Being controversial has always been a money-spinner, obviously. “Always leave your audience feeling like they were yelled at for 60 minutes by an overly opinionated asshole” – old showbiz adage. So even though it might seem like an amazing coincidence that there are currently TWO shows on Australian free-to-air television that feature famous people talking about stupid, obvious horseshit, the fact is that the ABC’s Q&A and Channel 10’s Can Of Worms are just the latest updates to a format that’s been around since, I don’t know, a long fucking time ago? We’re not here to talk about history. Just drop it.
Part of the reason why the co-existence of Q&A and Can Of Worms feels so surprising is that, more so than most network television shows, no one realised that they wanted them. If you asked most people if they wanted to see a reality show about emotional aspiring chefs they’d probably not care but go along with it anyway. If you asked them if they wanted to watch a belligerent English academic explain why pornography is the pinnacle of the downfall of society as well as a show that gave Don Burke a platform to talk about propriety of burqas in Australian society they would tell you to fuck off and punch you in your stupid face. Who would want to watch those? They sound boring and patronising! But here we are. It’s a crazy world, eh?
To decide who won out of Q&A and Can Of Worms, it’s first important to define the categories in which they are competing. In some regards they are equal: they are both broadcast on a national, free-to-air TV network; they both air slightly after primetime; they are both hosted by a man whose hair colour is silver, meaning that in the categories of audience reach, time slot and host hair colour we have a draw. No points awarded!
Never in contention.
In other areas they differ, so let’s talk about those!
Firstly: ridiculous stunts. Plenty of both on either side, for sure! Can Of Worms has the Wrong-O-Meter segment, in which panellists say how wrong things are on a scale from “Perfectly OK” to “A Bit Wrong” to “News Of The World Wrong”, for instance. And there is a big board and pictures which get pinned to the big board! So right there you’ve got a laboured pop culture reference, annoying overuse of the word “wrong” (the Corinne Grant-est of all the words) and a prop. Very ridiculous. Very stunty. On the other hand, Q&A’s favourite trick is to stack a panel with politicians and then just throw Austen Tayshus in the mix like it ain’t no thing. Obviously it is a thing! Austen Tayshus is a belligerent jerk who tells awful jokes and the fact that he has strong opinions about Israel shouldn’t mean that he gets to be on TV. Other recent one-issue clowns have included Natalie Pa’apa’a from the band Blue King Brown and frontrunner for the title of worst person in the world, Charles Waterstreet. (also: that time Q&A pretended Faustina Agolley and Ruslan Kogan were two worthwhile young people.) At least Can Of Worms has the guts to be upfront about its ridiculous stunts. WINNER: CAN OF WORMS.
Secondly: issues covered.
Since it began, Q&A’s whole vibe has been kind of newsy, on account of Tony Jones but also the whole ABC thing. No doubt about it: that gets pretty boring and worthy at times, but at the same time, what would you prefer? Talking about how the GFC has affected refugees seems pretty snoozeworthy, but if we’re all going to take something WAAAAAY too seriously, I guess it might as well be something serious? Can Of Worms’ tagline is “Australia, we need to talk”, but to be honest, if what we’re going to talk about is whether burqas have a place in Australia and whether we idolise our sportspeople too much, I think it’d be better if we didn’t talk? Those are two shit-boring topics, and if we talk about them on Can Of Worms, there will be nothing for the primary school debate teams of this great nation to debate about. Also, if we really have to discuss that shit, can we maybe get someone more qualified than Angry Anderson? They don’t have to be academics, but they could at least be smart. WINNER: Q&A.
Finally, the likelihood that panelists will prove themselves to be adequate human beings.
Look, this is a tough one! Like any of us, all I have to go off is my own experience. To make this easier, we’re going to break it down into three categories: people I didn’t know that turned out to be dicks; people I didn’t know that turned out to be adequate human beings; and people I knew that reinforced my existing opinion of them. There’s no point penalising Q&A because Piers Akerman was a loathsome little turd, just like there’s no point giving Can Of Worms a boost because Tom Ballard was charming and funny! (Also, politicians get a blanket pass, because it’s not like you can just ignore them, but UGH.) So, everyone else. As I said, ANECDOTAL, but one time British author Howard Jacobson was on Q&A and he was definitely great. Very insightful and even funny! Another time, Middle East analyst Lydia Khalil was on and she was very patient and interesting. So those are two people who I didn’t know who stood out on Q&A and they were both adequate human beings.
On the other hand, the few episodes of Can Of Worms that have aired thus far included two of the worst people I have seen on television in a long time! John Elliott, the former president of Carlton Football Club, who was just like any other pompous old rich man who no one has ever told to shut up; and former Olympic swimmer Elka Whalan, who appeared to discuss whether we worship sportspeople too much and didn’t seem to understand that the fact that athletes spend a lot of time practising their sport doesn’t mean SHIT to society at large and also actually took offense to the piss-weak suggestion that we need more balance when it comes to who we idolise? It is pretty ridiculous to suggest that we just need to idolise more scientists, but it is more ridiculous to suggest that scientists can fuck off because this is Australia and we fucken love sports. (NB: this was twice as shocking because Elka Whalan was a pregnant lady and they are supposed to be NICE.) WINNER: Q&A.
In conclusion, I’d rather not watch either of these, but since Q&A scored two points and Can Of Worms only scored one, I guess that means Q&A wins the title of Australia’s most self-consciously controversial panel show!
