He thinks the world is flat? Dinkum? Nah, let him speak.
Agree, let him speak. We are a free country with freedom of speech. Which means we have the right to point out this guy is a complete f'wit.
The issue is the media. Instead of reporting and investigating, the media give both sides equal time and validity and focus on volatile debate. F@kin lazy journalism. This is what turns countries stupid. An opposing voice shouldn't automatically be given equal time and validity for the sake of being an opposing voice. The media needs to call out crack pots and investigate wild claims that oppose the majority of scientific study.
In a perfect world, we allow this knob to speak, the media gives him little airtime, investigates the claims and simply exposes them for the lies they are. The public then gets to move onto their lives without listening to this ridiculous debate where the stupid latch on to charlatans like this.
The media does not validate these claims. Well at least the mainstream media I read. Can you point me to an article in the mainstream press that recognises the legitimacy of people like Wolfe? The articles I've read about anti-vaccers exclusively debunk their claims.
The media generally do little of anything, except be a moderator for ridiculous debates simply to promote volatility for ratings sake. The media doesn't have to come out and agree with a side, simply giving equal airtime without questioning claims against those with proven scientific study.
How often do we see climate debates on "news" shows, the climate denier (generally a right wing media opinion writer like Rita Panahi) pitted head to head with a well renown scientist....it's embarrassing. The sheep sitting at home think, "well she had equal time, so she must have a valid point". Next we hear an NBA basketballer thinking the earth is flat.
ABC's Q&A is another perfect example. How often do we see the IPA represented on that show? Debating human rights, fairer tax systems and immigration. May as well have Mussolini on the panel. Our media lets us down is all I'm saying.
Your point about Climate Change debates is on point, usually there's always some right wing media opinion pitted head to head with a renowned scientist, the fact that it's 1:1 gives the illusion to the viewership that the debate is 50:50 ie. opinion is divided, when the reality is that if you were to actually proportionate people who are on board with climate change vs the deniers it would be like 97 people shouting down 3.