According to Nick Tabakoff in The Australian, Sharma claimed the show’s producers shifted the goalposts on how the show would look. He said when he first agreed in early February to appear on Q+A, he was told the issues would be a mix of the Religious Discrimination Bill and overseas politics, together with the news of the day. But when a producer contacted Sharma last Monday (February 14) to confirm topics and guests, the producer told Sharma that the “broader theme” of the show would now be “disaffected voters, the election, independents and integrity”, and ACT Senate candidate and former Wallaby David Pocock had been added to the panel. Sharma told the producer “this now looks like a set up to me” and pulled the plug, before explaining his decision to Stan Grant later. Pocock eventually did not appear and Liberal candidate for Gilmore, Andrew Constance, was added to last Thursday’s panel alongside Bowen, Spender, Sheridan and Dr Lee.
Not sure why Q+A can’t take the Monday timeslot for at least part of the year if ABC are going to un current affairs there anyway. Swap the two programs.
Thursday, March 3 | Live from Melbourne
What is the West willing to sacrifice for Ukraine?
The world is watching as Russian troops continue a full-scale invasion of Europe’s second largest country. Ukrainians have mobilised to defend their nation as Russian President Vladimir Putin places his nuclear forces on high alert. Waves of cyber-attacks and malicious disinformation campaigns have also hit Ukrainian networks and businesses. What are the broader consequences of war in eastern Europe?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says his people will fight for as long as it takes. Australia has joined a Western-led effort – funding weapons to Ukraine and implementing economic sanctions on Russia but won’t commit to troops on the ground. Why aren’t foreign forces being deployed and is this a moment of truth for the international community?
There’s been an outpouring of support for Ukraine from around the world, including large turnouts at anti-war protests within Russia. In Australia, thousands have rallied in support of Ukraine. How are Australia’s Ukrainian and Russian communities feeling as they watch the conflict from afar?
Stan Grant hosts Q+A live from Melbourne on Thursday, March 3 at 8.30pm AEDT.
-
Dennis Richardson is a career diplomat whose former roles include Director-General of ASIO, Secretary of DFAT, Secretary of Defence, and Ambassador to Washington.
-
Deborah Snow’s journalistic career of more than 35 years includes seven years in the Canberra press gallery where she reported on defence, foreign affairs and trade for the Australian Financial Review.
-
Brendan O’Connor was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2001 as the Member for Burke. After a shadow cabinet reshuffle in January 2021, Brendan was appointed as the Shadow Minister for Defence.
-
Dr Olga Boichak is a Lecturer in Digital Cultures at the University of Sydney. She is a Ukrainian-born sociologist with expertise in computational social science, and her research interests span networks, narratives, and cultures of activism in the digital age.
Not sure how I feel about the host kicking out an audience member for disagreeing with their opinion (for the record, I completely disagree with the audience member).
Actually that guy wasn’t voicing his opinion, he was pushing for the angle that Russia is justified and saying that it was necessary and it’s not exactly good influence. We don’t need that in this part of the world.
I just don’t like the idea of being kicked out for expressing an opinion. It shows that the ABC are biased and influencing people on how to think, even if 99.9% of the country (myself included) share the same POV as Stan that Russia invading Ukraine is not justified. It’s interesting too that he waited 20 minutes until after the question was asked to kick the guy out.
Did you watch it?
Didn’t watch it live but have caught up with all the relevant clips and quotes.
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
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.
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? 
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.
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.
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.
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.