Vincent Brown Should Replace John Bowman on Questions and Answers

K4t

This week on Questions and Answers, a man in the audience quite rightly pointed out that Brian Cowen earns more than the President of the USA, the Chancellor of Germany, the PM of Britain, the President of France and the President of Russia. He gave figures of the Government Ministers who also earn more than their equivalents in other countries.
He got a round of applause and with Mary Coughlan sitting on the panel, smug as ever, Bowman went onto another completely different topic.
I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. I don't really like Vincent Brown but I believe 100% that he would have attacked Mary Coughlan about these shocking facts.
John Bowman seems to be totally out of touch with what is going on in this country. He lets politicans go on that show and talk away about this and that and never holds them to accountability or asks the tough questions.

Give Vincent Brown the job and we might start to learn some answers and more importantly, start to hold our politicians who have let us down accountable for their disgraceful behaviour.

DarkJager

John Bowman has always come across as a smug little prick. Totally agree that Vincent Browne would be the perfect replacement.

mike65

Bowman is prolly why I never got into the habit of watching Q&A. Him, the panal, and the rigged audience.

dRNk SAnTA

I've seen episodes where Bowman has completely failed to chair debates, he lets people speak over each other and potentially good debates are completely wasted.

Don't replace him with Vincent Brown though! The host needs a bit of balance.

sceptre

I recall Browne on it one week refusing to let O'Cuiv off the hook when he failed completely to answer a question. Gave him three tries, pointed out he hadn't answered the question and carried on. Shades of that infamous Paxman exchange with Michael Howard, but presumably without Paxman's reasons for prolonging it (in that case the next item wasn't ready so he had to delay it). I was suitably impressed.

Skyuser

Didn't Vincent Brown once present Questions and Answers?

IronMan

While Bowman needs to be replaced, Brown is not the replacement I would like to see. Can you imagine the sighing, the profuse sweating, the need to have a view on every topic presented? Awful.

Short of cloning Paxman, I think Cathal Mac Coille would be a wise choice. A tough taskmaster, impartial (for the most part), and with a wonderful disdain for politician bullshoite, and vested interests. They could do with losing some of the plants in the audience as well.

97i9y3941

i heard that the show is actually rehearsed thats how the politicians give the long and boring winding answers cause they know whats coming,infact i think the reason that alot of politicians wont appear on tv3 is because they dont have to answer to the goverment heavy when comes to that,since they arent state funded,they could ask what ever they want,i find vincent browns show on tv3 is very good

Liam Byrne

I find Browne unwatchable. Bowman is poor, for sure, and I'd love to see him replaced, but not by Browne......maybe Matt Cooper? Or Mark Little ?

Watching Browne's show once or twice, there seemed to be a few times where he said something banal just in order to have an opinion or the last word.

I watched Q&A one night and Bowman made a really pathetic snide comment about Limerick with a smug, goofy grin on his face as he glanced to camera, and I lost respect for him COMPLETELY. While you might expect some idiot in the audience or the panel to talk through their arse or pass some ridiculous comment, the chairman definitely shouldn't and should actually pull someone up on crap like that rather than be a smug git about it. Haven't watched it since.

97i9y3941

dont know why,maybe its out of fear,but i never had seen anyone messing on the show,like someone in the audience acting the bollocks,pity really,cause they do be really boring on that show at times

sceptre

Skyuser wrote: »

Didn't Vincent Brown once present Questions and Answers?

He's subbed in for Bowman a few times.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Watching Browne's show once or twice, there seemed to be a few times where he said something banal just in order to have an opinion or the last word.

I've noticed that too, it's part of the reason I don't watch his TV3 show. He's been rather better on Q&A any time I've seen him.

Fred83 wrote: »

dont know why,maybe its out of fear,but i never had seen anyone messing on the show,like someone in the audience acting the bollocks,pity really,cause they do be really boring on that show at times

Part of the reason for that is that so many (nowhere near all but quite a few) of the audience members are party hacks looking for personal exposure, people from pressure groups looking for group exposure and so on. Not the kind who are likely to misbehave on camera. A few weeks ago (last time I watched it in fact), I saw at least five people I know relatively well, all from different groupings. And I don't have "connections" per se, though I tend to know a reasonable amount of people due to my own past involvement in student politics. Anyone who actually socialises with political opportunists or is themselves a political opportunist probably could have picked out half the audience by name I suspect.

Having said that, I've seen a few people in the audience doing the dog with a bone act and shouting down panel members, and I don't tend to watch the show that much.

97i9y3941

i know it goes out live,would be funny alright,to ask a really stupid or irrevalant question then just to show them up

lostexpectation

vb is very hit and miss but he does ocassionaly rip into guests, like last week with barry andrews

why didn't you read the report.
why didn't you read the report.
why didn't you read the report.
why didn't you read the report.
why didn't you read the report.
why didn't you read the report.

vb does made some odd comments jokes and stutters and has his pet issues, and his poverty stat hammer but he ask some diffierent questions, what you really wanna do is leave on both where they are and watch both. having the vb show on archive has made huge difference tv3 should have done it ten years ago if they really wanted to make a serious repuation for themselves.

love his habit of insulting comic intros to his guests
http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?date_mode=1&locID=1.65.169&newspanel=1

Tristram

One thing we sure as hell DONT need is more Matt Cooper.

DarkJager

Tristram wrote: »

One thing we sure as hell DONT need is more Matt Cooper.

Agreed. He's hard enough to stomach on the radio let alone giving him the reins of a tv show.

ArmaniJeanss

K4t wrote: »

This week on Questions and Answers, a man in the audience quite rightly pointed out that Brian Cowen earns more than the President of the USA, the Chancellor of Germany, the PM of Britain, the President of France and the President of Russia.

At the risk of veering into politics this argument doesnt stand up.
The ex-Presidents of these countries have massive earning powers (Bill Clinton can get $750K for an after dinner speech, TonyB about $100K etc).
So the salary they earn as leader is just a 'token' amount which can effectively be ignored.

Whereas as the exIrish PM has only a tiny fraction of this earning power.

It would be unpopular with the tabloids, but arguably we should hugely increase the salary of the top 5 government positions, maybe make their salary €3M a year.
That way we just might get the best business people having a go at the politics game, instead of the current situation where all we seem to get is 2bit farmers, lawyers, teachers and the sons/daughters of former politicians.
Pay peanuts etc...

K4t

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It would be unpopular with the tabloids, but arguably we should hugely increase the salary of the top 5 government positions, maybe make their salary €3M a year.
That way we just might get the best business people having a go at the politics game, instead of the current situation where all we seem to get is 2bit farmers, lawyers, teachers and the sons/daughters of former politicians.
Pay peanuts etc...

You mean the executives in the banks who have f**ked this country up, the great business men like Sean Fitzpatrick etc.???

I'm sorry but your argument is the flawed one. It is ridiculous high wages and excessive bonuses in the banks and the private sector that has the country in the situation it is today.

moe_sizlak

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

At the risk of veering into politics this argument doesnt stand up.
The ex-Presidents of these countries have massive earning powers (Bill Clinton can get $750K for an after dinner speech, TonyB about $100K etc).
So the salary they earn as leader is just a 'token' amount which can effectively be ignored.

Whereas as the exIrish PM has only a tiny fraction of this earning power.

It would be unpopular with the tabloids, but arguably we should hugely increase the salary of the top 5 government positions, maybe make their salary €3M a year.
That way we just might get the best business people having a go at the politics game, instead of the current situation where all we seem to get is 2bit farmers, lawyers, teachers and the sons/daughters of former politicians.
Pay peanuts etc...

neither does yours stand up , your saying that because the leader of ireland doesnt have the same earning potential on the speech circuit , that they then are entitled to a larger salary while being leader , what tosh , the leaders of similar sized countrys like ireland , denmark , beliguim , new zealand , they dont have the same potential as bill clinton does at after dinner speeches but they are not on biffo,s salary either

completly spurious arguement

sceptre

Funny how things go completely off-topic just because a few people find a stack of soap boxes, eh?

ArmaniJeanss

K4t wrote: »

You mean the executives in the banks who have f**ked this country up, the great business men like Sean Fitzpatrick etc.???

I was more thinking of Michael O'Leary, Anthony O'Reilly, John Magnier, Dermot Desmond, Denis O'Brien. And I know most have those have presided over a falling share price and bankrupt businesses at various stages of their career (not to mention some ethical question marks in a few cases) but such is the nature of the game they are in.

moe_sizlak wrote: »

neither does yours stand up , your saying that because the leader of ireland doesnt have the same earning potential on the speech circuit , that they then are entitled to a larger salary while being leader , what tosh , the leaders of similar sized countrys like ireland , denmark , beliguim , new zealand , they dont have the same potential as bill clinton does at after dinner speeches but they are not on biffo,s salary either

Aye, and in fairness you could have thrown in many other European countries
where the PM's salary is less than 100K.

I agree with you 100% that Cowen earns too much for the quality of job he is doing.
But how else do you propose to get the best people for the job to go into politics (and conversely get the worst people to decide not too bother)?
In my opinion you either a) pay a totally massive salary to encourage the best and the brightest to get involved or b) pay zero salary to discourage the gombeen men but hopefully get independantly wealthy patriots to step up to the mark.
Merely reduce the salary by 33% or something like that and I think you will still see the same set of chancers in politics.

Frightening thought is that maybe when it comes down to it there is actually no-one in the country capable of running it properly.

deleriumtremens

If only we could clone Paxman.

<scratches chin>

Our man in Havana

As said the audience is carefully vetted to make sure no upstarts get tickets. Anyone that calls that 01 number for tickets is very carefully screened to make sure that they don't act the bollox on the show.

I agree that Bowman is in need of replacing. Browne would be a good choice. You really need someone impartial to host that show.

phenomenon

mike65 wrote: »

Bowman is prolly why I never got into the habit of watching Q&A. Him, the panal, and the rigged audience.

This pretty much sums up the show for me.

We need it to be more like the BBC's Question Time, where the audience seems to consist of members of the general public rather than county council politicians looking for their 15 seconds of fame as on Q&A.

Also when an audience member makes a valid point or asks an important question, Bowman tends ignore it and pass onto the next question. Which shows contempt for the audience imo.

At the end of the day, the show merely serves as an outlet for politicians to spin out their rehearsed spiel with no real debate taking place. The politicians have Bowman wrapped around their little finger.

pixelburp

I think in general Ireland lacks a certain amount of rigor in its TV political analysis, I don't think that Q&A is necessarily alone in that score. If Q&A and the like lack any kind of intensity, it is because we the people lack the backbone & are too apathetic to call our representatives out when they act they way they do. We can't expect our broadcasters to do this when we ourselves don't.

In a broader sense, we simply don't have a culture of political activism, full stop (bar the aforementioned student cronies). I don't see that trend getting any better with the age of Facebook & the blog; I despair when I see my friends and colleagues signing up to Facebook groups as being their token example voicing a political opinion & that's about as far as it'll go.

We don't even possess a relatively healthy sense of angry satire; I have always felt that, say what you like about the place, Britain has a healthy state of natural cynicism towards its politics & its satire reflects that. The Brits actually get angry - look at Paxman as the ultimate example of this - we just laugh and shrug our shoulders. Look at "The Panel" for any political satire (granted, last nights episode - a repeat? - had barely any) & you get mild teasing at the "Cute Hoor" mentality & the occasional legal caveats for any lawyers watching.

lostexpectation

Bond-007 wrote: »

As said the audience is carefully vetted to make sure no upstarts get tickets. Anyone that calls that 01 number for tickets is very carefully screened to make sure that they don't act the bollox on the show.

I agree that Bowman is in need of replacing. Browne would be a good choice. You really need someone impartial to host that show.

and if you do ask a valid question you get hung on your political affiliations