A Q&A producer has spoken out about women refusing to appear on the popular panel, hosted by Tony Jones. Credit:ABC It was a pity Malcolm Turnbull chose not to appear on Monday night because he gets what's wrong with the program. In November 2011 Turnbull appeared on the final Q&A for that year. As usual, he was one of a panel of predictable role-playing "talent": the right-wing MP, the conservative, the leftie pollie, the feminist tree hugger, the think-tank spruiker, the populist author and/or media-savvy academic and/or journo. Turnbull was asked a question – repeatedly – that required him to dump crap on Tony Abbott about statutory contracts for workers. A tabloid TV gotcha moment. Here's how Turnbull responded: "The role of a frontbencher in the Westminster system when asked a question like the one you just asked me is to squirm uncomfortably for a few minutes. Now I've done that, I want to move on ... "

At the time I wrote that Q&A had become all about squirming. The aim of having Mallah in the live audience asking a live question looks to me like a case of wanting someone – the Liberal MP Steve Ciobo – to squirm. I'd like to see him squirm too, but only under the pressure of measured, sensible debate, not by ambush and cheap shots. Worse, the Mallah episode looks to have been designed to create the biggest controversy possible – and thereby justify the program's existence through headlines, backlash and, we assume, ratings. Does the evolution of Q&A into tabloid gotcha TV do the ABC's credibility any good? Does it help the ABC ward off the ideologically and commercially driven attacks from its loudest critics who don't even bother to hide their bias any more? The Zaky Mallah case shows once again that you are getting less context and more inflammatory statements on Q&A.

Not in my view. I believe Turnbull is genuine when he says he stands up for the ABC. But the public broadcaster's acceptance of Q&A's shift towards populist sensationalism makes his job harder. Here's how Turnbull gave Q&A a delicious backhander in November 2011: "A lot of the media is now narrowcasting. Increasingly [media outlets] are not seeking to present a balanced view across the board. They are expressing a particularly strong opinion of one kind or another ... Where is there in the middle of all of these opinions – in what has ceased to be a news cycle and has become an opinion cycle? Where are the facts ... the objective, the rational account? That is what very many people are frustrated about. And it's a problem the wonders of the internet have exacerbated." Then host Tony Jones sought to claim the moral high ground for Q&A: "Well, luckily you can hear the context right here." The Mallah case shows once again that you are getting less context and more inflammatory statements on Q&A. As a public broadcaster, the ABC carries a significant responsibility to deliver balance, fairness and restraint in the public discourse as the age of cheap opinions and cheap shots overwhelms reasoned debate.

I wrote almost four years that Q&A was feeding the opinion monster. The Mallah episode, sadly, confirms my earlier misgivings. Such is life … PS: To the scores of readers who have written to me in the past fortnight to share their struggles with alcohol and other addictions, my heartfelt gratitude. For those who have seen a doctor and set about changing their lives, good on you. To the many of you who are joining me on the journey to sobriety, hang in there! Wednesday marks day 13 off the booze for me. It's tough, but it sure helps knowing that we're in this together. astokes@fairfaxmedia.com.au