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)."
Isn't Switzerland (Score:4, Interesting)
Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:2, Interesting)
The truth is its worse than in the U.S.
In Denmark you can be jailed [wired.com]
for making a comment online if a judge determines that it is racist.
Makes you wonder what the motivation behind this study is.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
Decline in press freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Reason why the Swiss are #1 (Score:0, Interesting)
It would have been a number one priority for me, no matter which side I was on - I hate people who deliberately hide behind the veneer of neutrality through avarice and greed. Or maybe cowardice - I guess a Swiss will now reply angrily.
(Unless I want to open a bank account of course. Then I'm sure they would be neutral and all smiles again)
old media (Score:3, Interesting)
My examples here [blogspot.com] and here [blogspot.com] and in my sig. Visit them and enjoy your freedoms.
Not My Usual "Freedom of the Press" (Score:4, Interesting)
The study seems to completely ignore non-official members of the press. A few years back, this would have been fine. However, the formality of the press is dispersing. Just look at the blogging community. That's the press. I think it's a useful metric, but definitely not the final statement on the issue.
Fairdom of the press? (Score:2, Interesting)
Freedom of the Press means that if there is a right-wing channel, you are free to start a left wing channel. It allows for people to openly broadcast/write/etc whatever they like and not be censored because it agaisnt the goverment/an allie/a person.
Don't get mixed up, you can never have a truely unbaised report. The best you can have is a broad range to pick and choose from so that you can make your own decisions.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
I got the quote a bit wrong, and in this case they were threatened with a charge of disorderly conduct, but in other cases trespass has actually been formally charged.
KFG
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with your last statement, but not this one. Socialism can't be associated with regimes. What you may be trying to say is that some misguided individuals put labels such as 'socialism' and 'communism' on their corrupt fascist schemes. Using the word 'socialism' for these things only continues the misguided use of the word that has some idealistic merits, just like 'communism' has. Call them what they are; fascist regimes with given quantifiers.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Jedidiah.
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just an example of the freedom of the press. Journalists would usually have access to otherwise restricted places if the situation justifies it as part of their job.
Besides, I believe that I mentioned Fahrenheit as a less serious documentary, but I was only talking about parts of the movie that brought new information to the public in the US - information that has been widely available elsewhere.
I think your post is just a poor containing a few points that's hard to disagree on the way they are expressed. But alas, it's a pity that they are a clear example of someone having to polarize everything to make a point.
I really think it's poor if one makes his judgment based on snappy one-liner-anecdotes. I simply don't think it serves anyone well (maybe except for the person that finds comfort in living in a world where everything could be explained by a quick anecdote)
Re:Everyone saw it live on Tee-Vee! (Score:3, Interesting)
The goal was to provoke a rash aggressive response which would get the US into the "quagmire" they're in now, with no way out and getting worse by the day.
American cliche's redux (Score:4, Interesting)
As regards the banks, they are Switzerland's biggest employers and so do get more priviliges than they should, and they definitely did take anyone's money in the past. They don't, however, do this any longer. Saddam Hussein's money has been frozen for years and the Swiss authorities do give information on account holders to judicial enquiries from countries with which Switzerland has legal agreements. That is why criminals prefer to keep their money in the Cayman islands these days.
But I never hear any such moral preaching against the Cayman Islands.
Secondly, Switzerland is a tiny country that was surrounded by hostile nations for most of its history. For that reason the Swiss decided to become neutral, as it kept them from having to go through the ravages of the first and second world wars. Switzerland takes its neutrality seriously and doesn't support bullshit wars like the fucking stunt you yanks pulled in Iraq, or the fucking stunt that Saddam pulled in Kuwait.
Switzerland is by no means perfect, (I live here and don't really like it or the people) but it minds its own business and would like other countries to do the same.
I think you people who constantly preach about how morally corrupt Switzerland is are just ashamed of all the crap that your own country does.
Re:Reason why the Swiss are #1 (Score:3, Interesting)
Talk about been bogged down.
Anyhow, I do remember reading somewhere how Adolf Hitler really did want to invade Switzerland, but yeah, I guess he realised it would be futile.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.cleveland.com/world/plaindealer/index.
Detainee forfeits U.S. citizenship for freedom
Fair trade?
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, as a Canadian, it was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [justice.gc.ca] that was foremost in my mind when I posted that.
Right at the top:
That defines a limit on freedom that does not really exist in the U.S. constitution, and leaves the limit very much open to debate. People who know anything about the Charter (including judges and lawyers) are well aware of this, and eager to push back against government attempts to curtail freedom. We know the government would get away with it if we let them. No false sense of security there.
In contrast, Americans (with the exception of a few, who are usually marginalized as "$foo-wing nutcases"), seem more willing to sit back and expect the Constitution to protect them. At least, that's my perception, as a non-American.
My take on bias of these studies... (Score:2, Interesting)
Firstly, most of the journalists, at least here, get educated on universities that have rather dominant leftist atmostphere. It is easy to notice that the common logic among journalists is that good journalism is so called "critical" journalism, which in turn is essentially journalism that must find a contrast with things that don't belong directly to the most obvious sphere of control for them. With their average political background, that usually means privately owned companies and persons that have politically very different world view from their own. It may be very subtle discrimination, but after decades of such opinions among the press, it becomes a public fact.
Also, many international journalist organisations were strongly supported by USSR. Their views might have been on the same side before that support began, but certainly the views intensified with that support. It is rather questionable if USSR was there just for free press.
Then there are things I want to say about the press in Finland, specifically. There's only one newspaper that can be considered of national coverage - Helsingin Sanomat. Other newspapers are either regional or limit to swedish, which is mother tongue for only couple percent of the population. There are also two daily yellow press "newspapers", but calling those true journalism is a joke. So, even if there's freedom of press, diversity of press is highly questionable on newspaper side. Fortunately, in television, there are three organisations that have good national coverage - but depth of television journalism has always its limits.
And as last thing, anecdotal example from the local scare tactics. As there is no (external) censorship, most attempts to control the media show up as court threats when specific persons get bad light in the "yellow" press, often resulting from fabricated or strongly exaggerated facts. There's a recent example that illustrated different hidden standards for freedom of press, though: Both the person in the article and the journalist were threatened by court when an article about prime ministers' father, somewhat controversial person, was published. He claimed in his article that according to some research, caucasians are measurably more intelligent on average than africans, and many asians are even more intelligent, and that this has strong element regarding the chances of nations to prosper. The actual threat came from governmental anti-racism ombudsman, and probably reflects the politico-journalistic climate around here - any discussion on these kinds of subjects should be prohibited unless, at least, we, the natives, are on the bottom. Fortunately, the legistlative bodies in Finland are reasonably detached from political views and dismissed the case - after all, the subject matter was controversial, not clearly against any proven fact, and that scientific research and press coverage of it enjoys especially high freedoms as well as high peer review scrutiny - which must not be censorship, though.
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:2, Interesting)
On average? I think, if you look into it seriously, that you will find that people everywhere prefer their own country, on average. People in China love their country, on average, the bushmen in Kalahari love their desert, on average, etc etc. And the Americans are fairly good people, on average - so what? Is 'The American Way On Average' better than anything else in the world? So much better that you have to shove it down people's throats whether they like it or not?
Apart from that, what we have seen from America so far, in particular in recent years, is an aggressive and imperialistic power that has no regard for the lives, let alone the rights, of others.I'm sure I don't have to repeat the many facts about torture, lies in the UN etc etc. This is what is so revolting to most non-Americans: the combination of America's mindless egotism, the blind ignorance of the common Americans and the constant sanctimonious wanking to the sound of religious drivel.
If you guys are tired of hearing criticism you should change your ways. You say you live in a democracy - then choose better leaders.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:0, Interesting)
I cannot see how one could implement in the USA a social security system as extensive as we have in Northern Europe; I, for one, would not be happy to pay taxes to support people of different colour.
Call me racist or whatever, but I think this sort of instinct is quite natural; no-one wants to feed the cuckoo's young.
I believe in the USA you have churches and charities and so on to redistribute wealth among your "own kind". That's why I sympathize Bush's "faith-based" shit.
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:USA more free than UK? Er.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because the Democrats pass for lefties in America, it doesn't mean they would anywhere else.
Re:Middle East (Score:2, Interesting)
And right there, you have fallen for the problem with biased media.
You have been led to believe that Palestinians bombing Israelis is similar to Israelis bombing Palestinians. There is however a big difference - The Palestinian (and indeed all Islamic) terror aims to cause as much civilian death as possible. Women, children, the elderly are all fair game.
The same CANNOT be said of Israeli military actions, which whilst potentially resulting in collateral damage do not SPECIFICALLY and STRATEGICALLY aim to kill innocent non-combatants. Israelis don't dance in the streets when a Palestinian child is killed. Can the same be said of Palestinians? No.
Equally, if you believe that Israelis are randomly dropping bombs on poor stone throwing children, you are not aware of how these children are deliberately used as human shields by terrorists holding rifles and rocket launchers (see: here [typepad.com] for a textbook example of this disgusting abuse of children by Palestinian terrorists [typepad.com]. Now tell me how Israel is supposed to stop the guy shooting at them?
Of course, if the media weren't implicitly biased you'd know all of this wouldn't you?
Still, I'm glad you are debating me. Someone else decided to mod me down as a troll instead. Hardly an intelligent response!
There are ways (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, surveillance society is coming, but not in the way anyone expects. Within a decade or two audio/video recording devices with effectively unlimited recording capacity will be small enough to be a fashion accessory, or for that matter just part of your apparel. Because they can be carried everywhere and recording constantly, they will be; this will change our whole notion of privacy, really change society as we know it. These little bugs will penetrate newsrooms, courtrooms, boardrooms, and back rooms, despite every attempt to keep them out. They will witness protests, halt arguments about facts, and generally improve the quality of and availability of first-generation source material by an order of magnitude. They will, most of all, make organized secrecy conspicuous, especially because "open" companies, and even political candidates, will win in the marketplace.
Democracy will always be threatened, but it can never be entirely stopped until we lose our ability to be creative in protecting it.
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, you're lucky. I sort of wish we could do that here in the U.S. just to see what other countries are like. Our news probably tells us all we need to know, though.
U.S. citizens can only view news from the government sanctioned news station, Fox News. Realistically, I'm not sure that we would need anything else, though. Fox News is fair and balanced.
I heard that there is some kind of pirate television station called PBS (get this, "Public Broadcasting System" - how radical!) that shows BBC news, but I think that's only a rumor. There was also some rumor of stations that are broadcasting in Portugese, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, French, and (get this) Arabic! I don't know where that rumor came from, but I doubt it's true. I know that the government run cable company does not carry anything that isn't in American Newspeak. Who would watch any of that anyway? Everyone speaks perfect American here. There certainly aren't large population centers in major cities that speak other languages and would be interested in hearing news from their native land, because foreigners aren't allowed inside the U.S. (especially not Canadians and Mexicans, but I digress).
USA Today is the only paper we are allowed to read. I heard that there used to be a couple of papers that printed something called "AP" news, but I think this is only a rumor. I'm pretty sure our single newspaper would not print that type of news. Why would we need it, though? Our newspaper gets it's news directly from the source (i.e. the U.S. Government).
One really weird thing is that the bookstore downtown claims that it has several magazines from other countries! Seriously, they claim they have magazines from all over the world. That's so ridiculous. Everyone knows we can't import magazines into the U.S., because they are classified as "munitions". Time Magazine is so much better than anything else, though, because it contains only facts.
One of my professors had this magazine called, "Der Spiegel". I'm not sure what kind of loopy magazine that is, but I want no part of it. I looked at it once, and I think it was written in some kind of secret illegal code. He said he was a subscriber, too! I doubt that, since we can only subscribe to the government sanctioned Time Magazine. He's an academic, though, and some of them are radical. I should probably report him to the FBI.
That reminds me! There was a huge bust here the past week. People are saying it was about drugs, but I know better. I think some idiots were trying to start their own newspaper illegally! These nutcases always claim that the Constitution supposedly grants the right for any citizen to publish anything they want. That's completely insane! Everyone knows that only the Government should print the news so that the truth can be heard without being tainted. If everyone printed what they wanted, how would we know what the truth is? Really, I don't understand these people. Why can't they just read USA Today and Time? What they did was totally illegal and morally reprehensible. Besides, we don't need any other news publications, because we have the best in the world.
</SATIRE>