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)
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.
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."
Americans talk about freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2)
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:2, Funny)
The Land of the Free was only ever intended to be "The Land of the Free From British Taxes" - everything else was just a bonus.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:4, Informative)
That's chargable as criminal trespass.
KFG
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:3, Insightful)
It was a private function
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: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: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 cou
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:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Informative)
Oh wait....
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: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.)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3075505a4560,
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
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:3, Insightful)
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 ap
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2)
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2)
Unless you are giving clasified information away or activly working against some policy for your own benefit, as a government employee, you are covered by the wistle blowers protection. This basicaly says that your employer cannot retaliate against you if you expose wrong doings or ilegal acts.
Also if you are exposing law breaking or coruption, then you should have already reported it to the authorities before going to the press about it. There should already be a trail on it.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Jedidiah.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2)
Just so you know, you don't have to.
Hope this helps.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2)
Is it just a fluke that me and the majority of my friends are programmers, many of us without even any college experience, all of us making more than 40k a year?
I wouldn't give up on coding as a career just yet. The majority of companies are certainly willing to pay to have the programmer in the building rather than thousands of miles away.
Re:Americans talk about freedom (Score:2)
What you're talking about is normally referred to as 'social democracy' and is generally practiced in European countries and Canada.
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 ar
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, 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.
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.
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
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:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:2, Funny)
Well then I ask you: How am I going to know when Jesus is spotted, who the fattest person is, how white Michael Jackson is today, and where the martians are? And they mark your post "insightful"...
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
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
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.
There are ways (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary (Score:2)
I'm not sure if I believe that, but I don't think it's a far stretch to manufacturing consent. It's interesting just how well thought can be manipulated by fabricating a false diversity of view.
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.
Re:Middle East (Score:2)
I tend to try to look up any news in things like:
http://english.aljazeera.net/ [aljazeera.net] Aljazeera for a quite extreme view.
http://www.gulfnews.com/ [gulfnews.com] GulfNews as example of moderate arab media a bit further away.
and many others as time and intrest permits.
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.
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.
Re:How did they decide? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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 skepti
Re:How did they decide? (Score:2)
You may not like reporters, but this is a disgusting insult to decades of dedicated investigative journalists which have risked life and reputation to bring the truth to the people.
Re:How did they decide? (Score:2)
The rankings are accompanied by numbers in the righthand column which seem to be some sort of numerical index on the basis of which they constructed the rankings. Unfortunately, they don't, as far as I can tell, explain what these numbers mean.
It is possible, however, to get a better idea of the basis for their characterization of the various countries. The English language section doesn't have much information (and has some screwed up links), but if you go to either the French or Spanish sections and c
Indeed (Score:2)
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 corru
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:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:2)
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:2)
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:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just an example of the freedom of the press. Journalists would
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:Free Speech in Denmark?? (Score:2)
The article is about free press...not free speech. I would think that America would beat most European countries in that respect.
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.
Re:Media self-censorship a function of consolidati (Score:2)
Freedom of the press always belonged to publishers (Score:2)
And this has always been the case.
Honestly though, that is rapidly changing with the advent of the Internet.
This is the new factor, and one that will be "interesting" to watch in the near future. The problem with using the internet as your news source is that you are reduced to making uninformed decisions about which particular internet pundit to listen to. There are few, if any, "internet" news sources which ac
USA/Canada not that bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush sh1t (Score:2)
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: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.
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
Re:There would be more death if everyone turned aw (Score:3, 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 p
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.
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: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:Jealous vs. Envious (Score:2)
Also, the usual reason given...
Given by whom? "Americans"? I don't think so. "Some twits on a limey travelogue", maybe, but perhaps your willingness to extrapolate from such anecdotal non-evidence is more indicative of your own biases than it is of the attitudes among those whom you would obs
Re:Jealous vs. Envious (Score:3, Insightful)
Decline in press freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone saw it live on Tee-Vee! (Score:2)
Surely the major goal of the co-ordinated 911 attackers was to instigate a defensive and vulnerable posture from US government, media and population.
There can be no better horrific message than one which is seen worldwide in real time.
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.
old media (Score:3, Interesting)
My examples here [blogspot.com] and here [blogspot.com] and in my sig. Visit them and enjoy your freedoms.
Pundits are not reporters... (Score:2)
Didn't think so.
Until you do, please do not pretend you are a journalist. You have the same place in the news food chainas the people who write letters to the editor do... You may think you have an interesting perspective or point of view perhaps, but do not imagine yourself to ever be in the same class as the people who put th
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.
Re:Not My Usual "Freedom of the Press" (Score:2)
How exactly are bloggers "members of the press"? They do not create news, they talk about it. Bloggers are pundits, not reporters. There is a difference. A very big difference.
So why is the USA in NAFTA? (Score:2)
How can we judge whether Mexico is in compliance with NAFTA requirements on such factors as pollution control or reciprocal use of US made systems? Do these places actually commit v
Q: What's the Swiss newspaper, that... (Score:2)
Years ago, I heard of a news service or 'paper
that published its news reports intentionally
delayed; the idea was that only after more of
the stories & evidence coming out about an
event have had a chance to flow out of the area
where it happened does it make sense to publish
it.
Q: What's the name of that Newspaper or Service?
Do they have a web site, at which we can read
some/all of their news?
Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow, I suspect (Score:2)
The article is quite short on details -- what exactly were the questions, and how were the response calibrated.
I'm also curious, who they found in North Korea to talk to?
The USA is that repressive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory The Daily Show quote (Score:5, Funny)
Jon Stewart: No, that was Stalin. Thomas Jefferson said that he'd "Rather have free press and no government, than a government and no free press".
Steven Colbert: Well, what else would you expect from a slave-banging, Hitler loving queer?
Re:I am amazed that US is so high. (Score:3, Informative)
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: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