An Exhaustive And Deeply Disheartening Breakdown Of Australia’s Verdict On ‘The Verdict’
Spoilers: they did not like it.
As Australian media sat down to report on or review The Verdict this morning, the task must have seemed impossible.
For many, this was because they didn’t watch it at all. After the controversial discussion to include Mark Latham, many declared their intention to avoid Channel Nine’s new panel show completely. And, within the first five minutes, notable names started dropping off the hashtag to flee into the warm embrace of bed, rush towards the bottom of a bottle of wine, or simply walk into the cold cruel sea — all options made spectacularly more appealing by their distinct lack of unapologetic and uncensored racism.
"It pains me to say, in Western Sydney there is a Muslim problem." – Mark Latham. Thoughts? #TheVerdict
— #TheVerdict (@TheVerdict9) October 8, 2015
For those that stuck around, the task was equally as difficult.
The Verdict was billed as a show where “Australia’s most informed minds debate our country’s biggest issues”, but that premise became muddied when those minds included Jacqui Lambie (a Senator who’s better known for her spectacularly offensive gaffes than policy); Campbell Brown (a footballer with no notable political expertise or record of social activism); and a man who had recently, inexplicably, told a crowd of innocent elderly people to “fuck off”. Tackling terrorism, mental health, and immigration policy concerning Chris Brown and Tory Newman, the show delivered on its big issues. But with huge personalities either unwilling or unable to participate in an insightful or meaningful discussion, there was no actual debate. There was only screaming.
As I sit, ready to recap the whole experience to you, I’m also drawing a blank. Somewhere around the 10-minute mark in last night’s episode, the loud noises propelled my brain against the back of my skull and all memory of it has been transformed into this:
In an effort to overcome this (and give tribute to the show’s inadvisable commitment to ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers), here’s an attempt at a simpler breakdown:
–
Was Karl Stefanovic A Decent Host?
Despite being perhaps the biggest drawcard of the series — Channel Nine have been in negotiations with him for the better part of a year — Karl Stefanovic did not deal well with the panel format. Eager to get their thoughts across, the panelists didn’t hesitate to scream over one another and (though he exhibited enough knowledge on each of the topics) Karl did little to control them.
When you have to literally yell at your guests maybe something isn't working #theverdict
— Jenna Ghoullaume (@JennaGuillaume) October 8, 2015
"It could go anywhere folks" Karl's attempt at "I'll take that as a comment" #TheVerdict
— Bhakthi (@bhakthi) October 8, 2015
Fortunately, the show eventually split into separate segments including two interviews which provided some brief reprieve from the mayhem. Unfortunately, those solo interviews were with Jacqui Lambie discussing terrorism and recently-deported pro-life activist Troy Newman discussing abortion. Though Karl asked pointed questions and exhibited some of the resolve we’ve previously seen in his political work on Today, this was overshadowed by the more troubling question whether these people should have been provided the platform in the first place.
Consensus:
— “[Karl was] less an arbiter and more of an unarmed victim of the crossfire.” – ABC
— “This Karl Stefanovic-led shout-fest made such a stinking mess in your living room you longed for the relatively decorous surrounds of the ABC’s weekly goldfish bowl, where Tony Jones may carry a big stick but rarely has to use it.” – Sydney Morning Herald
–
Was Mark Latham A Valid Addition To The Panel?
Wasting no time at all, former Labor leader/current self-inflating whoopee cushion Mark Latham started the show declaring Western Sydney had “a Muslim problem”. Though the topic was specifically about Islamic extremism, Latham deviated considerably stating, “It might be time to say western Sydney needs a break from the wave of Muslim migration that results in long term unemployment and welfare”.
Soon after that, in an effort to address Mental Health Week, Stefanovic asked Latham to bring forward his own (previously covered) topic about what he perceives as the over-medication of depression and anxiety. Describing the latter as “what we used to call worrying too much”, he was met with much protest from the rest of the panel and outrage from those on social media.
Verdict on #theVerdict. I'd laugh it off if Latham hadn't said such dangerously uninformed stuff on mental illness.
— Barrie Cassidy (@barriecassidy) October 8, 2015
It should probably also be noted that, mere moments before all this, he’d enthusiastically declared his support for “the Donald [Trump]”. Despite the groans of many, Latham doggedly defended the leading candidate for Republican presidential nominee before literally having his hair stroked by a fellow panelist who wanted him to calm down.
Consensus:
— “Mark Latham [lived] up to expectations: offending as many people as possible.” – The Guardian
— “Mark Latham [was] entirely predictably but no less offensive.” – Daily Life
— “Mark Latham’s grossly offensive comments about mental health … were not an accident.” – The Herald Sun
–
Did It Reveal Any New Information Or Start Any Helpful Discussions?
See above.
Just saw the audition tapes for #TheVerdict pic.twitter.com/F43CTSjiAr
— Jazz Twemlow (@JazzTwemlow) October 8, 2015
Exclusive photo from the set of #TheVerdict pic.twitter.com/n5mQddHG1c
— Amy Gray (@_AmyGray_) October 8, 2015
Consensus:
— “It provided a perfect microcosm of the Australian discourse — which is to say there was a lot of shouting and pointlessly internecine conflict servicing nothing in particular.” – ABC
— “We’re all dumber for having seen it.” – The Herald Sun
–
Was It A Commercial Success?
Despite the show being shamelessly hyped to garner interest and outrage, the numbers fell fairly flat. Clocking in at around 522,000, the ratings are fairly standard, but when compared to its less controversial competitors it seems far less impressive. Not only was it pipped by the season return of Gogglebox on Channel Ten, it was thrashed by an old repeat of Highway Patrol.
Says it all really #TheVerdict pic.twitter.com/jiGqVNCPYU
— Alicia Ames (@aliciiames) October 9, 2015
For a broader comparison, Channel Seven’s premiere of Cats Make You Laugh Out Loud earlier this year pulled in a mammoth 917,000 viewers and their follow-up Dogs Make You Laugh Out Loud earned an even better 1.7 million. That’s more than three times the overall audience for some delightful pictures of dogs that neither offended nor caused significant mental distress for anyone.
Next week on #TheVerdict: Corey Worthington Con The Fruiterer Clare 'Chk Chk Boom' Werbeloff Mark Latham again Lone man packing up the set
— Peter Taggart (@petertaggart) October 8, 2015
–
Was There Anything Redeeming About It At All?
The frustrating thing about all this is that the idea at the core of the show is decent. With its knotty ideological debates, constant political bickering, and high-brow reputation, Q&A is widely derided as a bit of a circle-jerk. The same people follow along each week sending pithy tweets, little definitive action is ever reached from the topics discussed and most of the nation happily ignore it completely.
Though this doesn’t necessarily mean they’re justified in doing so, it does mean there’s a crucial gap in the market — one that could be wonderfully filled by a commercial alternative like The Verdict. It has a smart and affable host, it’s committed to “big ideas”, it has considerable access to high-profile personalities, and with both broad discussion and one-on-one interviews its format has potential.
There's a lot of really good structural ideas in #TheVerdict Curious to see how it develops.
— Marc Fennell (@marcfennell) October 8, 2015
However, with a consistent push for outrage and a bewildering execution that allows for only superficial interaction with each subject, this is potential which is totally squandered. And, if nothing changes within the next few episodes, we’ll know for sure that the producers simply don’t care.
Shows like #theVerdict don't want an exchange or a verdict. They want to profit from outrage & validation & we are all part of the problem.
— Amy Gray (@_AmyGray_) October 8, 2015
Consensus:
— “Rather than being a lightning rod for popular conversation, The Verdict only serves as a cheap vision into the junkyard of resentment that Australia’s discourse currently sits in.” – ABC
— “Commercial television’s take on hit ABC discussion show Q&A last night was the small screen equivalent of haemorrhoids — a sudden pain in the arse that’s tricky to get rid of.” – The Herald Sun