Press freedom 598
GarconDuMonde writes "Reporters San Frontiers has released it's third annual worldwide index of press freedom. Although the majority of top-ranking countries are from northern Europe, it is perhaps more interesting to note where countries such as Switzerland, Italy, the UK and the USA fall (1, 39, 28 and 22, respectively)."
Re:Isn't Switzerland (Score:1, Informative)
See: http://indymediawatch.blogspot.com/2004/10/fbi-co
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I am amazed that US is so high. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I am amazed that US is so high. (Score:1, Informative)
while we suffered McCarthy, it was still a freer america (of course, it was simplier times).
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:3, Informative)
For what it's worth, the Sun is American owned (Rupert Murdoch) and Pravda is Russian only. It's hard to specify "European" newspapers, because there are no international European newspapers, only national ones.
What is most disturbing is that in this day and age that there still exists repression of thought in some countries.
Not at all, we in the western world haven't had complete freedom of press and speech for a long time, but if it were up to Bush, this freedom would be taken away again ("There ought to be limits to freedom."):
http://kookaburra.typepad.com/weblog/2004/09/biker _against_b.html [typepad.com] t m [commondreams.org] e .protest/ [cnn.com]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1015-06.h
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/28/rnc.bik
http://wcbs880.com/rnc/rnc_story_244091236.html [wcbs880.com]
Freedom of press and speech don't evolve gradually. People have fought and died so we can write the truth and speak our minds. This battle is still continuing in Asia where people are killed for releasing the wrong thoughts or turning against the government. Before freedom finds a home there, a lot of battles will be fought and a lot of people will still suffer. To say the realization of this is eye-opening is naive.
It is not to say that the freedom we now have is permanent. Our governments constantly test us to see how far they can go. We still have to fight to keep our freedom. It will never be a given as long as people are led by greed for money and hunger for power.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:4, Informative)
That's chargable as criminal trespass.
KFG
Re:Jealous vs. Envious (Score:2, Informative)
I've been an American for several decades now, and I've never heard any such thing. Perhaps you can name some Americans who claim this, of the masses who "frequently" do so. Be sure to include addresses and phone numbers.
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:5, Informative)
It's true that the Danish penal code has parts regarding libel, slander, threats, etc. just as many other countries (penal code - "Straffeloven" - 266). This paragraph also contains a note regarding the above issues aimed at groups because of their race, color, ethnicity, faith or sexual orientation. Personally I don't think it's that different from targeting individuals (but hey, I'm a Dane :). The paragraph has been discussed now and then in the public, but the borders are actually quite wide. It's nothing like Germany or France (.. I pressume)
Besides, this has nothing to do with press freedom. A Danish nazi party is actually allowed to run their own radio station at the ordinary FM-band.
We did have an interesting case though regarding a radio documentary in 1985, where an interviewer talked with a bunch of young, declared racists ("Greenjackets"), spreading their racism. At first the interviewer was convicted of spreading racism at a lower court, but after appealing through the system (and even losing at Danish supreme court), he tried his case in front of the European Court of Human Rights [coe.int] which concluded that even though some of the statements made by the Greenjackets would be racist, the broadcast itself wasn't. You can read the entire case online [menneskeret.dk].
It's actually a bit surprising when documentaries like Fahrenheit 9/11 (or, on a more serious level, Control Room), show how news are presented in the US. I think that many Danes weren't that surprised viewing these documentaries, because the Danish press already used several sources, meaning that a lot of the "surprising stories" in these documentaries weren't that surprising at all, since a lot of the footage had already been shown in public media.
I am pretty worried of US citizens believing that each and every single thing about US is the best in the world. We have a more free press, less corruption [transparency.org], a head of government elected by popular vote, but since we live in a world where people appearently get their "entire facts" based on one or two incidents (which is pretty usual at Slashdot - think of all the posts regarding any topic, where one would find a random incident about a webserver, a company, a product and continuously beat that argument in a manner like "How can you say this product is good, since (link to some old event)?"), nothing of this matters. It only matters if people are able to use Google to find that little piece of information, they care about and judge the rest of the world by that.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3075505a4560,
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Informative)
Oh wait....
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Informative)
It's exactly that attitude - assuming that America must be the most free nation - that is the reason it isn't anymore.
You've taken your freedoms for granted for too long. The Constitution is a wonderful document, but subject to interpretation. It has been interpreted very narrowly. Other countries, which ought to be less free because their constitution / charter / whatever is somewhat nonspecific, have been careful to consider freedom when interpreting it, instead of just abiding by the letter of the document.
"The more you have to define freedom the less freedom you have." - Alexander Bickel
Re:I am amazed that US is so high. (Score:1, Informative)
I'd say America still has room for improvement.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Informative)
GWB has said some pretty wacky things too. But this particular gem cannot be attributed to him.
Re:How did they decide? (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe that's why India is ranked 120. Frankly, very little of India's press or media is government-owned, and I see savage criticism of the government every day, it's a nice change from the servile bootlicking of Bush that goes on in the US press.
Indians do tend to be very self-critical. Also there was one notorious case of an expose of government corruption that resulted in persecution of the journalists involved on legal grounds. That was ugly, and would, I'd agree, justify a somewhat low ranking... but then, a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, presently faces jail for hiding her sources, and it is well known that unfriendly journalists in the US are excluded from White House briefings, which is why even top papers like the Washington Post and the NYT tend to be so unquestioning of the government. That's simply not the case in India. In my book, India should rate far higher than the US...
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare are under constant threat from people right of center; in this case I'm being non-partisan in my evaluation. Democrats, obstensibly the American party of the left, has its share of people who believe in Horatio Alger's myth of the "American Dream". I'll get to that in a minute. First, some facts.
Medicare is divided into two parts, part A and part B. You are only eligible for Medicare if you are 65 or older, have certain (rare) disabilities, or have serious renal (kidney) problems. Medicare does not cover you at all otherwise, which means that for 99% of Slashdotters, for example, Medicare is completely useless. Furthermore, you are only eligible for free part A coverage if you have been paying Medicare taxes for an appropriately long period of time -- this may sound fair, but it means (for example) that it is often not economical for a young immigrant to bring his ailing mother with him to the States because she will not be eligible for medical care.
And then there's part B coverage, which costs $66.50 per month (that's not cheap, dude) and is only available, again, for people eligible for Medicare.
Contrast this to many European countries, where if you get into an accident, you walk into a hospital, and they fix it. Bume. You don't pay anything.
Medicaid, which is the general name for Federal funds given to the states for the purpose of health care, varies from state to state. Medicare is, IIRC, under the "Medicaid" blanket. Most people do not see a dime of this money. That isn't surprising; not much money is given.
What about social security? It's a slush fund that we all pay into that isn't protected at all. The government routinely uses this money for things not related to social security, and it hasn't been putting money back in as fast as it takes it out. Throw an aging baby boomer generation into the mix and you have a system that wasn't really adequate to begin with that is fiscally unsustainable.
Welfare, well, welfare would be a start if it weren't for the fact that all sorts of draconian elligibility requirements weren't in place. Most people on welfare in the US are single mothers. Did you know that in most states, if the state discovers that you have a boyfriend, you can lose welfare eligibility? No joke. Because if you have a man, obviously, you don't need a goverment check. Your man can take care of you. Heh.
Do you know how much money we give people on welfare? Not enough to survive, that's for sure. I know that in middle class America the popular steryotype of a welfare mama is a fat black woman doing nothing all day but having kids for the extra money, but reality is rather far from this. Most women on welfare are working two full time jobs and still can't make ends meet. Who's taking care of their kids while they work? Usually no one, because babysitters cost money. So you end up with latch-key kids. You see, we Americans don't feel that raising children is work that deserves compensation.
It's really easy for women to end up on welfare, you know. The US is also really bad about protecting maternity leave rights. So what happens is, a woman gets pregnant and takes time off to have her child, and while she's gone, she loses her job. Libertarians everywhere applaud. Anyone who's ever had a child knows how much work they are. So what do you do? Hand your kid over to your parents, and get another job, quickly, before the industry moves on and you're not elligible for much more than waiting tables?
Regarding freedoms in other countries, you are right that we have higher standards. In much of Europe, for example, hate speech is illegal; this looks good on the face of things but it is sometimes used with impunity to restrict criticism. An example would be police using French hate speech laws to censor Frenc
Re:Survey is biased. France better than USA? (Score:0, Informative)
The reality is that people in France are just not that interested in Fox news. It doesn't make commercial sense for the cable companies to carry it.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:1, Informative)
Read up about East Timor.
Summary: We didn't want them to "go communist" so we gave permission to the indonesian government to use U.S. supplied weapons in "self defense" to murder 100,000 east timorians so that foreign capitalists were to go in an rape them.
It's "Reporters Sans Frontières" (Score:2, Informative)
Probably too late to make the report (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, Nobody's "responsible" for it. Everybody says it was somebody else, or that they're not allowed to talk about pending criminal investigations, or things like that.
At least under the last few years of US procedures for computer search and seizure rules, the Indymedia attacks were mismanaged - they're supposed to take a copy and return everything ASAP for most cases, and they're supposed to be extremely careful of systems containing journalistic works in progress, which Indymedia pretty obviously had. And they didn't handle it that way.
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:5, Informative)
In Europe a large number of people (probably a majority) consider CNN right wing.
Nearly everyone in Europe considers Fox News (if they at all know it) comical until they realise it's actually considered a News Channel in the USofA.
The rift between the US and Europe is greater than many US citisen realise and Bush/Cheney/Fox are in the eyes of many Europeans doing everything in their power to increase that rift.
And it pains us Europeans to see the great country that after the Nazi years helped us get back on our feet slide in the direction that we learned to dispise.
In Europe we are so fortunate as to be able to sample news from many sources and countries, for me that is the only way to stay properly informed.
And Fox is one of those sources, not for the news as such but for the opinions.
The reason the US was so low (Score:3, Informative)
"Violations of the privacy of sources, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations kept the United States (22nd) away from the top of the list."
Re:Isn't Murdoch Australian? (Score:3, Informative)
Murdoch was born Australian but left there for the UK where he started News International and aquired 'The Sun', amongst other newspapers. He later moved to the US where he gained US citzenship to get around certain restrictions on non-US citizens or corporations owning media companies.
The nearest to a free press these days is the blogosphere, but even that is under threat [livejournal.com].
Stephen
An account of one reporter's time. (Score:2, Informative)
First the State Police said that our station didn't qualify because we didn't have a full time news department (total crap). After much "discussion" and producing copious records affirming our position they backed off. The other requirement was I needed three recommendations from other press card holders. I quickly found out that everyone wanted at least $500 for their signature. I complained to the State Police about this and asked if they would simply grant me (and others from our station in the future) an ID based on the fact that we produced over two hours everyday of fresh news content everyday and not on who I bribed. They said no. Months later we coughed up the "tribute" money and submitted the paperwork. It was rejected without comment. I was privately told that I would never get an ID because I questioned "their system". Repeated requests for a press ID were rejected, always without comment. BTW, I was a pretty upstanding person back then, in the military reserves with a security clearance and nothing more than two speeding tickets on my record, so the reason for the rejection "on the surface" was never known.
In every state in the US access to press credentials is controlled by the State. Without these official press credentials one has very limited access to news events. While covering a protest my company car (a white wagon with the name of the station painted all over the damn thing) was towed from a legal parking spot while cars with press plates were left alone. Many times "freedom of the press" doesn't apply to those without that State issued ID. Can there be true freedom of the press when the state controls who are the "press"? I think not.
Last night I was watching the after game party in the Fenway on the four stations covering it. One of the stations repeated avoided showing any police "takedowns" of the people there. After the Boston Police killed a bystander last week (Victoria Snelgrove of East Bridgewater) and seriously wounding others one would think these stations and their news staff would want to catch any similar interactions. Instead what I saw a few times was over 10 Boston City policeman in full military battle gear taking down a single drunk that just wasn't obeying their orders quick enough with the coverage being quickly cut off by the station (by changing cameras or moving the action out of frame). Self censorship to have a good relationship with the police is still censorship. If the State Police decided to pull their press cards they easily bankrupt the station.
This is not the picture of the police storming a tv or radio station and shutting them down. This is the police controlling the station's blood supply (their money) and saying "we won't shut you down, your creditors will with our help so play nice with us".
This is the state of the press in the US. They can't take your voice but they can get the private sector to take your press and your home. Thankfully the web has made this more difficult. I seriously don't feel free to sign my name to this comment. I think I'll keep my mouth shut and fly under their radar "thank you very much".
It really doesn't sound like a free nation after all does it?
Re:what about freedom to bear arms? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, almost all of us are responsible adults. Otherwise the murder rate would be in the tens of millions (Hell, there was someone on the highway this AM that I would have been delighted to remove from the gene pool, if I were so inclined), rather than less than 16,000 (not all those murders are firearms related, but most are). Likewise, it might be useful to keep in mind that there are approximately 200 firearms for every violent crime committed. Not all violent crimes involve guns, of course, so the ratio is probably higher, but I don't really feel like checking the numbers.
Also, if you eliminate the murders over drugs, I think you'll find that our murder rates are not especially higher than European ones. Which would tend to support the opinion that the War on Drugs is the problem, rather than the firearms.