after watching the question in question he is pushing an angle that Russia is justified. he’s not a good influence . and I’m glad grant liked him out , your right we don’t need that in this part of the world
1 Like
Except the guy’s opinions are unfounded and have no basis in fact. Posing a question that is undoubtedly biased towards the Kremlin and accusing the media of portraying Russia badly and saying that Ukraine has been bad towards the people in the Donbas region is misinformation and he should be shut off for promoting that.
A legitimate opinion in that area should be ‘Has the media fully considered Russia’s arguments and their history in their portrayal of Russia’ rather than ‘Ukraine has been a tyranny in Donbas region and that Putin is the saviour in the world and the media ought to be ashamed of portraying him as otherwise. He’s a Pro-Russian hack with no good intention other than to hijack Q&A with his unashamed misinformation.
4 Likes
you can see he went with an agenda and that agenda was to hijack q and a with as you said his unashamed misinformation
Firstly, I can’t begin to imagine how you’re feeling at the moment not only seeing what’s unfolding in your home country but also worrying about the safety/status of your cousin and daughter. Think I can speak for everyone here when I say that I hope they’re safe and that you’re able to get in contact with them ASAP.
In regards to the quoted point, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head in regards to the major issue. Most of the pro-Russian person’s ‘question’ was really a comment/statement which shouldn’t have gotten past the vetting process in the form it was allowed to be delivered in on air (or at the very least, Stan Grant should have interjected when the person veered into delivering his statement). I agree with Tom that there was definitely a way the person could have asked a question that allowed the panel to address the pro-Russian perspective. However, the person didn’t want to ask such a question.
The other issue is how the ejection unfolded (ie; did Grant make a unilateral editorial decision or did the producers make the call) and why it happened 10 - 15 minutes after the person asked the question. Feel like such a decision had to have happened ‘in the moment’. Ejecting the person later on in the show not only drew more attention to what happened but it seems weird for Q&A to circle back to the moment - especially when it could have been prevented in the first place if the show’s producers wanted to.
KICK-IT hasn’t posted on this thread.
Really? So are you Ukrainian or are you an Indigenous Australian? 
8 Likes
Why did the ABC let the guy on in the first place would of they have known the Question.
Potentially - and I don’t know - could he have mislead them with what he was going to ask or how he’d go about it? You’d have to imagine that they wouldn’t allow that sort of comment, so there are certainly questions around how he was able to do so.
2 Likes
Same. Also he wasn’t being aggressive or anything in that sort of nature. You didn’t have to like or agree with what he said. But to throw him out because of what he said is a gross over-reaction whether it was Stan Grants or the Producers decision. And it destroys the whole purpose of the show.
1 Like
There is always a line…
I’m not how anyone with a sane mind can sympathise with this audience member
I’m a little bit surprised that Q&A allowed his vetted question (and then thought it was safe to ask him to trim it back twice - according to some reporting I saw), surely there’s some expectation that he might have gone a bit off the approved topic?
Turfing him out 20 minutes after the question is a bit of a strange way to handle it - he said his piece and by all accounts didn’t do anything to attract further attention. Have to wonder if Stan turfed him directly after the question whether it would get the coverage it did - there is a bit of a weird vibe about it, almost as if someone higher up made the call.
6 Likes
ABC statement on last night’s episode
The point of Q+A is to bring together people with a range of widely divergent views and create a forum where they can have a civil and productive discussion despite their differences. Controversial opinions are inevitable, but they are also challenged by the host, panellists and audience.
Sasha Gillies-Lekakis did not ask the question that he had agreed. What he said instead contained major inaccuracies. He was asked to finish his question and the issue was aired in the panel discussion.
As the program developed, Stan Grant, a highly experienced presenter of live TV, was aware that other audience members were distressed. After careful consideration he decided the best course of action was for Mr Gillies-Lekakis to leave the studio, which was live-to-air.
The ABC fully supports his judgment and handling of this situation.
4 Likes
Sasha Gillies-Lekakis has released a statement:
On Friday, Gillies-Lekakis, who spent a semester living and studying in communist Cuba, hit back at his critics and Grant, claiming he ‘made no direct statement sanctioning violence or conflict’.
–
‘I was hoping to make the point that I support Putin’s grievances regarding the breaking of the Minsk Peace Agreement by the Ukraine, and the ensuing loss of life.’
–
‘I find Mr Grant’s statements following my departure, and the fact that I was asked to leave the program, disappointing and unprofessional.’
–
But Mr Gillies-Lekakis now claims he is ‘unequivocally against war and the loss of any lives’ and argues his ‘words were misrepresented and incomplete’ because he was cut off from finishing his question.
–
The Spanish and Latin American Studies student from the University of Melbourne also denied allegations his question was ‘unvetted’ and ‘rogue’.
–
He claims to have followed all the appropriate channels, including submitting the question via the Q&A portal and finessing it at the request of production.
–
‘I am genuinely sorry that things took the turn they did. However, at the same time, an acknowledgement of the ABC’s questionable conduct would also be appreciated.’
I have feeling if that he was kicked on purpose just to create headlines, and to get people talking about the show, it kinda feels like it was stunt to kick him out in a bid to increase the ratings.
3 Likes
I get the feeling you are on his side. I’m not interested in his statement. He is a nobody with no credibility.
2 Likes
As I clearly said on here last night, I disagree with his point of view on the Russia-Ukraine situation, but I don’t think he should be ejected from the room because they don’t like the question asked.
1 Like
Yes he should. He is insighting violence.
2 Likes
No, you seriously think they’d set up an opportunity to do this next week as well in the hope a few extra people tuned in?
Should it have been handled sooner, sure but if there was sense of unease in the audience with him there good on Grant for doing what he did. I’d not want to share TV studio with someone like that.
1 Like
I am not sympathising with him nor that i support his view. I just think it’s a bad look for a show like Q&A - thats supposed to host debate, conversation and opinion - to throw someone out for having the wrong opinion. Already bad enough that the show in recent years basically consist of panellists (mostly from the Left) who all whistle the same tune or sing the same harmony and they put on one person who is either a Centrist or Right-Leaning and gets piled on by the panel and sometimes the host.
He isn’t the first to insight violence on Q&A. Don’t forget Mona who was a panellist back in 2019. Do you think she should’ve been kicked off too?
If the audience doesn’t like a certain opinion - ill-informed or not - voiced by either an audience member, host or panellist then tough tits or don’t go on the show. I was in the Studio Audience for one episode back in 2017, there were some opinions made that i didn’t like or agree with but i certainly wouldn’t want them chucked out because of that.
5 Likes
The tolerance of many to dissenting points of view or opinions is diminishing, and preferences are to silence them. Generally, I think this is a bad idea and contributes to people living in echo chambers - but this doesn’t apply to every situation and this is one of them.
5 Likes