Brian Edwards Media

They Shoot Designers, Don’t They?

I spend most of Q+A with my eyes closed.  It’s not that the people are exceptionally ugly, or pull hideous faces, or have annoying tics. It’s just that the moving lines on the background drive me nuts.  I can’t concentrate on what anyone is saying; my eyes are riveted on those hypnotic orange stripes.

This surely breaks every rule of good set design. A background should add to the mood and the look of the programme.  If it’s an interview set it should allow people to wear a variety of clothing and colours without clashing horribly, looking like clowns or disappearing.

What it should never do is compete. This background not only competes – it wins every time.

And then there’s the panel set.  Three people elevated like high court judges, and Paul Holmes peering up at them from below, barely able to get his chin over  the bench.  Paul isn’t the tallest fellow on the planet, but he’s not a midget, for goodness sake, and this set makes him look ridiculously short.

Q + A is a welcome addition to our telly fare.  It’s our only chance to see politicians in extended interviews, to get past the sound-bite culture. The presenters are good – Holmes is in his element on an intelligent programme and Guyon Espiner has calmed down his Jack Russell impersonation enough to let people answer questions.

So let’s get rid of those moving backgrounds and make it a good watching experience as well.

And bring back the whimsically eccentric Jane Clifton.  I miss her.


19/4/09:  I see that they’ve lowered the bench on the panel set.  Now if they’d just deal to the stripes…

, , , ,


  1. Couldn’t agree more, Judy. They fixed it one week, then it was back again the next. I could barely watch the interview with Goff. And someone is paying these idiots!

  2. Agreed. The set detracts from, rather than enhances, the show.