Firstly - hey Pepper Haven't seen you here for ages! (if at all...)
I have a bit of a query, not being over there, but in the interests of 'fairness', wouldn't the obvious response be to actually fund opposing viewpoints, rather than suppress current ones.
The problem I've always seen is that money talks - loudly. Take MS for example. It's products may not be the best (often tragically so), but because of the money they can afford to invest in marketing, they're still a brand leader in sales. I would say the same would be said for political viewpoints. The more you can spend to get your opinions heard, the more you can make people believe them.
Someone the other day told me Australia is the only country that actually pays the opposition party to have a 'shadow ministry'. (Is this true?) Personally, I don't have a problem with it - I see it as helping democracy, regardless of the price.
I have a bit of a query, not being over there, but in the interests of 'fairness', wouldn't the obvious response be to actually fund opposing viewpoints, rather than suppress current ones.
The problem I've always seen is that money talks - loudly. Take MS for example. It's products may not be the best (often tragically so), but because of the money they can afford to invest in marketing, they're still a brand leader in sales. I would say the same would be said for political viewpoints. The more you can spend to get your opinions heard, the more you can make people believe them.
Someone the other day told me Australia is the only country that actually pays the opposition party to have a 'shadow ministry'. (Is this true?) Personally, I don't have a problem with it - I see it as helping democracy, regardless of the price.
Comment