For those of you unfortunate enough to be presented with the Heralds concern for all of us today, you poor bastards. I am of course talking about the front page of the Herald 12, Nov 07.
I agree that the bill is bad, indeed even wrong, but having been exposed to both the bloody Brethren’s crap in the last election, and now the political advertising here in North America, something needed to be done to protect us from any and every loonie with a buck to spend espousing all manner of half truth and pararnoid crap. What was it the Brethren had to say about the greens?.
However do not be fooled for one minute. The Herald does not have the concern of you me or dear old democracy at heart. They are concerned about their bottom line, the income that they will potentially loose as a result of the bill.
I’ll state it again, just so the rabid right don’t get confused (you need to do this for these guys). I think the bill is bad in it’s present form, but the essence of the bill is good. No outrageous spending by special interest groups.
I’m sure we will all love seeing abortions in print, or hearing that there is no such thing as global warming or that Maori and Asian are the problem with NZ. Any and all of these potential adverts was the path that we were heading down under the previous system, and to stop that crap is good (come on bleeding heart libertarians it’s true).
But and this is the big Butt. The Herald’s editorial has as much to do with the loss of advertising income over the next year, as it is about the concerns for the democracy of the masses. You are of course free to disagree, this is a democracy (despite the what the bill’s adversaries say). However the editor is driven by the bottom dollar as as much as anything else, and the potential loss of revenue from limiting political spending is one of the main reasons that the media is so concerned about such legislation.