Out for a duck

Ahhhh, comedy gold. The instant this landed in my inbox, I knew I was gonna blog it.

Dear Patrick Garson,

The ABC rejects your assessment of Insiders.

The ABC believes that the situation in Zimbabwe warranted extended
commentary from the Prime Minister. The Budget was discussed, as were Australian Workplace Agreements.

Insiders panellists have been selected from publications across the
nation, with the aim of offering our audience a variety of opinions and
views. The aim of the panel discussion is to canvas a range of issues
and ideas, and to give our commentators the opportunity to challenge and debate each other. You are free to draw your own conclusions on how successful the program is at meeting these standards.

Yours sincerely,
Kate Edwards
Audience Liaison Officer
ABC News and Current Affairs

>Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
> () on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 15:02:33
>-----------------------------

------------------------------------------
>From: /insiders/contact.htm
>
>Subject: re: this week's episode
>
>Name: Patrick Garson
>
>Address:
>
>Email:
>
>Comment:

Hi,
I'm just writing to say that I'm going to be switching off Insiders; I feel the quality has been steadily sliding, even though I used to love it.

I couldn't believe Barry spent 10 minutes on Sunday asking John Howard about the cricket, when the budget came out in the same week. That's ridiculous. As if there weren't more important things to talk about? You don't need to be a genius to figure out that Insiders' viewers will be more interested in policy than in cricket.

I also feel the standard of commentary in general has decreased. I watch(ed) the show to be educated about policy and governance decisions I may not have much knowledge in.

Unfortunately the program seems to have devolved into a gossip circle for journalists, with a focus on the unknowable (the campaigning strategies of various parties), and the unknown (the mind of the average voter, which surely Paul Kelly et al would have little connection to these days).

When the polls or parties contradict what the guests have to say (as they both have often this year), there is little to no acknowledgement of it, and the guests continue to peddle the same shallow ideas (e.g. Kevin Rudd, and the phrase "honeymoon". They only people talking about that are the Insiders themselves.).

I am now left with Lateline and the odd episode of the 7:30 report for real interviews with politicians, and a nuanced, three-dimensional look at the policy of the day. Shame on you Insiders, you should be - and are capable of being - much better.

A few points:

1. "The Budget was discussed, as were Australian Workplace Agreements." Well, ye-es. The budget was discussed, but not because Barrie Cassidy actually asked about it - John Howard bought that one up off his on bat (boom tish).
   
   
2. "The situation in Zimbabwe". Hmmm, the interview wasn't really about the situation in Zimbabwe, though, was it? It was about the Australian cricket team touring there.
   
   
3. You'll see I'm not making this shit up. Read the interview yourself. Just under two thirds of it (62%) is about the cricket. That leaves 38% for the budget and AWAs, or 19% of the interview each.
   
   Another way: 4 pages of 6 is about the cricket. The fucking cricket. Welcome to what passes for journalism today.
   
   
4. Sheesh, if this is the audience liaison officer, I'd hate to see the head-knocker!
   

But hey, at least the wrote back, eh? Shame the show is getting shittier and shittier though.