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)."
Americans talk about freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem with this is that it leads to significant growth of tabloid press. Look at Europe again with its outrageous papers like the Sun or Pravda. Just because the press is free does not mean that the information is better, just more voluminous.
Like the internet, anyone in a free press country can publish what they like. Like the internet, it is up to the reader to filter out the gems from the trash.
Middle East (Score:3, Insightful)
How are we expected to know what's really going on when reporters feel threatened and ordinary Iraqis still don't trust the media after years of it being state controlled?
There are other documented examples [honestreporting.com] or Arab gangs intimidating the press to sing their own tune and it pretty well rights off any ability for readers to discern between news versus propaganda.
How did they decide? (Score:5, Insightful)
So this leaves lots unsaid. Basically, if correspondents say they don't have press freedom, they don't. Doesn't seem like a very scientific study to me.
Media self-censorship a function of consolidation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Under those conditions, the views of the owners are propagated without check, because there simply is no real independent mass media in most parts of the US today. They censor themselves, so the government doesn't have to.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
USA/Canada not that bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Reason why the Swiss are #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason is that they allow themselves to be completely neutral. They don't care if they have George Bush's money in a bank account or Saddam Hussein's money, it's all the same to them.
When a country's government is neutral, it allows for the media to be more openly objective. These laws allow for equal treatment of everyone. The only problem with that is you are --I hate to sound cliche-- "helping terrorism."
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Speak out against the Bush admin such as fighting against the deal with haliburton or prison treatment in either Iraq, or gitmo bay, or against the patriot act, or.....
See where you end up then.
Besides, I do not think it was about his being racists so much as trying to steer similar sentiments.
Re:How did they decide? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How did they decide? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no really objective ways of measuring press freedom, as in the all repressed countires the press uses self-censure.
Indeed you can mesure how many journalists are in jail and how many journalists are required to give up their sources and such on certain level, but the "but I cannot write about those things" cannot be measured in objective way.
Thus the only way to try to get a grip on these issues is to ask the people in question, with anonymity.
Re:How did they decide? (Score:2, Insightful)
But when have reporters ever looked deeper than a quote which they liked and which served their bias?
See: An Open Letter to Reporters Without Borders [narconews.com] which includes the comment: "Given that Reporters Without Borders receives 44 percent of its income from the European Commission, you are in no position to criticize any government for using speech".
Given this, and other comments in this thread, I would apply a healthy dose of skepticism...
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the same as every other mainstream American media outlet, but there is a hell of lot of news they don't report on.
As well, Fox News tends to have a habit of covering stories on issues which could be politically damaging for the Republican Party only after the stories have gained enough momentum in other media that they can no longer be ignored.
Jealous vs. Envious (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting that they use "jealous" rather than "envious" because "jealous" implies a limited resource (two women wanting to date the same man, for example) whereas "envious" implies an unlimited resource (envying your friend's new computer - new computers are available to anyone who wants to buy one).
There seems to be a subconscious fear in the United States that if the rest of the world gets "freedom" or "wealth" that the United States will somehow lose it.
There is no reason the whole world can't have high levels of freedom and a high standard of living and high levels of education.
The fear that the United States is preventing other countries from having these things seems to lead to the fear that if other countries get these things then the United States will lose them.
Of course, depsite what most Americans seem to think, the United States doesn't come in first in most measures of quality of life (freedom of press, per capita income, education level, etc.) anyway so it's not clear what they are so worried about.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what? There are many many other countries where that very same situation applies.
I think the OP was saying that Americans love to pretend they are the only country that gets it right when it comes to ensuring people's freedoms.
But the truth is that USA is actually behind a great many other countries for true freedom. Take it how you like, but when we see international reports on corruption, the free press, courts, fair trials, rights of citizens - we always see USA coming after about 10-20 other countries or more.
Some of us just get a little annoyed that the Americans are always talking the talk, but are falling behind when it comes to walking the walk
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, they can all practice their faiths exactly as they wish
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Isn't Switzerland (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Reason why the Swiss are #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
In truth, if some larger more influential and powerful nations *ahem* took an attitude more in line with the Swiss, there would be less conflict in this world of ours.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a freedom of corespondainse, not freedom of press. Which doesn't exclude the freedom of press, of course, but nor does it prove it.
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even by corporations nor by shareholders nor managing directors.
The reason that I believe that democracy cannot properly function in modern 'media-rich' societies is exactly this; who controls the media controls, among other things, *voting*behaviors* (I believe that human beings are extremely amenable to suggestion).
Any media coverage of political matters risks being used as a tool to control voting behaviors.
I like the *idea* of democracy but I fail to see how this sort of problem can be circumvented at all.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it a rest, most of the developed world has exactly those freedoms, and they find that type of talk self-serving and counter-productive to real freedom.
If the level of civilization is measured by how will it treats the old, sick and poor, then the USA if full of a lot of hot air.
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:1, Insightful)
ahhh, irony... That's like goldy isn't it?
Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:U.S. is way to high (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom isn't much good, admittedly, if no one bothers to exercise it. What this article measures, however, is not the quality of information provided by the local press; rather, it is the ease with which journalists are able to obtain information in a country without the government interfering.
American journalists don't take much advantage of the US's open nature, because our private media are here to sell news, and Americans culturally just don't care about what's happening in the world. I really don't think there's much of a conspiracy here. The US is a huge country, the most powerful in the world, bordered by another huge country that speaks the same language it does. People in the US just don't care too much about the rest of the world unless it affects their lives directly, and the truth is that as far as US citizens are concerned, what happens in most other countries has little bearing on their daily lives.
This is hard to understand for a lot of Europeans, who mostly come from small countries that don't have the same natural resources the US does. For someone in France or Germany, what happens in Poland, Belgium, the UK, Turkey -- this all can and does affect their daily lives, economic stability, etc, in a way that is evident to the average joe. And so, not surprisingly, these people are better informed than Americans when it comes to world issues.
Now, the press freedom in the US is pretty good. By this I mean that a reporter from Le Monde can go to the US with the intent to write an exposé on American government corruption, for example, and will run into very little static doing it. A New York Post reporter, in a similar way, will have little trouble getting the information he wants in France, even if his piece is called "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys: How a country entirely populated by homosexuals manages to remain adequately populated." This is because both the US and France are very free countries. And while the journalists of other countries may use this to abuse them, they understand that keeping information available is important.
China and North Korea, on the other hand, will want to "approve" what you write before letting you do anything. They may even offer to write it for you.
That's what's meant by press freedom. Not "is the local press open and non-self-censoring" but rather "do journalists have the freedom to ask questions and get them answered without too much interference."
The US scores badly on the first but passably well (although not as well as I, as an American, would like) on the second. This article is about the second, not the first.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you asked any afro-americans and native americans?
America has been, somewhat, the land of the free since the 1960s and the civil rights movement (and the current republican party originated as a protest against that, pandering to the white south -- a strategy originating from Nixon -- and is doing its best to undo all those gains.)
Before the 1960s, America was marginally better than South Africa, that's all. And in the 19th century, it was guilty of genocide of many native American tribes, and was the last major country to abolish slavery, by many decades (and it still took a civil war to do that).
Land of the free -- yes, if you're a white anglo-saxon protestant.
The USA is that repressive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
While we're at it, how about CBS News... Dan Rather won't let the truth get in the way of a good Anti-Bush story.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
It got so bad, in fact, that a Muslim student group at my school organized a "green arm band" system, whereby people willing to stand up for the rights of others would wear a green arm band. That way, if Muslim students were feeling threatened, they knew that they would be able to turn to a person wearing a green armband for aid/defense.
The move got a lot of publicity but I was saddened by how few non-Muslims gave their support. I'm proud to say I did. Most of my African-American friends did too. But essentially no one else really bothered.
Sad state of affairs.
Re:U.S. is way to high (Score:3, Insightful)
No, your citizens have always been misinformed and ignorant. That is not why the US is now hate. It's now hated because it invades countries, kills innocent people, tortures people, and tries to impose its beliefs and way life on everybody else. That is why the USA is hated. But then again, being an American you might be too ignorant to know that.
BTW, nobody in the rest of the world gives a fuck about your freedom of the press or any other freedom. The rest of the world simply wants USA to leave them the fuck alone.
Size doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
If you actually look at the corruption ranking you'll see that there are plenty of small countries at the bottom, including Haiti at the very last position.
Re:Middle East (Score:4, Insightful)
No I have not. Let me try to explain what I mean.
Facts are nuanced by the events that surround them. The surroundings place the fact in context. Without that you can draw anything you want out of some event.
Reporters are not just reporting on a single event, they are reporting on a collection of facts to present people with a picture of the place.
Take the Sudan for instance. We have a government committing or at the least supporting genocide. Now if you hear that this government has arranged a $1000 educational grant to make ammends for the genocide. Are you going to report that the government of Sudan is benevolent and kind for offering this? I think not.
In the case of Israel, past performance makes people suspicious and less likely to trust the government. If you have read some of the followup articles on the shooting of the school girl (in one of the articles I linked), the army has said that company commander did not behave unethically.
Now, if this was the first event of this sort you had run accross, you might be inclined to take the Iaraeli army explanation at face value. However as this is not the first time (by any means) the Israeli army has failed to prosecute their soldiers for gorssly innappropriate behaviour (that is an understatement), then you are less likely to trust the Israeli army explanation.
Knowing also from previous events the kind of value that the Israeli army places on Palestinian lives, you might also be more likely to believe that this shooting was deliberate.
Point?
I really don't understand why I am arguing with a troll account created for the sole purpose of responding to this article, but anyway.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
God, you Americans crack me up. Are you really totally oblivious to the fact that Americans are the most complacent beings to walk the earth, at least since Roman times? Have you ever heard officials from any other democracy publically refer to their country as "the greatest nation on earth" or "the land of the free"?
This is almost as funny as when a seemingly united US recently accused France of being arrogant *giggle* in their foreign policy (the United States for chrissakes!). Apparently just because they didn't buy that "I saved your life once, so now you have to help me rob this bank"-line. As if anyone else in the world is even in a position to exert the level of arrogance displayed by the USA towards the rest of the world if thay wanted to.
You guys should go professional.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you look at the press freedom index you will note that UK is 28th on the list while USA is 22nd. Maybe you should set your ambitions higher than that? For inspiration you can have a look at the countries higher up the list - like Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia or Switzerland.
If you are satisfied with the current freedom of press and hence lower quality of the coverage please feel free to be so.
As a Danish citizen I noticed a lowered quality of (parts of) the US press after September 11th and particularly during the run-up to the Iraq war (there seemed to be no room for doubt). From my point of view it was clear that the evidence for weapons of mass destruction were poor. My impression was that a discussion of the quality of the evidence was hardly allowed space in US media outlets. Is that also your impression in 20-20 hindsight?
In spite of this I supported the invasion of Iraq but based on other arguments than WMD, but that is a different story.
Re:what about freedom to bear arms? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as we're talking percentages, we can compare. I'm Dutch, New York City might have a population and maybe even area larger then the Netherlands, but I don't care about that much. But if you use that fact to minimalise my opinion, then I'm very much reconfirmed in my current opinion about Americans.
Get a grip, it's not about size. Your post is just offensive to all Europeans, who all take Danmark very seriously.
Meanwhile, while we enjoy our freedoms and rights, please enjoy yours. As long as you keep thinking America is best in every respect, it will keep you from challenging issues, all while gloating about your so call 'Freedom of speech'. To me America is the land of double standards:
Most repressive on Sexual Content, but most teenage pregnancies.
Free gunownership, but most persons killed by gunfire.
Land of the free etc, but able to just sidestep all human right issues and internation treeties to arrest unproven 'terrorist'.
And somehow the world still has to take the USA seriously as global leader of democracy? Demockery is more appropriate.
Hans
Hans
There would be more death if everyone turned away. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is attitudes like that that resulted in the massacres in Rawanda. It is that very same attitude that is resulting in the same thing occuring in Sudan. Want more, Bosnia, Afghanistan, China, and even Checyna.
Seems to me that the real issue is not that some countries are more influential but WHICH countries that are and what they are doing.
I will take the current attitude of countries that do take action. Far better they do than we end up with millions more dead just because we were afraid to we might offend someone by acting up. Perhaps we can avoid another Hitler if we keep acting, after all he was harmless until he invaded Poland, right?
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure a Kerry event in the same circumstances would not allow a t-shirt worn inside that said "Support Our Second Amendment Rights" or even the *same* shirt the ladies tried to wear to Bush's event. I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. It's their dog-and-pony show in a privately-owned venue, and they can refuse anyone entry they like, and you have the right to vote against that candidate if you don't like how/where they hold their functions. If it offended enough people that badly, they wouldn't do it, as that would endanger their whole goal..election.
Just my two cents
Cheers,
Strat
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jealous vs. Envious (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reason why the Swiss are #1 (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the fact that German companies refused to honor a bunch of claims mean they haven't renounced their goose-stepping nazi ways as a nation?
Does the fact that certain slashdot users spout ignorant generalizations make them all a bunch of cretins? Hardly.
I'm Swiss, and I didn't collude to hide anything, certain banks in my country did, and they (a) paid for their actions and (b) did not have a lot of popular support here (some fairly demagoguerish lawsuits by one Ed Fagan whipping up ignorant Fox news viewers in the US didn't help things much.)
Soooooo, as I do not consider myself to be living in a glass house, I will continue to throw stones and hold others to the same high standards to which I hold myself and my compatriots.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a private function
I'm sure a Kerry event in the same circumstances would not allow a t-shirt worn inside that said "Support Our Second Amendment Rights" or even the *same* shirt the ladies tried to wear to Bush's event.
Are you sure of that? Why? I've seen no evidence to that effect. Please don't let the currently fashionable "all politicians are evil" cynicism blind you to the fact that there are real differences between the two. To my knowledge, no one has ever been thrown out of a Kerry rally for wearing a t-shirt; until it happens, you shouldn't tar Kerry with Bush's brush.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Every ER in the US that I've been to has a big sign that says something to the effect:
"We will treat you regardless if you have insurance or lack of funds"
I knew someone that died recently from diabetes and had over $30,000 in medical bill debt, and she would just pay a dollar or two or throw them away. She did not loose her house, she was not taken to court, nothing. Americans are just as stupid about paying for their medical care as they are about their phones. They will pay just about anything that is charged to them. They are just that dumb.
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.
If I were given enough money to survive off of welfare, why did I wast my time going to college and grad school and go to this work thing every day? The problem with welfare is not the amount of money given, its the amount of time that it is given to people. They get stuck and can never get any kind of nest egg or break to get out of the welfare cycle.
Now with the 2 full time job thing and cannot make ends meat. Something is very, very wrong with that. I know plenty of people at or around the "poverty level", aka annual incomes around $20,000. And they only have one part time job, and goof around alot and complain that they don't have money. But they eat, have cable, have a place to live, have a car, and aren't that bad off being that they don't even work 40 hours a week.
You see, we Americans don't feel that raising children is work that deserves compensation.
There is a difference between raising children and watching them. I don't consider day care and babysitters as raising children. I don't feel that raising children deserves compensation either. I'm not going to pay someone to raise their kid. Not even if I care greatly for both of them, I'm not just going to up and write a check and say "keep up the good work!" Does anybody do this?
It's really easy for women to end up on welfare, you know.
Unfortunately, its really easy for ignorant and uneducated and unskilled people to end up on welfare. And guess what? They are simply weaker people, and no matter what you give them they will always sink to the bottom. I've been homeless and without a job because of just how things went in my life, and with a mental disorder to boot, and I never went on welfare, nor borrowed a cent from anyone. I did collect unemployment for 6 months, but I would have been OK without that, although I appreciated having it.
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?
OK, fine. the US may be really bad about protecting maternity leave rights, but ask any male thats been divorced how his rights were preserved. The guy is expected to give up his house and his kids and a good part of his income to someone that basically is not able to take care of themselves and thier kids (otherwise why would they need all of this charity?). That makes tons of sense. A never married mother, as tragic and dramatic a
Re:what about freedom to bear arms? (Score:1, Insightful)
The right to bear arms is to protect us from out-of-control governments. You say that the declaration on human rights protects you, but when push comes to shove, your rights aren't worth the paper they're written on. Defend yourself with sticks and stones.
Re:There would be more death if everyone turned aw (Score:3, Insightful)