to the average viewer’s intelligence, It certainly was to me, and I’m very average.

Debate? There was NO debate, I would think that any 10 year old could have read those questions, and any 10 year old could have read the answers!

Let’s try that. I am sure 10 year olds would be more convincing, and would show more interest in proceedings than the so-called panel. Rebellious press gallery? Yeah right.

Dave Evans
Mornington

Five of the best

I didn’t watch all of the debate, so maybe these were asked and I missed them:

What do you intend to do about the scandal of unfunded super liability?

Will you abolish the “gold card” for retired (“qualifying”) politicians’ and their spouses’ travel?

Will you stop the practice of appointing ex cronies to plum overseas postings?

Will you instruct your MPs to interact more with grassroots supporters during your tenure; not just at election time?

What do you intend to do about the disgraceful state of Queensland’s Ipswich motorway that isn’t just a band aid solution?

I’m sure I can think of many more!

Gail Lane

Get them off the Busses

I still recall the sickening sight, many years ago when I observed Paul Keating’s media entourage being herded – like sheep – in an out of his meetings in our local area. they did not want to talk to ordinary people – simply following what the formula said they had to do without question.

Why is it too difficult for the media to get out and talk to the real candidates – the ones who have put their family life on hold to stick their hand up and have a go?

Could we propose a leader free day in the election – a spin doctor free day – where the media get out and follow some REAL candidates around for the day?

Take a quiz in Queensland and you would find people would only be able to identify a couple of sitting Senators – let alone some candidates.

Why can’t there be one major media outlet that works up the courage to ignore the leaders for a day and get out in the real world?

It won’t happen because it is too comfortable to be driven around in luxury coaches, fed the lines from the spin doctors, avoid the public and ignore the candidates – the ones who really deserve the oxygen of publicity they keep giving to the two leaders … does anyone else think it’s boring?

Media Mary

Where’s the Mangling Machine?

When Howard was justifying his sending troops to Iraq, he talked about the people crusher, a line which was plagiarised from a book by a former CIA Agent.

I am not aware of any news agency, even the Fair and Balanced one, reporting that such a device has been found (Howard knew so much about it that he said that the victims were fed in feet first to maximise their suffering).

I would ask Howard if he regretted using such bogus information to convince the Australian public of the legitimacy of his sending our troops to Iraq.

Of course, if I am wrong, and the device has been found, then I might have egg on my face.

Harry Goldsmith

The media goldfish are too close to the bait

Of course your correspondent is right! And he obviously held back!

Many members of the fourth estate are too close to the pollies (first name terms and flattered to be known and recognised) and so are afraid to be excluded for being “biased” against them. Bugger that. Those who we pay well to administer our government and develop policy need to be carefully monitored and quickly exposed for telling lies – and perhaps also congratulated (but only ironically) when they occasionally tell it like it is.

I would ask things like “What are you doing talking about “surpluses” when there is a gaping hole called unfunded pensions that is getting worse by the hour?”

And how about “Why did both Lib and Lab agree to change the electoral act such that Australians are now no longer able to vote for all but two candidates, thus effectively NOT distributing preferences to the last two choices? ie: exercising their democratic right both to vote AND to choose not to vote for either of the major parties?” and “Why was that done in secret?”

The whole issue of pollies avoiding questions by answering their own rather than those asked is beyond a joke and is a blight on our notion of accountability and shows a disgraceful lack of professionalism on the part of the media that allows it to happen – Or does it just demonstrate that they have very short concentration spans?

We may have to start calling them “goldfish” (“Carp” may be another name…being both a noun and a verb that fits the bill) if they don’t lift their game…

Philip Carman
Perth WA

When’s the job done?

I don’t think anyone asked Howard how he defined the “job being done” in Iraq.

So when he said our troops should stay until the job is done – there is still no definition of that either point in time or what elements go into defining it.

No questions were asked when he said “regardless of why we are there” – why regardless?

Michelle

A boring lost opportunity

As requested by Crikey, our response to the political debate last night is: What was the Channel 9 network doing funding an hour-long free election advertisement for the two primary political parties?

And more to the point, what was the media doing, playing along? So much for our nation’s finest investigative journalists, most of whom looked like naughty children squeezed up into the front desks so that teacher could keep a better eye on them.

There was barely an inquisitorial question from any of them, and who cares about the ground rules? This was a live broadcast and the journos could have said to hell with the rules and let’s get these guys answering some real questions, instead of insipid Media 101 crap questions that were usually avoided anyway and turned into monotonous bland spiels that produced no new information.

In short, it was a BORING LOST OPPORTUNITY.

And frankly, I blame the media gurus who let them get away with it. They should have hijacked the debate rules and got stuck into them. Shame on the journos for letting Australia down.

Annette and Roger Buddrige

Press Gallery has lost the public’s confidence

Of course the panel should have had some balls, as John comments. The live feed was an ideal opportunity for some proactive, fearless press behaviour as your correspondent John describes.

The press gallery has lost the public’s confidence by trying to retain its ‘close relationship’ to the pollies. We need the press gallery ‘on-mass’ to defy the pollies’ constraints, thus giving confidence to the public service to act fearlessly and be reported/supported by the press.

As for suggesting what questions should be asked, do I really need to do this. I am sure every journalist following the election knows which questions to ask and what should have been asked in the debate. The press gallery simply needs to resist self-censorship.

Trevor Williams