Online Reporters Now the Journalists Most Often Jailed 147
bckspc writes "The Committee to Protect Journalists today released the results of its annual survey of journalists in prison. For the first time, they found more Internet journalists jailed worldwide than journalists working in any other medium. CPJ found that 45 percent of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. Their chart of journalists jailed by year is also interesting."
Is this for REAL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lack of an editorial board. (Score:4, Insightful)
Reading blogs is often like reading a trashy tabloid, only they're even more comfortable posting outright lies.
Blogs can make a good starting point for finding info on something but overall they generally only post stuff that doesn't appear in papers or news channels because they lack the quality control or journalistic integrity of news organisations.
muddled and meaningless (Score:2, Insightful)
What we actually have is a fall in the numbers from a few years ago - and including pretty much antone who writes a blog as being a journalist is misleading. Further, since pretty much every "paper" journalist gets published online, there is no real differentiation between the two groups.
In short, this article sounds like some guy bleating on and trying to get attention that frankly, neither he nor is line of work deserves.
Bloggers are not all journalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Calling someone a journalist just because they write a blog does not make them a journalist...
simply explained (Score:3, Insightful)
online journalists are usually bloggers. They just don't have the legal protections that a print or tv journalist would have with the backing of their corporate entity.
Re:Getting up on the cross again, I see (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you using the fact that some journalists are arse-holes to justify curtailing freedom of speech? That's mental.
The principle of press-freedom is separate from how that freedom is used in individual cases. That freedom is an absolutely vital component of a healthy democracy, because it means that corrupt or self-serving officials always have the fear that what they do will be uncovered and made public.
Yes, some journalists are whiny bitches. However, we must fight with all our might to protect their freedom to make a fuss.
Re:yebbut - this isn't what most journo's do (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah because "You libeled me," is a really good reason to deprive a writer of his/her freedom.
Not.
Re:yebbut - this isn't what most journo's do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is this for REAL? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The ones in jail are probably blogging about anti-government related things"
Not always. I was threatened with jail for writing a book review (it really was a crappy book). The charge was "interfering with a trade good." The rational was that a book is an item offered for sale, thus a trade good. Writing a poor review of it had the potential of negatively impacting sales, thus interference.
As I am sure you can guess (by the fact that I am here to post this) I pulled the book review and all mention of it and the author from my blog.
So, it is not just anti-government things. In this case the book was a very poor workbook that intended to teach English though watching movies written by a total crank.
proud of the west (Score:5, Insightful)
you can't slander the king in thailand, you can't talk about nazism in germany, you can't besmirch attaturk in turkey, you can't question islam most anywhere islamic, you dare not question the technocrats in china, you dare not be a journalist writing stories critical of the kremlin in russia, you dare not question the tinpot dictator in autocratic countries, etc., etc., etc.
but in much of the west: canada, australia, the usa, i can, for example, call gw bush a fucking moron, and i haven't the faintest doubt nothing bad will come of me for that
that reallty means something in this world
and you who question my pride in the west for this freedom: you have something you wish to criticize about the west and its behavior?
ok. go ahead
thereby further proving my point ;-)
Re:Henry David Thoreau & Ghandi (Score:5, Insightful)
Thoreau didn't have a wife and kids. His job was living in Ralph Waldo Emerson's house.
It's easy to make a stand when you're taking no risks and no one depends on you.
Re:yebbut - this isn't what most journo's do (Score:4, Insightful)
I had a similar thought, but we're not talking about WorldNetDaily or Matt Drudge...
(From TFA)
China continued to be world's worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 10 consecutive years.
The article goes on to mention other countries, such as Cuba. So, in the most oppressive nations on Earth, people saying illegal things do it on the internet, instead of television or radio...
It doesn't seem very surprising when put in that context...
Re:yebbut - this isn't what most journo's do (Score:4, Insightful)
Do us all a favor o graciously arrogant one, and share with us your omnipresent definition of a journalist, be sure to highlight in particular the part that clearly carves out a blogger as not being a journalist.
Oh, and fuck off too.
Re:Getting up on the cross again, I see (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right that it's annoying when these guys whinge. However, it's not too hard to just ignore it. All I'm saying is that the alternative to letting them whinge is a good deal worse.
sadly true (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. The world today...
Re:Lack of an editorial board. (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll twist any story to meet their means any if they need to add cridibility to their viewpoint, 10 minutes on google will find you a view by someone who is incredibly qualified that will match the point you're trying to make. No matter how stupid.
The US election and the primaries brought out the very worst in the blogosphere. Take the whole Ron Paul fad. A commodity backed economy cannot and does not work in a global economy (evidenced by the fact that not a single country does it and the last attempts to create one failed). However suddenly everyone on the blogosphere who went crazy after Ron Paul went into overdrive. They found books that backed him, they found economists they'd never heard of before and built them up to be incredibly famous, powerful people who are never wrong.
Bloggers are after their scoop. They'll scan speeches for out of context quotes, twist around statistics, post slight glimmers of rumours as major exclusives. All so they can get Dugg or Reddit or whatever.
90% Bullshiat Rule of the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that one must apply the 90% Bullsh*t Rule of the Internet before buying into anything you read on there, I'd say this doesn't surprise me. The problem I have with these so-called journalists on the internet especially those of the blogger ilk is that they are not required to back up their drivel with actual corroborated facts which are then submitted to an editorial board for verification. What's worse is that so many morons believe this crap. That's not to say that traditional media outlets are blameless as well. The simple fact that traditional media survives on advertising dollars means that they don't give a rat's ass about getting the story right as long as it's scandalous and inflammatory because those kind of stories sell and simple just-the-facts-ma'am reporting does not. If the New York Times gets it wrong today, they don't give a damn because they can sell a followup article tomorrow. Why is it that the TV news teases you with clips like "It's one of the deadliest substances known to man and you might be eating it for dinner...the story AFTER the movie........Ummmmmm....is it peas?" But they got you to keep watching their precious advertising. Even DURING the news broadcast they tease you to keep you watching. And what the hell is up with reporters constantly INJECTING OPINION, THEORY, and CONJECTURE into the report? What makes them qualified to do that? I'd bet good money that the so-called investigative journalists haven't the tiniest bit of factual knowledge of what they're blathering about.
No, the real shame (Score:3, Insightful)
The real shame is that so many people *who should know better* say that online anonymity is a bad thing and that only "criminals" try to remain anonymous.
What they don't realize is the person making the laws and appointing judges gets to define who is a criminal. That's pretty much true everywhere.
Re:muddled and meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, this article sounds like some guy bleating on and trying to get attention that frankly, neither he nor is line of work deserves.
You're correct in that the number of people "unjustly jailed or persecuted" would be a more meaningful number to most people, and perhaps would be somewhat fairer. My guess is that the relative percentages would remain approximately the same.
But the reason journalism - or even blogging, if you don't consider them equivalent - is important to protect is because it's inextricably linked to the concept of free speech, which most people acknowledge as a prerequisite for a free and just society. Few other professions - or jobs, if you prefer - have that significance.
I don't think you necessarily have to put journalists (I liked them better when they called themselves reporters) on a pedestal in order to acknowledge the importance of the concept their job represents.