The journalist asked us for comments and clarification, which we gave them straight away…and they actually did us justice.
I’m sure others featured in this article may not have been given the same treatment.
Our spending and costs have always been very transparent and in this article, that is showcased.
Here’s a bit extra that I wrote to them that didn’t make it into the article.
“If the people of Australia didn’t see a need for our services, they wouldn’t financially support us. If for whatever reason the support from the people stops, we would know that our services are no longer needed. That would be a good thing because it would mean that Australians have gotten their God-given rights back and no longer need us to be a collective voice for them. I would welcome that development.
RDA has no large funders or backers, we don’t even have sponsors or paid advertisers…which we probably should have seeing as our website gets up to 200,000 views per week. We are 100% funded by the people’s use of our services and their direct financial support. Having no large funders means we are completely independent and not controlled or dictated to by anyone.”
Below are the screenshots about RDA
Responses
I think that this was meant to be a good old-fashionable muck-raking piece. I don’t feel that it worked in that capacity. For all their efforts there was very little mud that they could actually throw.
I thought it particularly ludicrous that one of their angles of attack was to claim that the pro-democracy groups were profiting from COVID. Have they seen Pfizer’s bottom line lately?
One positive though: it was very good publicity for a number of pro-democracy / anti censorship organisations. Anyone just starting to have some doubts was given some useful resources to explore.
All I got from that tripe article is that we’re all “anti-vaxxers” and spread vaccine misinformation. What a freaking joke!
No readers’ comments on that article.
How strange…. the Age wouldn’t be afraid of negative feedback, would they?