ABC denies any NBN censorship deal with Turnbull

48

nbn-turnbull-van-badham

news The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has denied it censored the National Broadband Network issue from being discussed on its flagship panel discussion program Q&A this week due to any arrangement with Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, stating that it merely ran out of time to air a question on the topic.

Q&A is a talkshow-style program which airs on the national broadcaster on most Monday nights. It is typically hosted by high-profile ABC journalist Tony Jones and features five guests, running for an hour. The show has achieved popularity, as similar shows such as the BBC’s Question Time have done in other jurisdictions, courtesy of the level of direct audience interaction. Typically the show’s host takes live questions from the studio audience, as well as questions submitted before the show via the Internet, and displays a live Twitter feed of comments from those viewing the show live.

However, the show has gradually attracted criticism since it was launched in mid-2008 for what some have seen as its preference for repeatedly inviting certain politicians from the two major sides of Australian politics — Labor and the Coalition, while giving lesser preference to commentators from non-political or media professional backgrounds, or from smaller political or advocacy organisations. Liberal MPs Christopher Pyne and Malcolm Turnbull, as well as Labor figures Tanya Plibersek and Bill Shorten, have particularly been noted as repeat guests who represent entrenched political positions.

Monday night’s Q&A episode (available in full online) spurred a higher degree of normal interest from Australia’s technology community ahead of its on air date, due to the participation of both Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull as well as controversial commentator, playwright and novelist Van Badham (pictured above), who has emerged as a critic of the Coalition’s radical reshaping of Labor’s NBN project.

Analysis of the questions submitted to the show before the episode went to air and published online on the ABC’s site showed that as a consequence of the two panellists’ participation, Q&A was inundated with at least many dozens of questions regarding the NBN as a topic, in both text and video form. However, the show’s producers ignored the flood of questions from viewers prior to the filming, leaving the issue completely out of pre-show briefing documents. Host Tony Jones actively shut down Badham’s attempts to raise the issue with Turnbull on air, despite audience applause when the commentator did so.

It has also emerged that a large slice of the audience for the Q&A episode last night had actually consisted of Liberal Party members, in the form of the Sydney University Liberal Club, which organised a mass excursion to the event. The club’s Facebook page has published a photo of what appears to be several dozen members, with Turnbull featured at the centre, as well as an earlier photo of the group with British journalist and broadcaster Andrew Neil, also a panellist this week.

In Opposition, Turnbull regularly criticised the ABC for what he believed was a stance the organisation had taken in favour of the flagship Labor project. The news also comes as the Coalition Federal Government has also been reported to be considering cuts to the ABC’s budget, with senior figures such as Prime Minister Tony Abbott severely criticising the broadcaster on coverage other issues such as the treatment of asylum seekers.

In the wake of the show’s airing, Delimiter invited the ABC to comment in response to a number of questions, including whether Turnbull’s office had, made it a condition of appearing on Q&A or similarly high-profile shows such as Lateline and 7:30 over the past 12 months that the NBN topic not be a featured topic; and whether any internal editorial policy existed (formal or informal) that specifically guided editorial coverage of the NBN.

Delimiter also invited the ABC to comment on why pre-show briefing material distributed to the presenters and the studio audience did not include the topic of the NBN, despite confirmation of the Communications Minister appearing as a host, despite the fact that fellow panelist Badham had publicly flagged the topic as being of interest during her appearance on the same episode, and the fact of the extensive questions submitted by the audience.

In addition, Delimiter invited the broadcaster to comment on whether it believed the coverage allocated to the NBN project over the past 12 months by its flagship talkshow, current affairs and news programs had been adequate, given the importance of the project as Australia’s largest ever infrastructure endeavour.

In response, the ABC issued an extensive statement addressing all four questions.
“As with all ABC programs, Q&A does not make any agreements with on-air talent about topics that can or cannot be discussed and all issues or topics are covered by the ABC subject to long-standing editorial policies and codes of ethics,” the broadcaster said.

“There are many issues and topics on the national agenda at present given how close the federal government is to releasing its first budget. Q&A tries to cover as much of the national debate as it can in the one hour it goes to air. Not all topics can be covered, regardless of the wishes of some panellists.”

“This week concerns about the budget, government spending and taxation dominated the questions submitted to the program and so those issues were given priority. There were few NBN questions from the studio audience but a significant number of video questions on that topic. A video question was selected for use in the program but unfortunately we ran out of time before the question could be used. The NBN has been discussed on Q&A and answered by Malcolm Turnbull in past programs and no doubt will be discussed again in the future.”

“ABC news and current affairs programs have offered comprehensive coverage of the NBN as it has done with all issues on the national agenda.”

The ABC’s approach to the NBN issue on this week’s episode of Q&A has caused something of a social media storm for the broadcaster, with hundreds of Twitter users re-tweeting Delimiter’s article on the subject, including through the show’s #qanda hashtag, and 1,500 people liking Delimiter’s article on the subject on Facebook. The broadcaster is also facing criticism on the issue on the show’s Facebook page.

Yesterday Badham was unapologetic for bringing up the NBN several times on Q&A. “I will keep bringing up the NBN until this country has the infrastructure it deserves,” the commentator wrote on Twitter under the #qanda hashtag.

Image credit: Screenshot of this week’s Q&A program on the ABC, believed to be OK to use under Australian fair dealing provisions

48 COMMENTS

  1. Reflecting on this… we have a state TV show with a panel featuring a moderator, a politician, some commentators. Questions come from the audience and online, text and video, and Twitter is involved as well. The most popular topic featured in half the videos, and most popular in the texts and on Twitter gets asked about zero times. The only reason more people aren’t asking is because expectations are already near rock-bottom. One (and only one) of the commentators refers to it twice and once in passing and gets told they’ll talk about it later, gets called completely wrong by politician and in denial of reality and the moderator moves the topic along quickly both times without offering a chance even at rebuttal. And this is all on a vital infrastructure issue where most of the public would agree with the commentator and it concerns billions and billions in taxpayer money. Something that frankly shouldn’t have been pushed towards the tail end of the program. If you open the door to this panel, including two Newscorpers and Turnbull, and expect them to be exposed to as many questions as possible without delaying as much as possible, then that was a misplaced expectation.

    And following this display, more at home on Russian state TV, after I sent an email to Media Watch they ask me: “I’m not sure why you think the ABC might…” blah blah blah and where’s my evidence. OK, fine. If it wasn’t malice then it was certainly incompetence. I’m not sure how that’s supposed to make us all feel better about this or something?

    How about when you have the Communications Minister on as most prominent guest you discuss communications – and communications first – instead of something to do with, and I’m enumerating: the budget, the budget, the budget, the military budget, the military budget and bigotry.

    But I’m guessing the media considers the whole NBN matter done and dusted. And there’s the problem. They did their 2.47 units of journalisms relating to this before the election and that’s enough, thank you very much, we don’t need any more.

      • Done. I just remembered this hilarious exchange last year where Tony Jones also jumped to the defence – as if by reflex – of the earl also:

        CORINNE GRANT: Where would I read it? In the little Real Solutions?
        MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, the broadband policy is on the web. It’s about 60 pages.
        CORINNE GRANT: And it’s incomprehensible, Malcolm.
        MALCOLM TURNBULL: No.
        TONY JONES: No, that’s not fair.
        MALCOLM TURNBULL: No. No. Well, Corinne, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you are not releasing any policy and then when I point you to one you say, “Oh, I couldn’t understand it,” or “It’s incomprehensible.” I mean, that’s …
        CORINNE GRANT: I didn’t say I couldn’t understand it.

        And then Tony Jones was starting to interrupt her, again as if by instinct, 22 minutes onwards, but Turnbull got his next sentence in, so the need for that was obliviated.

        • You should make a compilation video of every time Tony Jones has interacted with Turnbull on the NBN. It will make for damning viewing.

    • “The NBN has been discussed on Q&A and answered by Malcolm Turnbull in past programs”

      Really? Fact check please!

  2. Let the weaseling begin…

    Although “Q&A does not make any agreements with on-air talent” this does not technically prevent them making agreements with colleagues of on-air talent.

  3. No dice ABC , you don’t invite the communications minister and not have time to discuss his biggest project. It’s TJ job as moderator to make it happen and he failed to on a number of occasions.

    • Exactly.

      Also note this previous statement:
      “Turnbull repeatedly stated during the program that he found it difficult to comment on many of the issues, as he was not the relevant Cabinet Minister.”

      Even after this they still chose NOT to discuss a very hot topic which he IS the relevant Cabinet Minister for.

  4. So could Q&A please explain why the Minister for Communications was invited to join a panel to discuss the Budget (rather than the Minister for Finance) and Fighter Jet procurement (rather than the Minister for Defence) by any chance?

    At the end of the day, NBN was obviously going to be a topic, which obviously ceased to be a topic by the time the Minister arrived – why was that?

    “I’ll take that as a comment..”

    It’s not censorship, so much as actively moderating the debate to topics other than the NBN. That’s the producer and presenters prerogative.

    But you don’t get to do that and not be asked ‘why?’ as a consequence.

    • I could understand the asking the Minister for Communications to respond on how/what/why the Budget might effect his portfolio, that would be reasonable.

      What I can’t understand is why they would ask the Minister for Communications about fighter planes…if they wanted to talk fighters they should have asked David Johnston, Stuart Robert or Darren Chester. They could have also then asked about the other armed services budget “buffs”.

      But the ask the Minister for Communications on and then actively avoid communications questions.., /boggle

  5. Maybe someone should ask Malcolm Turnbull if he asks his plumber about finance, and his Limo Driver about the next property hotspot.

    Because that’s about what the ABC Did when they put the Minister For Comms on and then didn’t bother asking him any Comms questions.

    #Plumbergate

    • “Maybe someone should ask Malcolm Turnbull if he asks his plumber about finance, and his Limo Driver about the next property hotspot.”

      He asks accountants about technology choices, why not?

    • But that is how Q&A works every single week, 5 talking heads covering topics they mostly have no expertise in. What about the Q&A in September 2008 where Tanya Plibersek didn’t talk about her housing portfolio. I guess there must have been a grand conspiracy between K Rudd and Q&A to censor the topic, because that is the most likely explanation /s.

      • Were there many questions on that subject for her? Did the host promise to come back later to the topic and never did?

        The NBN is an incredibly important infrastructure project for the next few decades. Based on what TJ, a reasonable person would expect it would come up. It didn’t. Hence the outrage.

        I think we should have a Qanda debate specifically about the NBN, rather than people who no nothing on the subject.

        We would need to find some FTTN people.

        *crickets*

        • > Did the host promise to come back later to the topic and never did?

          I can’t remember, but it sounds like they ran out of time. Do you really think this was a deliberate attempt to prevent the NBN being talked about with no intention to talk about it later?

          > The NBN is an incredibly important infrastructure project for the next few decades. Based on what TJ, a reasonable person would expect it would come up. It didn’t. Hence the outrage.

          I was also disappointed, like basically everyone that comments on Delimiter the NBN is front of mind to me.

          > I think we should have a Qanda debate specifically about the NBN, rather than people who no nothing on the subject. We would need to find some FTTN people.

          I agree we should have this Q&A, probably after the cost benefit analysis is released. You don’t need to have people that support FTTN, but if you do want one then you could ask Ziggy Switkowski on.

          • Actually, it’d be great to see an entire qanda on the subject of the NBN, and more broadly, telecommunications in general here in Aus.

            I’d really like them to make sure they had some folks that know what they are talking about like Renai and/or Sortius on there, so they avoid an embarrassment like with Anthony Albanese (who I think did a good job considering his lack of knowledge in the area, and the lack of time he had to become familiar with it).

  6. So what was the ABC’s reason for not including the NBN in their pre-show briefing docs?

    They say they selected a video question on the NBN, but ran out of time. How can that be true if the panellists weren’t prepared for the issue to be discussed?

  7. The NBN took up around 30/200 web questions or approximately 15% of the questions. Q&A addressed 7 topics each averaging around 15% of the show’s time. Based purely on the public’s questions it seems line ball whether Q&A should talk about the NBN. It was likely decided to lower the NBN’s priority since there has hasn’t been any recent major news on the topic.

    Calling this censorship (with zero evidence of a deal being done) cheapens the word and it is use against legitimate suppression of speech.

    • Malcolm Turnbull is the Minister for Communications

      If you have 7 questions all equally weighted then you would ask the most relevant to the people on the show

      Secondarily did ANY question actually asked on the show get more than 15%?

      • I appreciate this but not asking questions inside the portfolio of frequent guests is not new to Q&A, and to suggest there must have been some arrangement made in this case is a big stretch. And such an accusation should only be made if there is credible evidence to back it up.

        I personally think it would be better if Q&A limited themselves to a single issue for the whole show and only got experts in that field. Then we would stop this rubbish opinion giving on topics where the panelists have no expertise, vague platitudes are soo boring.

    • Malcolm Turnbull is the minister for Communications. Therefore any questions should have been biased towards his Portfolio.

      Fair allocation of questions or points of view is a fallacy. One I don’t abide by nor tolerate, and neither should you.

      • Malcolm Turnbull is the minister for Communications. Therefore any questions should have been biased towards his Portfolio.

        Two points, firstly Q&A don’t always do this. Secondly there were communications questions asked in the show.

        I would liked to seen NBN questions, but what I am questioning is whether a conspiracy is needed to explain the lack of NBN questions.

        • You may be right Morrissey, to even utter “conspiracy”, would indeed appear to be an exaggeration and/or an emotive response…

          However, is it simply coincidence that MT seems to gain a lot of leeway in many sectors?

          As one who has frequented Delimiter for ages, it is apparent that regardless of how far fetched.. his faithful apologists (of which I am not accusing you of being :) will always have a well rehearsed excuse…

          Strangely (ahem) these same people never had any excuses for Conroy or the real NBN, which I think is the reason most people here, who are comms orientated (as opposed to politically motivated) are now pissed off at what is occurring…

          • > You may be right Morrissey, to even utter “conspiracy”, would indeed appear to be an exaggeration and/or an emotive response…

            I think you touched on the key point, it is the emotive responses which I don’t see as helping the NBN discussion.

            I find myself in an odd position playing devils advocate, as the truth is I have never voted liberal and on the whole support Labour policies from Carbon pricing to the Mining tax, not to mention the NBN. But when I labled comments such “Tony Rabbot has never hidden his disdain for the technologically capable” as unhelpful due to their hyper-partisan nature, I was fairly savagely attacked as a Liberal hack.

            > As one who has frequented Delimiter for ages, it is apparent that regardless of how far fetched.. his faithful apologists (of which I am not accusing you of being :) will always have a well rehearsed excuse…
            Strangely (ahem) these same people never had any excuses for Conroy or the real NBN, which I think is the reason most people here, who are comms orientated (as opposed to politically motivated) are now pissed off at what is occurring…

            I am not sure who you are referring to, I would generally say that both internet chat rooms such as Whirlpool as well as tech sites are fairly strong in supporting the labour’s NBN over the coalitions. I would also say that AFR, the business spectator and TV opinion shows on the whole support the labour NBN. Whilst I don’t listen to talkback or read any News Corp paper, I hear their coverage is pretty poor so perhaps this is what you are talking about.

            Putting all this aside, the strategic review makes a lot of interesting claims that I would like Turnbull or Switkowski to explain in more detail. Consider on page 88, is the below claim:

            “At the average Cost Per Premises for Capital Expenditure and Operating Expenditure for FTTN and for Radically Redesigned FTTP discussed in this Review, it will be more economical to first build FTTN then upgrade later as long as FTTN can be used for several years before upgrading. Specifically, the 10-year present value of costs at an 8% discount rate is lower to build FTTN now and later upgrade to FTTP provided FTTN is used for more than 5 years before upgrading and distribution fibre can be re-used”

            So if the plan is get everyone up to usable speeds as fast as possible, then upgrade later at lower cost then Turnbull’s plan is not on the face of it unreasonable. So the claim is lower costs in short and long term, faster short term speeds, slower mid term speeds, same long term speeds. I could see myself accepting this plan, the problem is I am not yet convinced it will be cheaper so this is why I want them to give us more details.

    • OK, you want to play the raw numbers game?

      On the Q&A website, the text questions submitted between 27th of April, 9:30pm and 28th of April, 9:30pm total 47 on the NBN and 56 on other topics. The ten most video questions are half and half. This does not include numbers from Facebook or Twitter (there’s even a widget on the Q&A site filled with the Twitter topics throughout the program and the NBN is pretty prominent there) or anywhere else. These numbers are probably biassed because none of us had any real expectation of getting an NBN question through – and boy were we proven right on that – and they are moderated before they get put on the Q&A website.

      Most recent Q&A programs also had more than seven questions. Furthermore, the communications minister was the most prominent guest on the program:

      > It was likely decided to lower the NBN’s priority since there has hasn’t been any recent major news on the topic.

      Seriously? The NBN hasn’t remained out of the news near enough at all. Just because you don’t find it on your frontpage of The Daily Telegraph doesn’t mean it’s not pretty damn important. If you don’t think Turnbull doesn’t have any Q to A then I don’t accept that.

      • > On the Q&A website, the text questions submitted between 27th of April, 9:30pm and 28th of April, 9:30pm total 47 on the NBN and 56 on other topics

        Ok well I can only see the latest 200 question so can you please provide a link for me to read these?

        > These numbers are probably biassed because none of us had any real expectation of getting an NBN question through

        It is probably also biased by the fact that the NBN is more of a hot topic of young people than middle aged Australian’s. So the internet based questions are probably biased to people who care about the NBN (which includes me). However in both cases this is mere speculation.

        > Seriously? The NBN hasn’t remained out of the news near enough at all.

        Obviously this is the case for delimiter and other tech sites, but I haven’t seen the NBN discussed in mainstream media that much recently. When the cost benefit analysis get’s released I am sure this will change.

        I would have loved to see the NBN talked about in detail, but you do not have to reach for a conspiracy to explain why it wasn’t.

        • They are all in the last 200 questions. At least they were when I counted. Look at the timestamps. The range on there when I checked of all times was 27th 8pm to 29th 12pm.

          > When the cost benefit analysis get’s released I am sure this will change.

          If you think the standard of discussion in your average Newscorp paper will shift even an inch following the cost benefit analysis – designed to prove that FTTH is terrible and FTTN is the second coming of Jesus – you’re not at all in touch with the status quo. And I’m not saying so much that there’s proof of a conspiracy or something like that, although given the evidence at hand it’s a conclusion that’s not a great leap of logic to arrive at. If we make the assumption there ain’t anything to this, then this level of practically deliberate incompetence, which really amounts to the same thing, don’t make me feel no better either.

  8. The question must be asked…did they run out of time…OR did Murdoch change the space-time continuum???

  9. One of Tony Jones’ often used remarks is “I’ll take that as a comment”. Many of the suggested NBN related questions I’ve seen would fall into that category. More like complaints or rants than open questions that could lead to discussion by the whole panel.

    Questions like this example from your article yesterday …

    “Mr Turnbull, how do you and your party live with yourselves, considering the fact that you have effectively destroyed what would have been the best telecommunications network in the world?”

    … are simply not going to get asked whatever the topic.

  10. Now sure would be a GREAT time for a whistleblower to come forward to Paul Barry….

  11. So what? Even if they did ask him questions it would make no difference.

    Firstly it would take someone with the right knowledge and an opportunity to really grill him. The journalists who do get a crack at him are usually tech-illiterate, and when knowledgeable people do get to ask questions it is in situations where they are unable to follow-up on the poor responses they receive.

    Secondly, no-one cares if we become a broadband backwater and throw tens of billions of dollars out the window. No-one cares if Malcolm Turnbull lies his smug face off on national television.

    Tony Abbott has used our defence forces to smash some nasty brown people traveling here via boat. In reality, this is what the majority of people in Australia wanted.

    • > The journalists who do get a crack at him are usually tech-illiterate, and when knowledgeable people do get to ask questions it is in situations where they are unable to follow-up on the poor responses they receive.

      Bingo. Poor responses such as ‘get fucked’ for a pile of genuine policy questions. Is Newscorp going to care? Is the ABC at this point? Fairfax? Hell no.

  12. THis is the third time in a row that Turnbull has been on Q&A and not had to answer questions about the NBN.
    He spent half the night saying that he couldn’t answer certain questions as it was not his portfolio and then was allowed to dodge answering one one his own portfolio.
    I have lodged a complaint with the ABC, not that I belive that it will get anywhere.

  13. I would like to see a special edition of Q&A the full hour on the NBN
    Lundy
    Ludlam
    Quigley
    Hackett
    Turdball
    Switkowski
    Conroy
    Morrow

    just some possible candidates

  14. Renai, i’ve had several email conversations with Mr Turnbull over the last couple of years and it comes down to ideology. At first i was thinking he was towing the party line given i know he knows how all this works but in the email exchange i was trying to explain to him that for work purposes i needed a a FFTP because of the download but more important upload speeds for video conferencing and obviously sending files to clients.

    It went to and fro but the statement from him, and i’ll paraphrase, was about how i’d need more than 25Mb/s download and was told that “…i’d be an exception to the majority of users’ bandwidth requirements”.

    Given he did well out of OzEmail and has invested in FTTP in Europe i am not sure now that that investment is now related to Australias Labor NBN rollout. I’m now thinking he invested in that purely as a speculative investment and was probably advised by his broker to do so as before the election and post he has maintained the same mantra in terms of the NBN.

    In my view the Labor NBN model would mean that anyone with a decent connection could become a TV broadcaster of sorts a la NetFlix and Murdoch knows this and this is why the Murdoch people lobbied the LNP and their own press here flooded their majority owned media and therefore the Australian public with such venemous rhetoric against the NBN and of course the Carbon Tax “lie”.

    And of course those same media endpoints are NOT saying much about the broken promises that the LNP/Murdoch Govt have already broken which up to about what now 10?

    It’s hypocrisy and double standards and all that will happen is that Australia will remain behind places such as Mozambique in terms of internet speeds.
    Pretty poor in my view and no i am not a pro-Labor person.

    • “Given he did well out of OzEmail and has invested in FTTP in Europe i am not sure now that that investment is now related to Australias Labor NBN rollout.”

      I’ve always been curious about what the disconnect is with him. He is obviously OK with investing in “tech” (OzEmail and his telecoms investments point that way at least), but he doesn’t see dissonance in his personal investment in FTTP in France and his objection to Australia’s investment in it here. I’ve often wondered if, given the opportunity and a decent return, would he invest his own cash in FTTP here?

      • the Labor FTTP in theory would have returned 7% as a Govt Bond of sorts…not sure if would have achieved 7% but it would have been an ROI a lot more than anything out there given the economy and in my opinion would have attracted fixed income investors.
        Remember this was supposed to be a Govt owned infrastructure asset. The Liberals’ media spin dept have blown everything out of proportion including the fact that we were a rare survivor of the GFC due to the actions of the Treasurer/Treasury Dept.
        However, whilst they mismanaged a few things the NBN in my is a critical infrastructure project that need to be done.
        If this Abbott Govt was in Govt when the original invention of the electricity, telegraph, telephone in the 19th and 20th centuries then Australia would be a far different country than it is now.

        As it is, the Abbott Govt is ignorant of the benefits of FTTP to the whole of Australia just like what i mentioned above but in my view just because of ideology and because Tony Abbott said he would “rip the cables from the ground” and so he can’t be seen to be weak in front of his ideological Party Members.
        Which is a shame really.
        I mean look at Rwanda – they’ve gone from oblivion in the genocide years, to FTTP everywhere and are now, due to training from pixelcorps.com a viable place for video production and editing just like Peter Jackons WETA in New Zealand. Australia in my view under Liberals will be in the worst 50 of the world in terms of internet access unless FTTP gets rolled out.
        Everywhere that has done FTTN has realised it was a mistake and gone FTTP.
        Gotta hate those Liberals and ideology vs common sense.
        I am not a Labor voter by the way.

  15. It may not have been the ABC… but it was definitely Jones… he interferes far too much fo a “moderator”.
    After Turnbull stated that the future of the ABC Asia network lay in internet delivery he was wide open for the boot to be put in asking why then are we not proceeding with a fully fibre optic network domestically, and Jones shut it down! So obvious it hurts! We had Turnbull on toast and the question was not allowed to be put!

    • So you do not agree with your fellow conspiracy theorists about it being an ABC plot. It was Jones!

  16. I don’t really have any problem with Q&A repeatedly featuring well-known politicians. How many of you watched Q&A just because Malcolm Turnbull was on? Exactly! I’ve seen about a dozen episodes of the show, and always browse for those that feature names I know.

    Love or hate Mr Turnbull, he’s a crowd magnet. As much as I hate everything he is doing, he makes me watch the show, just to admire how good he is at weaseling out of the truth and making a lie sound so sensible.

    I think Tony Jones just had an off-camera agreement with Mr Turnbull, so of course the ABC is going to deny any knowledge of it. I got more and more frustrated when watching the episode after Tony repeatedly deflected questions posed to Malcolm and gave them to other panelists to answer first. It was impossible not to feel like Tony was giving Malcolm time to come up with a proper response, instead of being on the spot every time. Anything NBN specific was cleverly dismissed that no-one would have noticed, unless you knew how clever and practiced someone like Tony Jones is.

    • I only watch it when someone like Malcolm is on, because I expect them to be answering questions about their portfolio/area of expertise.

      I don’t give two figs about what his opinion is on JSF’s because he has zero input/influence on them, but I am interested in what he is thinking/planning in his actual area of influence.

      And just as a general observation not directed and anyone in particular, since when did everyone become more interested in peoples opinions/feelings about “stuff” and stopped being interested in actual facts of the matter?

      • “since when did everyone become more interested in peoples opinions/feelings about “stuff” and stopped being interested in actual facts of the matter?”

        I also hate this. Evidence matters.

Comments are closed.