Latest news with #HardQuiz
The Age
09-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Age
Aussie TV networks hit the jackpot with one type of show
The Floor, for example, uses scale and visual spectacle to enhance its appeal: 100 contestants, plus a massive floor that lights up and can be enlivened by snazzy graphics. In singing its praises, Nine added that the show's success reaffirms 'the importance of our local content'. Well, yes, insofar as this version is made here and has an Australian host and contestants. But, as with many of our game shows, it's an adaptation of an imported format: it, Deal or No Deal and The Traitors are originally Dutch. An array of others – The 1% Club, Tipping Point, The Chase, Taskmaster, House of Games – are English. These productions have proliferated as commercial channels have basically abandoned investment in drama and comedy. Game shows aren't as much of a gamble, and they don't cost as much to make, especially ones that have been developed and road-tested elsewhere. Most require only a single set, so there's no need for expensive location shooting or months of writers' rooms brainstorming. And multiple episodes can be shot in a day. Seasons can be as short or long as the networks require and the enterprise can be jazzed up with celebrities, like Tipping Point's tennis special before Wimbledon, or Sandra Sully dropping in to try her luck with the golden briefcases on Deal. Loading In the current crop, there are some originals, such as Nine's The Hundred, developed by Screentime with host Andy Lee. In addition to Spicks and Specks, the bouncy music quiz hosted by Adam Hills and inspired by Britain's Never Mind the Buzzcocks, the ABC has had a hit with local creation Hard Quiz and recent success with Guy Montgomery's Guy Mont Spelling Bee which was imported from New Zealand. (Yes, Montgomery started the show in his homeland so we can't really claim it as our own). Both of these shows are built around refreshingly idiosyncratic presenters. On Hard Quiz, Gleeson plays the grumpy anti-host. He doesn't welcome contestants and chat to put them at ease. Instead, he pokes fun at them and their special subjects. But after 10 seasons played in a tone carefully calibrated never to cross the line between funny and nasty, its contestants front up knowing what they're in for and ready to give as good as they get. On Spelling Bee, Montgomery presents a nerdy persona slyly undercut by his witty scripts and lightning-fast ad-lib responses. Along with a clever concept and challenges that encourage viewer engagement – such as yelling the answers from the couch – an appealing host is a fundamental requirement for a successful game show. Others currently in the mix offer different qualities, but they're more conventional: Corser comes across like a smoothly amused ringmaster; Jefferies plays a brash ocker bloke; Emdur's an amiable everyman; Hills, a twinkly-eyed pal. In keeping with Deal's tone of barely contained hysteria, Grant Denyer is like an excitable, battery-powered bunny, while Woodbridge has a peppy geniality that recalls the spirit of the country's game-show master, Tony Barber. Given the value-for-money attributes of game shows, it's no surprise that SBS is poised to get back into the action with Big Backyard Quiz, an original format created by Screenwest and NITV which it tested with a special last year and has now green-lit for a series (premiering July 12). Hosted by Narelda Jacobs and Steven Oliver, the playful production is tailored to meet the broadcaster's brief, focusing on Australian history and aspects of it you might not have learned at school. Within this group, though, and reflective of the straitened times for free TV, the prizes ain't what they used to be: no one's going home a millionaire. The grand prize on 1% Club and Deal is $100,000; on The Floor, the season winner pocketed $200,000; on Tipping Point, it's $20,000, unless the player can manoeuvre that elusive double-jackpot counter to drop. On the public broadcasters, there's no money to be won – though Hard Quiz' s big brass mug is clearly a cherished trophy. But even though the monetary incentives have shrunk, the endurance of this type of TV clearly hasn't lost its appeal for TV networks or many viewers. And, especially as free-to-air fights for ongoing relevance, bragging rights have their value too.
Sydney Morning Herald
09-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Sydney Morning Herald
Aussie TV networks hit the jackpot with one type of show
The Floor, for example, uses scale and visual spectacle to enhance its appeal: 100 contestants, plus a massive floor that lights up and can be enlivened by snazzy graphics. In singing its praises, Nine added that the show's success reaffirms 'the importance of our local content'. Well, yes, insofar as this version is made here and has an Australian host and contestants. But, as with many of our game shows, it's an adaptation of an imported format: it, Deal or No Deal and The Traitors are originally Dutch. An array of others – The 1% Club, Tipping Point, The Chase, Taskmaster, House of Games – are English. These productions have proliferated as commercial channels have basically abandoned investment in drama and comedy. Game shows aren't as much of a gamble, and they don't cost as much to make, especially ones that have been developed and road-tested elsewhere. Most require only a single set, so there's no need for expensive location shooting or months of writers' rooms brainstorming. And multiple episodes can be shot in a day. Seasons can be as short or long as the networks require and the enterprise can be jazzed up with celebrities, like Tipping Point's tennis special before Wimbledon, or Sandra Sully dropping in to try her luck with the golden briefcases on Deal. Loading In the current crop, there are some originals, such as Nine's The Hundred, developed by Screentime with host Andy Lee. In addition to Spicks and Specks, the bouncy music quiz hosted by Adam Hills and inspired by Britain's Never Mind the Buzzcocks, the ABC has had a hit with local creation Hard Quiz and recent success with Guy Montgomery's Guy Mont Spelling Bee which was imported from New Zealand. (Yes, Montgomery started the show in his homeland so we can't really claim it as our own). Both of these shows are built around refreshingly idiosyncratic presenters. On Hard Quiz, Gleeson plays the grumpy anti-host. He doesn't welcome contestants and chat to put them at ease. Instead, he pokes fun at them and their special subjects. But after 10 seasons played in a tone carefully calibrated never to cross the line between funny and nasty, its contestants front up knowing what they're in for and ready to give as good as they get. On Spelling Bee, Montgomery presents a nerdy persona slyly undercut by his witty scripts and lightning-fast ad-lib responses. Along with a clever concept and challenges that encourage viewer engagement – such as yelling the answers from the couch – an appealing host is a fundamental requirement for a successful game show. Others currently in the mix offer different qualities, but they're more conventional: Corser comes across like a smoothly amused ringmaster; Jefferies plays a brash ocker bloke; Emdur's an amiable everyman; Hills, a twinkly-eyed pal. In keeping with Deal's tone of barely contained hysteria, Grant Denyer is like an excitable, battery-powered bunny, while Woodbridge has a peppy geniality that recalls the spirit of the country's game-show master, Tony Barber. Given the value-for-money attributes of game shows, it's no surprise that SBS is poised to get back into the action with Big Backyard Quiz, an original format created by Screenwest and NITV which it tested with a special last year and has now green-lit for a series (premiering July 12). Hosted by Narelda Jacobs and Steven Oliver, the playful production is tailored to meet the broadcaster's brief, focusing on Australian history and aspects of it you might not have learned at school. Within this group, though, and reflective of the straitened times for free TV, the prizes ain't what they used to be: no one's going home a millionaire. The grand prize on 1% Club and Deal is $100,000; on The Floor, the season winner pocketed $200,000; on Tipping Point, it's $20,000, unless the player can manoeuvre that elusive double-jackpot counter to drop. On the public broadcasters, there's no money to be won – though Hard Quiz' s big brass mug is clearly a cherished trophy. But even though the monetary incentives have shrunk, the endurance of this type of TV clearly hasn't lost its appeal for TV networks or many viewers. And, especially as free-to-air fights for ongoing relevance, bragging rights have their value too.
West Australian
01-07-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
‘Boring as bats..t': 10's Project replacement dubbed ‘Temu ACA' as Perth viewers tune out, opt for ABC reruns
Channel 10's replacement for the axed Project has flopped with Perth viewers, beaten by reruns on the ABC and derided online as a boring, Temu current affairs program. 10News+ debuted in Perth with an average audience of just 25,000 according to OzTam data— compared to 7NEWS Perth's share of 137,000 in the same timeslot. It recorded just 1000 viewers in regional WA. But 10's new show came in fourth in Perth, losing out to the ABC's reruns of Antique Roadshow and Hard Quiz over the hour-long slot. Nationally, 10News+ recorded an average share of just 291,000 viewers. Anchors Denham Hitchcock and Amelia Brace opened the program claiming they weren't out to 'scare or depress' viewers. 'We will give you facts, information you can trust — the truth,' Brace said, before Hitchcock added: 'Of course, we are a daily news program, so you won't miss the stories that matter.' 'But we are also digging deeper with investigations and original reporting you won't see anywhere else,' Brace added. The first segment — a 20 minute-long investigation lead by Hitchcock into drug smuggling Melbourne mum Debbie Voulgaris, who is serving a 15 year sentence in Taiwan — was slammed as too long for 6pm. 'Please no more long investigation reports it's 6pm,' one viewer mused on social media. '10News+ will not survive. A 60 Minutes-style program like this will not connect in the 6 pm timeslot. Families are busy preparing dinner and doing kids homework to really tune in,' another wrote. 'You replaced The Project with a Temu ACA. Not seeing (The Project) is incredibly depressing. 10News+ sucks,' wrote another. The duo then interviewed the Prime Minister, crossed to a reporter covering the the Erin Patterson 'mushroom murders' trial and the claims by a former Greens candidate about police brutality at a pro-Palestine protest. At one point in the broadcast, Hitchcock asked Anthony Albanese if he would ever call US President Donald Trump 'Daddy', following NATO secretary general Mark Rutte's comments last week. 'It's not the words that I would use. I've been very respectful to the President of the United States,' he said. 'I know the Secretary General of NATO quite well, Mark Rutte, and he was formerly the Prime Minister of the Netherlands and he was a bit of a character and I think his own character came through with those comments. 'But they were received well by the President and so all's good.' The show ended with a story on a NSW surfer attacked by a shark at the weekend before an interview with astronaut Chris Hadfield. Hitchcock and Brace closed the show with a fist bump, prompting one viewer to say 'yikes'. Others slammed the hour long show as bland, disappointing and 'unwatchable trash' and 'boring as bats..t'. 'This is trash, so dry and bland. Time for the project 2.0 and a game show in a prime time slot up against Home and Away,' one said. 'You replaced The Project for this tabloid junk? I'm turning this off!' another posted. 10 announced the new program last month, a replacement for the long-running show The Project, which is axed last week after a run of poor ratings.
Perth Now
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Perth Now
‘Boring as bats..t': Channel 10's news show dubbed Temu ACA
Channel 10's replacement for the axed Project has flopped with Perth viewers, beaten by reruns on the ABC and derided online as a boring, Temu current affairs program. 10News+ debuted in Perth with an average audience of just 25,000 according to OzTam data— compared to 7NEWS Perth's share of 137,000 in the same timeslot. It recorded just 1000 viewers in regional WA. But 10's new show came in fourth in Perth, losing out to the ABC's reruns of Antique Roadshow and Hard Quiz over the hour-long slot. Nationally, 10News+ recorded an average share of just 291,000 viewers. Anchors Denham Hitchcock and Amelia Brace opened the program claiming they weren't out to 'scare or depress' viewers. 10News+ anchors Amelia Brace and Denham Hitchcock share a fist bump after the end of their first broadcast Credit: 10Play 'We will give you facts, information you can trust — the truth,' Brace said, before Hitchcock added: 'Of course, we are a daily news program, so you won't miss the stories that matter.' 'But we are also digging deeper with investigations and original reporting you won't see anywhere else,' Brace added. The first segment — a 20 minute-long investigation lead by Hitchcock into drug smuggling Melbourne mum Debbie Voulgaris, who is serving a 15 year sentence in Taiwan — was slammed as too long for 6pm. 'Please no more long investigation reports it's 6pm,' one viewer mused on social media. '10News+ will not survive. A 60 Minutes-style program like this will not connect in the 6 pm timeslot. Families are busy preparing dinner and doing kids homework to really tune in,' another wrote. 'You replaced The Project with a Temu ACA. Not seeing (The Project) is incredibly depressing. 10News+ sucks,' wrote another. Nationally, 10News+ recorded an average share of just 291,000 viewers. Credit: Supplied The duo then interviewed the Prime Minister, crossed to a reporter covering the the Erin Patterson 'mushroom murders' trial and the claims by a former Greens candidate about police brutality at a pro-Palestine protest. At one point in the broadcast, Hitchcock asked Anthony Albanese if he would ever call US President Donald Trump 'Daddy', following NATO secretary general Mark Rutte's comments last week. 'It's not the words that I would use. I've been very respectful to the President of the United States,' he said. 'I know the Secretary General of NATO quite well, Mark Rutte, and he was formerly the Prime Minister of the Netherlands and he was a bit of a character and I think his own character came through with those comments. 'But they were received well by the President and so all's good.' The show ended with a story on a NSW surfer attacked by a shark at the weekend before an interview with astronaut Chris Hadfield. Hitchcock and Brace closed the show with a fist bump, prompting one viewer to say 'yikes'. Others slammed the hour long show as bland, disappointing and 'unwatchable trash' and 'boring as bats..t'. 'This is trash, so dry and bland. Time for the project 2.0 and a game show in a prime time slot up against Home and Away,' one said. 'You replaced The Project for this tabloid junk? I'm turning this off!' another posted. 10 announced the new program last month, a replacement for the long-running show The Project, which is axed last week after a run of poor ratings.
The Advertiser
12-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Advertiser
Yes, audiences have changed. But this is destroying a core tenet of news
This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking.
