Tony Jones, host of the ABC’s Q&A, told ABC radio listeners in Melbourne this morning that by Monday his show had received 1000 angry emails for Senator Stephen Conroy, one of his guests this evening. The topic of those emails? Mandatory ISP filtering of course.
With such a huge response I’m almost certain Conroy will face questions about his plan to further censor the net Down Under. Whether he answers them honestly is a different story and one we can probably guess the ending to. I only hope Q&A treat the subject with more respect than they did the classification of computer games.
Tune in at 9:30PM AEST on ABC1 or watch the live stream at the Q&A website at the same time.
11 comments
PollieGraph - Stephen Conroy on Q&A says:
Mar 26, 2009
[...] Somebody Think of the Children has posted, suggesting Q&A have received more than 1,000 emails with questions for Senator Conroy. Presumably most questions are related to the proposed mandatory net filter. [...]
Matthew says:
Mar 26, 2009
Will Conroy even show up? The problem is with Q&A is the format doesn’t really seem to allow much debate outside the panelists, so it’s hard to correct someone (as evidenced by the comments on games in a previous episode). Seeing as Andrew Bolt is on there as well, and Bolt doesn’t think much of filtering, I’m hoping Conroy isn’t able to talk his way out of (i.e. lie and misrepresent) any dificult questions.
Sam D says:
Mar 26, 2009
Q and A can be a bit hit and miss. Sometimes it is incisive, informative or entertaining. Sometimes it is irritating and banal (or maybe that’s just the panelists).
Either way, it’s on TV, so I would not expect it to be what we want. All we can do is submit reasonable questions in the hope that they are asked and record Conroy’s responses for later critique.
On a slightly different tack, I don’t like Andrew Bolt (at all), but if he can make Conroy loose his temper on air I’ll by him a beer.
Eddie says:
Mar 26, 2009
“and Bolt doesn’t think much of filtering”
Has Bolt spoken against the filter in the past?
Mike says:
Mar 26, 2009
@Eddie
There’s this post http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/filter_gone_to_the_dogs but I recall one earlier as well.
Bob Bain says:
Mar 26, 2009
I’d like Conroy to be questioned on banning Astrological sites (as posted on a mailing list).
http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/2009/03/pluto-in-capricorn-am-is-banne.html
Tuesday March 24, 2009
Perhaps one of my Australian readers can enlighten me! The ACMA Secret Censoring blacklist has included my post on Astrology and the False Identity, according to the website wikileaks.org. I’m listed right there along with babesf*%&k and brutalsexpics.
Has Astrological Musings become a victim of Pluto in Capricorn’s desire for more and more Big Brother-type control? Wikileaks seems to think so:
——————–
Fortunately, only the one page of this blog is banned. But it does bring up some interesting questions about government censorship and the scope to which the power (Pluto) of government (Capricorn) will be stretched during this period of economic and social reorganization.
===========================
Bob’s comment. No doubt astrology is a form of sorcery and sorcery is something the government wishes to clamp down on.
… addendum: “False Identity” no doubt triggered the site onto the blacklist. This hadn’t occurred to me previously.
Bob
Kyle says:
Mar 26, 2009
eh, I bet Conroy won’t be happy about this news. I’m surprised hes actually making a media appearance. I don’t think the discussion will be that in depth or comprehensive about this issue.
I think insight will have better discussion.
Syd Walker says:
Mar 26, 2009
When the Q & A was first launched, it was promoted with great fanfare as ‘new’, ‘interactive’ and ‘a chance for everyone to ask questions’.
It is nothing of the sort. The format of Radio National’s Australia Talks is more amenable to the posing of ‘inconvenient questions’ – as long as callers are economical with the truth when the minder inquires what their call is about. In Q & A, there’s precious little chance of any questions being put that aren’t vetted and pre-approved.
Having said that, this should be an interesting show. Nice to see Conroy out of his bunker. A shame the ABC didn’t see fit to put a prominent anti-censorship advocate on the program.
Stuart says:
Mar 26, 2009
I’d like to see Conroy vs. Kerry O’Brian.
O’Brian doesn’t seem to have any qualms about calling politicians on their guff – he’s one of the few journalists who asks intelligent questions and is happy to tell off a politician for not answering them. Most journalist are such softballs for politicians it’s just embarrassing.
As for Conroy on Q & A, I don’t see him being any more receptive to reality there than anywhere else.
Rob Masters says:
Mar 26, 2009
Never mind Kerry O’Brian (but no disrespect to the man – he is good at what he does) – I’d like to see John Clark interview Senator Conroy.
It would be very uncomfortable for the Senator, I am sure. Having your every response being dissected by the tweezers of ridicule would not be nice – however deserved.
Syd Walker says:
Mar 26, 2009
Having just watched the program it is more apparent than ever that we have a boy doing an adult’s job. Conroy is not even an competent advocate for a stupid policy. He’s an inarticulate, utterly inept advocate for a stupid policy. He rambles off on tangents as though he’s stoned, but in his case, I imagine that’s impossible.
What did Australians do to deserve this dullard as Communications Minister?
Please God, have a word in Mr Rudd’s ear when he’s next at prayer beseeching you for success in illegal overseas wars or whatever else he prays for. Tell him to find someone competent to do that crucial job. Surely someone in the Federal Labor caucus is up to it?
Having said that, Andrew Bolt really gave the game away for the pro-censorship position, when he asked his rhetorical question “Should people be allowed to publish anything they like?” and gave ‘Jihadist sites’ as an example. As usual, it was left to someone in the audience to point this admission, on Bolt’s part, that he has political censorship in mind.
I think it would have been a better show if the folk in the audience had a televized hour-long discussion and the panel listened, for once.