Gav Reilly ponders about the last edition of Question and Answers which excluded the central part of the show. The element which made Q&A what it was — the audience interaction.

That interaction lead to what will likely stand as one of the most powerful contributions in the programme’s history. Even those of us who felt sick after reading coverage of the Ryan Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Michael O’Brien’s now famous appearance gave viewers a greater understanding of the pain and anger felt by victims of abuse and the way the Government was handling the issue.

Wouldn’t it have been great be able to open the floor some questions out of the Taoiseach,  who was the final guest? Ok, so, Brian Cowen would have been unlikely to appear if he knew uncomfortable questions could come from the floor. But that should not be the concern of a current affairs programme.

Unfortunately,  John Bowman not only wants focus on more on history, he started to do so heavy with the last show. And that would be ok, if he was not so uncritical in his methods. Soft questions — like how the Taoiseach comes across on TV — were the order of the day and too much rhetoric from Cowen left unchallenged. What was the point of the interview?

In a question on standing by former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, Cowen answered:

“I see my job as being part of a collective authority which is cabinet and one supports the leader of the cabinet at all times. Without that you don’t get decision making…”

Isn’t this the type of unquestioning support of authority at all times the kind of environment that allowed abuse of children who were in the care of the State? Isn’t it the kind of environment the leaves too much room for bad decisions to be made on so many different levels? Has it not led to unaccountably?

Maybe it’s unfair to criticise Bowman when it seems to be standard in the media not to hold Government to account? Maybe Bowman is focused on some other part of the bigger picture I don’t see?

As Gav Reilly says:

The premise of the show was about getting public figures into a room and essentially holding them accountable. It will forever be a shame that the final guest, the most powerful the show could ever get hold of, was allowed to break that mould.

And to paraphrase Jeremy Paxman: When one is in a position to interview those in power the person should ask questions that people would expect to be asked, and continue until the question is actually answered. The amount of unquestioned rhetoric in the Cowen interview makes it fail this requirement. To be fair, Paxman also says one often gets it wrong.