sizy_one wrote:
> On May 6, 1:53 pm, "John of Aix" <j.mur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> More difficult I think as in the case of newspapers it isn't
>> presented as it comes out from Labour/Liberal Democrat or
>> Conservative central office but interpreted and commented on. They
>> need something to fill their rags with other stuff than just tits,
>> bums and competitions.
>
> The idea is a separate uncommented news sheet/paper free of charge
> delivered to the door or distributed through news agents or both.
> Something like once a month leading up to the election. Expensive I
> know, but if you want to take democracy seriously it has to be paid
> for.
Well I think, on this theme, it would be a good idea to send everyone a
detailed balance sheet with their tax forms, in a similar way to the
details sent to shareholders (for taxpayers are that in sum) so that
they know where the money has been spent and why they need more of it or
why the 'board' shoud be sacked if they haven't run the 'company' UK
correctly.
>>> Don't forget the larger parties already have an advantage with their
>>> strong party member****p base but this gives the chance for outsiders
>>> to at least be heard which is something sorely missed today.
>> Well we get a far larger percentage of BNPers here than in the
>> general media so the outlet is there.
>
> Yes, but I get the impression that only sensationalism gets coverage
> which shouldn't just be the case at election time.
I'm afraid that sensationalism is how 'newspapers' live and why I
despise them so
>> I can see no reason to give small parties
>> equal airtime just because they happen to exist.
>
> If you don't you can't say you have a democracy as otherwise an
> individual has to make the decision who is heard and who is not.
Better perhaps to ban them all from the airwaves.
>> First they have to
>> prove their usefulness and representation, which, so far, they
>> haven't.
>
> That is the whole point that they can't do any of those things until
> they have been heard and if they don't have the platform they never
> will be regardless of what they have to say.
Yes but why should they be given a platfioerm when (at that moment) they
represent only a tiny pro****tion of the population?
>> I'd agree that the current system is weighted against them but that
>> has probably always been the case.
>
> And it's about time it was changed.
Perhaps.
>> If their ideas are valid and valuable
>> then people will listen.
>
> Exactly, you don't have to read or listen to them if you don't agree
> with them but you must be given the option.
> It's the only way I can see to create a healthy democratic election
> outside the influence of the media. After all it's not the media that
> should be running the country.
Oh yes I definitely agree there but unfortunately that is the case.
People give too much im****tance and credence to the media which cannot
be justified on the results.
|
