What I think is wrong is spending £9m of taxpayers' money on one particular piece of one-sided propaganda.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
That's basically what's going on now: Everything is propaganda.
Using official government resources to help bankroll an explicit political agenda - whether on the right or left - is flat out wrong.
There is still an element of the BBC that feels it is somehow wrong, or it will be open to criticism, if it makes more money.
BBC TV gets hold of an idea and beats it to death until we're all heartily sick of it. They buy people without thinking what they're going to do with them. It's the wrong way around. What they should be doing is employing really good ideas people to come up with good ideas.
Without a unified political climate of opinion, there is little or no political profit in doing the right thing.
Tony Blair is paid $500,000 for one speech, and no one asks how he is going to spend it.
I think most things I read on the Internet and in newspapers are propaganda. Everyone from the 'New York Times' to Rupert Murdoch has a point of view and is putting forth their own propaganda. They're stuck with the facts as they are, but the way they interpret and frame them is wildly different.
It's so easy for propaganda to work, and dissent to be mocked.
Why is propaganda so much more successful when it stirs up hatred than when it tries to stir up friendly feeling?
I think it is wrong to spend $4 or $5 million in a campaign.