Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Ranks 17th in Freedom of the Press
reimero writes "According to this article on Yahoo! Germany the U.S. has experienced "serious restrictions" in freedom of the press, according to Reporters without borders' first worldwide press freedom index. Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands came in tops. An interesting study, to say the least."
... that an article about lack of freedom of the press in the US, is published in germany?
... that the US doesn't have the best health system in the world, that the US doesn't have the best pension system in the world, and, globally, that the US are not the best place to live in the world.
Of course, there are place far worse than the US. It just isn't the best, it seems.
Funny, I could swear the only reason we're so low on the list, is we have no real good 'news' to report, other than what happens in the US...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4116
In all honesty, I think this is due to
[censored]
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Oh, yeah, nevermind.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
From the article The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
I'm sorry but if you cross police lines and pose a security risk you most definitely should go to jail. I don't think it unreasonable. As for imprisoning reporters who don't reveal their sources I can see both sides of the issue, but obstructing justice should have a penalty.
I wonder if this takes into account private interest groups attempting to censoring, and often succeeding, stories that speak bad of them, a la the scientologist?
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Sorry to bother you, but freedom of press in the US has been in jeopardy at least since Kennedy's murder.
In other news, the US government is about to bomb a country for the second according to oil priorities and economic agendas. Film at 11.
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Wow, so the US arrests journalists who, y'know, break the law? Astounding.
I understand the bit about protecting sources. I even agree with the reporters (in most cases). But jumping security at federal buildings? That's just dumb.
To even out things a bit, please mod down any posts originating from Finland, Iceland, Norway or the Netherlands. Thanks.
--- What?
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
Crossing security lines at official buildings is illegal. I don't see how being prosecuted for this is such an important factor in the descision.
While I feel that reporters should not be prosecuted for refusal to reveal sources, the crossing of SECURE LINES is ridiculous.
I would also like to point out that the US is in the 10th position as the other countries were tied for their spots.
Not to say that the US doesn't deserve its rating, just pointing out some things from the article.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
If US was somehow ranked number 1 in the list, would that motivate the media at ALL to represent stories in a fair and unbiased perspective? Or would they continue on with their trend of digging up dirt on anyone and everyone in the public eye, all in the name of increasing ratings?
But instead of course, they'd dig up dirt on more secretive events.
It'd be like complaining about a carton of sour milk when one has a lactose intolerance..
Finland has the most press freedom in the world. Did you know that Finland is also the country with the least corruption? in the world?
And I'm not totally sure about Norway being that good. For instance, hardcore porn is banned in Norway.
You will also get a slap on your fingers if you publish and publically distribute racist material. I'm not sure of the limit, but "White Election Alliance" (directly translated from "Hvit valgallianse") a neo-nazi, racist political party got a fine and a slap on their fingers for distributing a policical program that asked for the sterilization of all adopted kids from third world countries.
I'm generally pretty happy with the freedom here though, but it's not like it is "anything goes".
We do NOT however ban bad language from public television. If people want to say "fuck", or the norwegian translation "pule" on the air, they are perfectly entitled to do so.
Reporters without Borders is censored at my work. Nice irony. =)
Again, Canada Outranks our neighbours.
in honour of that, Ill tell a little joke:
God, speaking to one of his underlings after the creation of the earth is pointing at some of its wonders. God says, "oh, and this is Canada, it will have a democratic and peacefull native people, it will have unequalled natural beauty, Mountains, seashore, Wild places like nowhere else... later, a great nation will be formed there. One of peace, tolerance, dialogue and understanding. They will not make wars with their enemies, they will appeal to man's good nature. They will care and respect one another. These Canadians will have the respect of other great peoples, but be humble and honest -- respectfull and mindfull of the virtue of others.
to which, God's pion replies "Well, I wonder God, Is it wise bestowing all these great gifts on a single place -- on a single people?"
God replies "well, its not as simple as it looks, wait until the you see the Assholes I put next to them.
Badda-Bing, Ill be hear all week, tip your waitress.. try the Lasagna.
Uh-huh. And yet -- funny -- the Western European and Scandinavian countries that practice these press freedoms you resent don't seem unpleasant places to live. I mean, people's lives and careers don't seem to get destroyed there any more often than in the US. Their press covers a much wider spectrum of debate than ours. And if you think the US press doesn't frequently label people guilty by inference...
As for "putting forth our own political agendas and parad[ing] our biases as Journalism," have you watched Fox News lately?
There used to be a proud tradition of advocacy journalism in the US. That's what got us most of our labor and sanitation laws, after all.
Furthermore, I'd say that quite a few countries with what appears to be high levels of press freedom to me (such as the United Kingdom and Hong Kong) ended up scoring below the US in any case. This could be a situation where you really don't start to get that bad until you pass like 10 points (the lowest countries are in the 90s on their scale!), which wouldn't happen until level 30. So it doesn't look like it's that horribly anti-US biased, it just looks like it's tracking a number of things that we don't usually look at in terms of press-freedom.
If anything, the survey is a little flawed because it seems to treat an arrest of a journalist as an arrest of a journalist, regardless of reason. Imagine that I write for a newspaper (let's say it's a revolutionary Maoist newspaper). The fact that I work for that newspaper won't get me thrown in jail in the US. But let's say I go to cover an anti-capitalism parade, and get caught up in the rioting and start throwing molotov cocktails, and get arrested. That arrest is hardly equivalent to someone getting arrested just for writing in the Maoist newspaper to begin with. I suppose the trouble is that it's very difficult, in dealing with 140 countries, to say "that arrest was political" and "this arrest was because of a legitimate journalist stance" and "the other arrest was unrelated to journalist activities," so you have to just lump everything together under the question of "how likely do you feel you are to get arrested?" Well, a number of journalists in the US apparently feel like that's possible given our laws on revealing sources, so there you go.
Wow, finally somebody whose not afraid to go and shoot government officials.
I'm pretty sure your gun only contributes to crime as the statistics prove. The only people that are afraid of gun-toting americans are the ones that want real change and go against the status quo. Kennedy, John Lennon, Larry Flynt.
Go fight a tax hike with some guns, terrorist.
Ace
I was unable to bring up the article in question, but what restrictions do we (I live in the United States) have in regard to our media? Are our anti-defamation laws or restrictions against attacking one's character the cause for our 17th place finish? Maybe it's because I have never worked in any job even remotely related to journalism, but I cannot summon up any examples of censorship in our media, persay. When it comes to our television, music, and movies, then yes, we are censored quite a bit.
The server is awfully slow, especially with the big graphic on it. Here's the almost-full article:
---
The index
Rank Country Note
1 Finland 0,50
- Iceland 0,50
- Norway 0,50
- Netherlands 0,50
5 Canada 0,75
6 Ireland 1,00
7 Germany 1,50
- Portugal 1,50
- Sweden 1,50
10 Denmark 3,00
11 France 3,25
12 Australia 3,50
- Belgium 3,50
14 Slovenia 4,00
15 Costa Rica 4,25
- Switzerland 4,25
17 United States 4,75
18 Hong Kong 4,83
19 Greece 5,00
20 Ecuador 5,50
21 Benin 6,00
- United Kingdom 6,00
- Uruguay 6,00
24 Chili 6,50
- Hungary 6,50
26 South Africa 7,50
- Austria 7,50
- Japan 7,50
29 Spain 7,75
---truncated due to lameness filter---
130 Irak 79,00
131 Viet Nam 81,25
132 Eritrea 83,67
133 Laos 89,00
134 Cuba 90,25
135 Bhutan 90,75
136 Turkmenistan 91,50
137 Burma 96,83
138 China 97,00
139 North Korea 97,50
--
Reporters Without Borders is publishing the first worldwide press freedom index
The first worldwide index of press freedom has some surprises for Western democracies. The United States ranks below Costa Rica and Italy scores lower than Benin. The five countries with least press freedom are North Korea, China, Burma, Turkmenistan and Bhutan.
Surprises among Western democracies : US below Costa Rica and Italy below Benin
Reporters Without Borders is publishing for the first time a worldwide index of countries according to their respect for press freedom. It also shows that such freedom is under threat everywhere, with the 20 bottom-ranked countries drawn from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. The situation in especially bad in Asia, which contains the four worst offenders - North Korea, China, Burma, Turkmenistan and Bhutan.
The top end of the list shows that rich countries have no monopoly of press freedom. Costa and Benin are examples of how growth of a free press does not just depend on a country's material prosperity.
The index was drawn up by asking journalists, researchers and legal experts to answer 50 questions about the whole range of press freedom violations (such as murders or arrests of journalists, censorship, pressure, state monopolies in various fields, punishment of press law offences and regulation of the media). The final list includes 139 countries. The others were not included in the absence of reliable information.
In the worst-ranked countries, press freedom is a dead letter and independent newspapers do not exist. The only voice heard is of media tightly controlled or monitored by the government. The very few independent journalists are constantly harassed, imprisoned or forced into exile by the authorities. The foreign media is banned or allowed in very small doses, always closely monitored.
Right at the top of the list four countries share first place - Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands. These northern European states scrupulously respect press freedom in their own countries but also speak up for it elsewhere, for example recently in Eritrea and Zimbabwe. The highest-scoring country outside Europe is Canada, which comes fifth.
Some countries with democratically-elected governments are way down in the index - such as Colombia (114th) and Bangladesh (118th). In these countries, armed rebel movements, militias or political parties constantly endanger the lives of journalists. The state fails to do all it could to protect them and fight the immunity very often enjoyed by those responsible for such violence.
Costa Rica better placed than the United States
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
The highest-ranked country of the South is Costa Rica, in 15th position. This Central American nation is traditionally the continent's best performer in terms of press freedom. In February 2002, it ceased to be one of the 17 Latin American states that still give prison sentences to those found guilty of "insulting" public officials. The murder in July 2001 year of journalist Parmenio Medina was an exception in the history of the Costa Rican media.
Cuba, the last dictatorship in Latin America, came 134th and is the only country in the region where there is no diversity of news and journalists are routinely imprisoned. In Haiti (106th), journalists are targeted by informal militias whose actions are covered by the government.
Italy gets bad marks in Europe
The 15 member-countries of the European Union (EU) all score well except for Italy (40th), where news diversity is under serious threat. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is turning up the pressure on the state-owned television stations, has named his henchmen to help run them and continues to combine his job as head of government with being boss of a privately-owned media group. The imprisonment of journalist Stefano Surace, convicted of press offences from 30 years ago, as well as the monitoring of journalists, searches, unjustified legal summonses and confiscation of equipment, are all responsible for the country's low ranking.
France, in 11th place overall, comes only 8th among EU countries because of several disturbing measures endangering the protection of journalists' sources and because of police interrogation of a number of journalists in recent months.
Among those states hoping to join the EU, Turkey (99th) is very poorly placed. Despite the reform efforts of its government, aimed at easing entry into the EU, many journalists are still being given prison sentences and the media is regularly censored. Press freedom is especially under siege in the southeastern part of the country.
Elsewhere in Europe, such as Belarus (124th), Russia (121st) and the former Soviet republics, it is still difficult to work as a journalist and several have been murdered or imprisoned. Grigory Pasko, jailed since December 2001 in the Vladivostok region of Russia, was given a four-year sentence for publishing pictures of the Russian Navy pouring liquid radioactive waste into the Sea of Japan.
The Middle East and Israel's ambivalent position
No Arab country is among the top 50. Lebanon only makes 56th place and the press freedom situation in the region is not encouraging. In Iraq (130th) and Syria (126th), the state uses every means to control the media and stifle any dissenting voice. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein especially has set his country's media the sole task of relaying his regime's propaganda. In Libya (129th) and Tunisia (128th), no criticism of Col Muammar Kadhafi or President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali is tolerated.
The political weakening of the Palestinian Authority (82nd) means it has made few assaults on press freedom. However, Islamic fundamentalist opposition media have been closed, several attempts made to intimidate and attack local and foreign journalists and many subjects remain taboo. The aim is to convey a united image of the Palestinian people and to conceal aspects such a demonstrations of support for attacks on Israel.
The attitude of Israel (92nd) towards press freedom is ambivalent. Despite strong pressure on state-owned TV and radio, the government respects the local media's freedom of expression. However, in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported.
Good and bad examples in Africa
Eritrea (132nd) and Zimbabwe (122nd) are the most repressive countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The entire privately-owned press in Eritrea was banned by the government in September 2001 and 18 journalists are currently imprisoned there. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is notable for his especially harsh attitude to the foreign and opposition media.
At the other end of the spectrum, Benin is in 21st place despite being classified by the UN Development Programme as one of the world 15 poorest countries. Other African states, such as South Africa (26th), Mali (43rd), Namibia (31st) and Senegal (47th), have genuine press freedom too.
FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
Journalists try to print articles and get sued for liabel (for printing what they researched) or get sued for revealing corporate secrets (since when is uncovering fraud or embezzelment revealing corporate secrets?) or they end up in jail for treading to close to what the government decides is "sensitive materials".
Even when they do successfully run a story, notice how the story is presented by the same slant from almost all media sources. What good does that do us?
My Russian Professor in college used to regularly speak about how here we pretended to have freedom but had none while in the Soviet Union they had very little freedom but what there was was all REAL freedom. I've heard very similar comments from immigrants from countries noted for their "human rights violations". Clearly there's a need to closely examine things here in the U.S.
....."last month a worldwide survey was conducted by the united nations.the only question asked was 'would you please give your honest opinion about food shortage in the rest of the world?'.....the survey was a huge failure - in africa they didnt know what food meant. in eastern europe they didnt know what honest meant. in western europe they didnt know what shortage meant. in china they didnt know what opinion meant...........in the middle east they didnt know wht solution meant.....in south america they didnt know what please meant.....and in america,they didnt know what the rest of the world meant........"
Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
Leela: No he didn't.
"if you cross police lines..."
It depends on *where* the lines are. And *who* gets to decide what constitutes a risk.
The cockpit doors were wide open and the airlines and FAA were too damned stupid to realize that it was a security hole. So now that the cow is out of the barn, we should put armed guards around the chicken coop?
It's also at At the BBC BBC
(Where it's not slashdotted)
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
we at least have a constitutional amendment protecting our rights
You might want to let John Ashcroft know that.. it seems to have slipped his mind.
My Russian Professor in college used to regularly speak about how here we pretended to have freedom but had none while in the Soviet Union they had very little freedom but what there was was all REAL freedom. I've heard very similar comments from immigrants from countries noted for their "human rights violations". Clearly there's a need to closely examine things here in the U.S.
Um, and he was here, right?
What, do I really need to spell it out for you?
I once endured a "Contemporary American Society" class taught by an Iranian immigrant, about how awful the U.S. was. I notice he was here too ...
"This recognition is a great honor," Prime Minister Jean Chrtien said in a statement, "but in truth it only confirms what we, as Canadians have always known: That never, in the entire history of our country, have we ever done anything that has caused other nations to pay undue notice or attention.
"Today, the world has finally recognized that Canada is the nation, above all others, that incites little or no reaction from the rest of the world whatsoever. Today, Canadians everywhere can take pride in their timid, mousy anonymity, assured that their presence on the world political stage bothers nobody."
Breakfast served all day!
As an American, I find it absolutely stunning that XXXXX X XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XX X XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXX!
I have heard rumors that there is new technology in use on the Internet that can XXXXXX XX XXXX XXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX.
While this technology is distressing, let's not forget that through the Internet we still can XXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX X XXX.
Additionally I want to say to the international community that here in America there are still people who XX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX X XXX XXXXX X XXX X XXXXX.
And let's never forget, XXX XXX X XXXXXXX X!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Babelfished and then cleaned up that last post: (but I don't speak German)
The United States stood at 17 in a world-wide index of the journalist organization "reporter without borders" [press release]. "serious restrictions on the freedom of the press" were registered however on each continent, communicated the [rights organization] on Wednesday in Berlin. Among the 20 countries with the "roughest offences" were European countries former Soviet republics, African, asiatic and Latin American states. Italy was the worst European candidate with a rank 40. Germany fared quite well in the rankings. European Union hopeful Turkey placed 99'th.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
This report isn't really unexpected. The reasons are fairly obvious.
The public in the US is mainly educated in political matters by the press, especially cable media. Alternatives to the cable giants, ala BBC are not readily available. The cable media are owned by mega-corporations. It's no surprise that these corporations are interested in preserving their power through economic and political means.
Because money is the main concern, their agenda tends to be a conservative one. Hence they will:
The corporate media own american politics. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Support SETI@home
When Lebanon, a country with state controlled press, where a French reporter was nearly lynched at a conference in Beruit for the "crime" of having covered stories about Israel link(while in France) ranks in the 50's, the Palestinian Authority (where reporters are granted access based on their support of the "Palestinian narrative" and threatened with injury and death if they don't) can "score" better than Israel, a democracy.
Sometimes the self-proclaimed allies of freedom can be be freedom's worst enemies.
In what other countries that are supposedly better than us are the press free to walk out into public with a Swastika armband, yell "HEIL HITLER" at the top of your lungs, and give the Roman salute?
A few Scandinavian countries, I think.
Going to a more serious matter, which of those European countries would allow a true report on the pernicious effects of uncontrolled illegal immigration?
All Western European countries. Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one. Self-inflicted (or market-inflicted) censorship was not taken into account by this study. (Whatever information a "true report on the pernicious effects of uncontrolled illegal immigration" would contain.)
Most of their presses are so controlled by political correctness that you cannot offend anyone or anything.
Oh, the press happily publishes Hitler comparisons, even if they are politically incorrect.
Oh well...I guess all is well.
Is that malicious, false, and misleading like "Clinton is a sex-fiend" or "CEOs are stealing our pensions?"
B: We have the right to interfere with police investigations putting people lives at risk. Including invalidating/contaminating evidence.
Is that like "Clinton stole a bundle from whitewater" or "We are holding a bunch of people without bail?"
C: We have the right to report secret government information that places security at risk and could result in the deaths of our soldiers and aid our enemies.
Okay, is that like "The US tested nuclear and chemical weapons on its own citizens" or maybe "We have evidence that terrorists will attempt to fly planes into buildings?" Oh wait, that wasn't reported, was it?
D: We have the right to put forth our own political agendas and parade our biases as Journalism.
Sure, biases, whatever. Every goddam thing ever written shows bias, if not in the writing itself, then in the choice of what is written about. If you don't see the bias, it's because it matches your own.
E: We have the right to, without jury or due process, label someone guilty by inference.
Hmmmm, is that like labeling Clinton guilty, or the people in Guantanamo, or Hussein, or is it when we pillory Good, Upstanding CEOs for triffling irregularities?
I question The Journalist, too. Freedom of the press extends to those that own a press, and if you want to work as a journalist, you almost have to work for some fat cat with a press. Said fat cat isn't going to let you print stories that criticize fat cats in any meaningful way.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The Germans have annexed France again! Send the boys back in!
At least one local paper in virtually every major city, including Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Halifax, is owned by the CanWest Global. The same organization owns the National Post, one of the two national papers, and Global TV, one of three national broadcasters. CanWest Global is owned by Izzy Asper, who is an open supporter of the ruling Liberal party and is chummy with the Prime Minister. (In most cities, the only other paper is owned by the Sun group, which publishes tabloid-quality news at best.)
CanWest Global has ordered every member paper to run unsigned national editorial, and not to publish local editorials that contradict the national line. Within the past few months, Russell Mills, the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, was fired by the parent company for publishing an article suggesting that the Prime Minister had been involved in a conflict of interest.
Fifth place, my ass.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Canada (#5), recently detained a shipment of pamphlets entiled "In Moral Defense of Israel", to examine them if their content was such that they could be legally imported. The French just tried (and acquitted, true) a man for being uncomplimentary to Islam. And Costa Rica (#15) only "ceased to . . . give prison sentences to those found guilty of 'insulting' public officials" eight months ago.
If we then read why the U.S. is ranked low (not allowing those with knowledge of a crime hide that knowledge even if they are "legitimate reporters", and not allowing people to go behind security lines even if they are "legitimate reporters"), it becomes obvious that what this site means by "freedom of the press" is not freedom of publication (which is the meaning of freedom of the press as used in international human rights treaties), but rather how far the society caters to members of the Fourth Estate.
I haven't been able to read the article since it has been slashdotted, but one thing that increasingly bothers me is how the major news organizations are owned by a small number of large corporations. These corporations in turn have a greater say on how we are governed through campaign donations.
:-(.
E QU ALITY.html
I heard that Disney is considering a buyout of AOL/Time Warner. It would then own ABC, CNN, Time Warner and AOL. Imagine that!
Coroporate news outlets are and will be stymied when trying to report things that powerful corporations don't want reported and that's a lot of things.
This combined with the growing power of the very rich means less and less democracy.
See the NY Times Magazine cover story from this Sunday about who the rich are taking over;
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20IN
My wife and I are British, but lived in Boston, Mass for a few years during the mid eighties. We live in Canada, these days.
When we first arrived there, we thought the news reporting was very narrow so we purchased an HF radio, to listen to the BBC World Service. In those days, the BBC operated a very good news service. It has been reigned in a lot since -- they made the mistake of annoying Margaret Thatcher.
One evening, we heard a report on the BBC about a Bankers conference on the US West Coast. The report contained excepts from a talk given by the (then) chairman of the FDIC and contained pretty strong material. Essentially, he claimed that US banks had over extended themselves with too many bad loans for the FDIC to be able to salvage the situation.
I thought this news would be a major talking point the following day; it wasn't -- no one had heard it. As far as I could tell, in discussions with my co-workers, this news was not available on any outlets generally available to people in Boston. Several of my US friends from that time then went out and bought HF radios.
To this day, I don't know why the FDIC chairman's speech was not reported in the Boston area. Maybe the editors thought the Red Sox were more important than a major bank failure. Perhaps they simply dismissed it as "West Coast" news and therefore unimportant. Maybe the TV stations and local papers did not want to spook the advertisers -- who knows? In any event, the experience was an education.
I wonder what the founding father's opinon would be of it's country being just 'good enough' and 'better than a lot of people'. I'm not particularily a left wing thinker, but I guess I'll spin this to the left anyways. Having a country who guarantees freedom of the press in thier constitution lagging behind countries that have no such beginnings makes you wonder about how much the people of said country care about thier own history. It makes you wonder how much people care anymore about being free as thier own country defines it.
The press is supposed to be more than just somewhere you find out the news. The press is supposed to be an independant check on the integrity of the government and the status quo.
**Standard 'Maybe This is a Troll' Disclaimer**
It wasn't about crossing a police line. It was getting into a security area. Namely buildings.
Probably someone didn't have a dang name tag and didn't make the requisite 5 bazillion calls to a government official to get to their office. Now, because people have heard that terrorists posed as a news crew in North Afghanistan, they don't escort you out over clerical errors, they start freaking out, and that freak out might throw your ass in jail.
I know this sounds ridiculous, but as a journalist in the US, it is nearly impossible to get in touch with a person in the US Govt if they don't contact you first. You sure as hell can't pop by their offices without some rent-a-cop giving you hell about it, or worse. So you see, this listing might not take those factors into account.
Even something as benign as a grain price advisory board is locked up in some big ass building that makes you feel like you're playing Splinter Cell to just get a call back.
Here's the scenario, you know someone that hasn't been honest in the gov't. Well, you're screwed. You don't know their home address and they won't return your call. Worst of all, you can't get to their office to even talk to them because they are at the top of the big government building to get a hold of them. The rent-a-cop is calling them as soon as you walk in the door and escorting you out like a criminal even faster. So if you even need to talk to someone in the Gov't at all AND THEY HAVE AN INKLING THAT YOU ARE AFTER THEIR IMPROPRIETY, you're screwed.
Some days you have to just grow a pair. A lot of journalists do.
So here is how most of that goes:
"Hi, Mister Comptroller. I'm from the news, you know, the group that has been calling you for weeks about you stealing from the government. Care to talk about the fact that you have been locking yourself in this office and the grand jur-"
"Security!!!"
There is an old news addage (now this is just s humourous statement so clam down people) that says that "if you haven't been thrown in jail, you aren't doing your job right."
Trust me, its a joke.
Oddly enough, he won't actually limit your right to own sniper rifles. Welcome to Bush's America, where the only Amendment that counts is the 2nd.
So what exactly makes our Freedom of the Press that limited?
My suspicion is not so much that press is limited, or that information is censured, but rather the bias in the distribution.
Take books; these are fairly conservative in nature. Liberal view points don't sell as many books as conservative view points do. Take telvision and radio; these are fairly liberal in nature. Conservative view points aren't expressed as readily as liberal view points are.
The problem stems from the fact that each group views itself as the normal. That is, liberals don't think they're THAT liberal. Conservatives don't think they're THAT conservative. So, to be "fair", they extend a little to the left, and a little to the right when reporting.
On a normalized scale, this means we really _are_ getting biased data. For instance, when a Republican is in office, we have a homeless problem. When a Democrat is in office, we don't have a homeless problem. Given the number of homeless stays the same, what's changed -- that's right, what gets reported. Suitable examples exist for the other direction.
So, my bet is that it's the selection of the news that gets printed, rather than the prevention of printing news.
Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
So? If they were trespassing on high-security areas of government bulidings, what the hell did they expect?
The issue is more about where those security lines are drawn, and who is drawing them. The government should not be allowed to arbitrarily prevent press coverage by drawing a security line.
No one said that the journalists were trespassing into high-security areas, the report says that they "crossed security lines at some official buildings".
I don't really feel like anyone who hasn't experienced or seen this phenomenon first-hand is going to have a real sense of what a "security line" entails, or how arbitrary they can be. Three weeks ago when I was in Washington DC, I watched about ten journalists get arrested for being on the wrong side of a police line - including Colin Powell's personal photographer. At this event (a political protest that the journalists were covering) the police made well over 500 illegal arrests, and ALL of which that have come to trial so far have been thrown out. I myself was arrested for providing medical care to protestors, while breaking no laws - my charge, and the charge of the reporters, "failure to obey an order to disperse", is one that dozens of arrestees have gotten thrown out on the premise that no such order was ever given - which the Metro PD doesn't deny at trial.
Were journalists intentionally targetted as journalists? Probably not. However, the arbitrary use of arrest as a tool to silence freedom of expression affected their ability to get an article to press - just ask the Washington Post reporter, the UMaryland journalists, or any of the other members of the press who spent the night in jail in the name of a "security line". No wonder the U.S. ranks 17th in this study.
The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the other nine in the Bill of Rights. Look at countries such as China or Iraq as examples of what happens when the people's right to bear arms is violatedby the government. Hell, it was Mao who said that "power flows from the barrel of a gun"...like other mass murderers before him, he knew the dangers ordinary people with guns would pose to his regime. Only tyrants and criminals fear an armed citizenry.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Well, that depends on whether you consider Mein Kampf to be journalism or some other work. The report isn't about freedom of expression, as I pointed out, it's about the freedoms of journalists, an altogether different subject. That's the point of the post, is that I saw a lot of "they don't have the same liberties as we do, how can they be higher," and it's not the point of the report.
As far as "crossing police lines" goes, there was a perfect example during some recent protests in DC.
The licensed protestors (I have a problem with freedom to demonstrate licenses, but they were licensed) were told to disperse. Then all avenues to disperse were blocked and they were all hurded into a park and arrested. Including campus reporters. To cap off the deal, if they waived court and pleaded immediately they could go free. If they wished to discuss it with a lawyer or contest the arrest, they were heald until monday (after the demonstrations would be over). Campus reporters, dorm residents (one hurding area was right in front of a lawschool dorm), pretty much everybody except for "commercial news" reporters.
Oh, btw, this was not some "Evil Right Wing Bush Thing", it was the LEFT WING D.C. government in all of it's glory.
There was an interesting writeup about the situation by a Washington Post cloumnist (too lazy to look it up).
Anyway, this was so recent that it may have not made this study, but it was still wrong to do just the same.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
yeh, who the hell could stand up to those red-coats anyway!
or how could a ragtag group of frenchies stand up to their imperial govt...
so outgunned, out classed.
or how could a backwards jungle country make a superpower run away with its tail between its legs?
or a remote asian country make another superpower run with ITS tail between its legs.
yeh, i totally understand your point - david has never beat goliath.
... hi bingo
this survey is meaningless.
the amount of freedom a press has is proportional to the amount of information they have to dig up.
how much info do you have to dig up in costa rica?
rumsfeld censors his briefings to the press cause we're at war. is costa rica at war?
by the way how many countries prime ministers or secretaries have daily briefings with the press?
and finally, again who cares? it all comes out in the end. what we don't know now we will know in about 30-40 years anyway and we'll be flummoxed as to why we thought we needed to know so much in the first place.
case in point. the cuban missle crisis. recently tons of info has been declassified regarding those 13 days. how many of you cared? if the info is irrelevant now it was just as irrelevant then.
-
Ok there has been this drive to not consider Scientology as a religion. But that is due to the legal process in Germany and most European states. In Europe religion falls under a very special law. Basically it gives them power to get away with "murder". And they can collect taxes from their followers.
Religion in North America is not treated special, simply like a charity. There are NO SPECIAL POWERS.
And giving away these special powers is not an easy task. Of course Scientology would want these powers like any other group...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I really don't understand why all the US based people commenting here is so upset.
I currently live in the US and comes originally from one of the 1st place countires. My personal experience is that the papers in these countries are more diversified, they write about more interssting topics, they don't censor as much, the are more controversial, the are MUCH more in-depth than their US counterparts.
This does not only hold water when it comes to reporters, but on almost all areas in life. Unfortunately, US citizens have been "thaught" that US is the best place in the world to live, have the most freedoms, etc. But that is really not the thruth.
What about all the beeps and blurs on TV? You can't say any of "The Seven Words" on radio or TV, neither can you show nudity without a blur. Now that is censorship to me!
And as a comment to the arrest of the reporters that crossed the security lines, why not just escort them to the other side? The US police has a sexual fixation on arresting people. I don't think there is any other country in the world where the police arrest as menay people as in the US for the most ridicoulus reasons. It's liek I sometimes are convinced that the get a bonus for arresting the most every week or so!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Why do american "patriots" so often feel the need to blindly defend the U.S? Saying that the marks are irrlevant, that the european press is more evil and not free at all, and it's some damn liberal plot again.
I thought that patriotism meant love for ones country, not for ones goverment, I thought a patriot of a democracy was supposed to always question anything that might infringe on his freedom or that of others. But it seems that whenever an article like this is seen in the news, the american "patriots" refuse to question their goverment or their nations policy, instead they stand up behind it no matter what and dismiss the criticism as some foreigners and/or liberals having their panties in a bunch.
This is I believe, the opposite of what the founders of the US would have wanted. The US is not the greatest nation on earth simply because patriots say so, even if they yell it from the rooftops or chant it every chance they get. If the US is the greatest nation it is because it allows people freedom, they have freedom to question their goverment and its actions among other things, but it seems that the more patriotic an american is the less they feel a need to question anything. That apathy and contentment is a real danger to democracy, because it means no one is protecting the democratic rights.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
...the way they do.
:-) ).
:-)
The Nazi Thing:
In Germany offering 'Mein Kampf', saying 'Heil Hitler!' wearing Nazi Symbols, denying the Holocaust, calling Auschwitz a lie - aka 'the Auschwitz lie' and discriminating etnic groups or religions can get you a serious legal ass-chewing faster than going topless on a south-eastern US beach (SCNR
As an american pupil, I heard scottish pupils call me "Nazikid" just for the fact that I came to Scottland from Germany. Any german pupil in midgrades or higher would risk being chucked out of school almost instantly donig something like that.
Today germans in general show no sense of humor what so ever when dealing with anything that has even the faintest impression of being fashitoid or Nazi-like. That has even trippled since Mölln and Rostock/Lichtenhagen. And comparing someone with anything like that is the severest of possible insults. You may have noticed that Herta Däubler-Gmelin resigned from her position two days after she had mentioned George Bush and 'Adolf Nazi' in the same sentence.
You say one wrong word, or just even make the impression you where going to say it - and there goes your political career.
The CoS Thing:
Aside from the fact that, in germany, all religious and etnic groups are equaly protected under the german constitution, Scientology has officially been disqualified as a religious group and has the official status of a 'revenue orientated society' and has a set of sidenotes stuck on the fact that it poses a threat to democracy and the german constitution. Especially as total world domination (TM) is an official central goal of the CoS (sic!).
And think what you will about the german 'Federal Bureau for Protection of the Constitution' (Bundesverfassungsschutz), it isn't that they officially anounce they're putting an organization under observation every odd month. Like they did with the CoS. Usually only sympathisants of groups that fly planes into skyscrapers get that sort of attention. That's all one needs to know about the CoS to know enough.
And speaking of religious freedom: German Hare-Krishnas have officially applied for room and curriculum-time for religious classes (which are attended voluntarily of course) in Schools throughout Berlin jurisdiction. It was granted. Do you have that kind of freedom in the U.S.?
So, don't jump to conclusions before you know the whole story.
Bottom Line: If you want to know what trouble feels like, go to Berlin, stand at the 'Brandenburger Tor' wearing a CoS T-Shirt and yell 'Heil Hitler!'
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Maybe the United States should fix itself first before going after the supposed rights of others.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I agree. The reason that the US is arguably the most free society in the world is because it's one of the most armed.
For example, Bush would be unable to do to the US what his father did to Latin American, simply because we are as well armed as any terrorist groups he might send out to attack us.
I am anti-conservative and anti-Republican. I fully support the right of people to keep and bear arms. From the looks of the Bush's plans for America, we will probably need them.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
You would say they need less freedom then they have. The press in the US is generally irresponsible. I remember when they got real irratated on 911 when thay could not broadcast the exact location of Mr. Bush. I remember them being in Waco with the ATF and began a live broadcast 45 minutes before the raid begain. To be in the US press is to love yourself, and all that matters is ratings. If you have a responsible press then give them more freedom, we dont.
Get a free ipod.
Bullshit.
Either that, or you're illiterate or deliberately ignorant. US media has pundits as diverse as Fareed Zakaria, William Safire, Thomas Friedman, Bill Clinton (who's been known to pen an op-ed column occasionally), the Aryan Nation freaks (who, in the US, _are_ largely allowed to speak ) and the head of B'nai Brith. Or, for that matter, Meir Kahane (before his assassination).
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Here's an interesting fact: officials haven't gotten any more bulletproof than they were 226 years ago.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The problem with rankings is that the rank is absolute, not relative. So the assumption is that there is an even spacing between ranks so that 16th is as far from 15th as 2nd is from 1st.
But as all of us geeks know that the system could be on a completely different scale (power, exponential, logarithmic, etc).
In short, how much worst is 17th from 1st? In theory the top 20 or so could be so tightly packed that it really is irrelevant. It isn't like the US is in the bottom 10% or anything. Statistics?
Or is this just a subjective poll based on little more than opinion?
What is music when you despise all sound?
What DMCA? What censorship?
The real problem is [CENSORED]
Now move along nothing to see here!
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
...my country Venezuela is #77, and our press says everything on their mind. The problem is, that the goverment takes revenge. They closed all the tv channels on the april 11th strike (silly thing, since one channel has a satellite and jumped off the restriction)
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
I haven't seen anything here that demonstrates that freedom of the press is actually limited in the U.S.
1 - A narrow scope of news available is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. It is an indication of corporatioins making business decisions. You are free to start a newspaper and print whatever you wish.
2 - Reporters put in jail for not revealing sources is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. This is done when the nature of the reporting clearly demonstrates that a crime has been committed, and rarely, if ever, has anything to do with the report itself. Witness Bill Gertz here in D.C. He frequently publishes word-for-word excerpts from highly classified documents, to the unending frustration of military/intelligence types. Bill is still writing whatever he pleases.
3 - Reporters getting arrested for being in off-limits areas is not an indication of restricted freedom of the press. Contrary to what they may believe, reporters do not have a constitutional right to go wherever they please or do whatever they please to get a story, any more than I have a right to wander into the White House to exercise my constitutional right to speak freely.
4 - Reporters being criticized for speaking against the administration or government is not an example of restricted freedom of the press. The constitution grants the right to print whatever you please, but does not grant you the right to do so without counter or criticism.
5- The government withholding information from the press is not an indication of restricted freedom. The people in those government positions also have a job to do, and they take it every bit as seriously as those all-holy reporters. Sometimes the best (or only) way to be successful in that job is to keep secrets. (side note -- interesting how the press is so willing to publish information that the military/intelligence community says compromises valuable sources, yet they proudly withstand contempt charges to protect their OWN sources.)
It sounds to me like all the pissing and moaning here would more properly be directed at U.S. society in general (and I disagree with these specific complaints, but you are certainly free to make them.) Your freedom to speak and print what you please is a very specific and simple freedom. It does not include the right to break other laws or hinder the legal process, and certainly doesn't guarantee immunity from angry responses from your fellow citizens.
I invite any examples of REAL restrictions on freedom of the press in the U.S. I know there are some (trial gag orders come to mind.) If we can find two or three, we may have something to discuss.
Evil is the money of root.
There is a lot of criticizim about the ranking many of them are relevant points. But to talk about the freedom of press in the US. A few months ago it became glaringly obvious to me how narrow minded and conservative the US press really is.
One incident in recent times, There were large protests against Bush's war on terror in San Francisco and New York with 20,000+ protestors each a few weekends ago. There was a 400,000 person protest in england with many many important people speaking thier minds against the war at each of these events. Not one word about this was mentioned in any of the mainstream US media. Tim Robbins (actor) spoke out against the war in the New York protest and he didn't get any coverage. Where as CNN covered Spielberg and Tom Curise who were pro-war.
I it is hilarious when the name of a cat rescued by a firefighter is mentioned on CNN but the name of a person who pulled out three people to safety from a minivan that crashed into the ocean is unmentioned.
Why a a cat rescue is news worthy? Why do events from the rest of the world hardly ever get a mention? It seems as if there is nothing happening in the rest of the world when you live in the US. A major train collison in say China/ India is less newsworthy than a cat stuck in a tree!!!!
I have lived in the middle east in Kuwait and oman. We used to get BBC world and CNN in Oman. It is very blatantly obvious how sensationalized and ridiculous the news is in the US. Even countries that are placed lowest on the list have a news around the world section. I live in the US for the past 6 years.
Most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world. It is very evident in the colleges of this country where time and again I have been asked stupid and ignorant questions about India and the Middle East by so called educated people.
As some of the posters here have shown quite clearly, Americans tend to confuse an individual's freedom of speech (me and my soapbox) and the freedom of the press (what CNN is allowed to do). This is understandable, since (to simplify it) they have the same legal grounding the Constitution. However, this is not the way most other democracies do things. Germany, for instance, learned about the power of the press the hard way under the Nazi propaganda machine, and therefore distinguishes between Meinungsfreiheit (freedom of speech) and Pressefreiheit (freedom of the press). The press in Germany is considered the "fourth estate" and as such is integrated into the system of checks and balances with special rights and obligations (!). German law also tries to take into account that the media is a multi-million-dollar industry that sometimes tends to try make money first and hunt for the truth later.
So the American posters here who are going "yeah, but you're not allowed to say there wasn't a Holocaust in Germany" are perfectly right, but they are also completely missing the point. That is a question of freedom of speech, not freedom of the press, which is what this study was about. The German press reports all the time about people running around saying there was no Holocaust, and there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it.
This system also gets rid of most of the gripes about the trashy press in the U.S. presented here: The German press has duties as well as rights. For example, you can be sued for Verletzung der journalistischen Sorgfaltspflicht, which could be translated as "journalistic negligence". If you say A did X, you have to prove you really, really tried to get A's own version. Then there are a whole host of privacy laws that are considered a basic right in Europe and are designed to protect the public from the press, a very alien concept to Americans, who are told that the press is protecting democracy when it is broadcasting the photo, place of residence and full name of a four-year-old rape victim.
The second part is that the rest of the democratic world considers the freedom of the press such a very basic and important right that is dealt with at a federal level in federal laws that apply to everybody in the country. So when some American judge in Somewhere, Ohio decides that a journalist has to give up his sources in a murder trial, while a different judge in Somewhere Else, New York in a similar case says he doesn't, this shocks Europeans who have this humanistic belief that the law should treat all people equally, especially when we're talking about basic freedoms.
Americans, on the other hand, don't have a federal law book, and are furthermore stuck with a legal system that never made it past the 18th Century. Trial-by-jury is something that the rest of the free world thinks is only a minor improvement on using a lottery or chicken guts to decide who is guilty. It does not bother Americans that a court in one state or even town will interpret your basic rights differently than another judge a few miles down the road, since they have been told that this is the way it has to be. To the rest of the democratic world, this is as unbelievable as, say, not being able to count your ballots correctly in a federal election.
So basically the study is only examining the different degrees of freedom of the press in different countries, nothing more and nothing less. And by that measure, the U.S. in fact does not deserve a top spot, because the enemies of the press (who at times include the press itself) can and do use the legal uncertainty inherent in the American system against journalists. The question of banning "The Story of O" in Germany or IRA literature in Britain does not enter into it, as valid as these questions would be in discussion of freedom of speech.
Religion in North America is not treated special, simply like a charity. There are NO SPECIAL POWERS.
That's why religion is in such a deep crisis in the USA. Who is going to worship a God that doesn't even have special powers?
RMN
~~~
In time of war, the government assumes extraordinary powers, temporarily restricting the rights of the people in order to save them from a greater imminent threat to those same rights. It is no coincidence that the US Government has chosen the terminology of war to pursue its recent goals. We have now a War on
l ofrights. phps _of_f reedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.htm l
-Poverty
-Crime
-Drugs
-Terrorism
The beauty (if you happen to be inside the government monopoloy) of a war on an abstract concept is that the concept never surrenders and the war never ends, so the temporary extra powers become permanent, and eventually taken for granted.
Any erosion in press freedom (or press access to government officials) is part of a larger context of increasing government size and power, and reciprocally eroding human rights. This sort of report is the equivalent of an annoying fly biting the sheeple; they will quickly go back to grazing.
Those who are concerned should review their Constitution and Bill of Rights:
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/bil
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charter
and check them for erosion. Those who are really concerned should join the Free State Project:
http://www.FreeStateProject.org
This story is labelled "Censorship" - should be "United States"
The rest of the world (oh yeah, that's more Internet users than USA - even Europe is more than USA) don't really care about your country.
For all the "free speech" bullshit, face some facts for once.
This is a US national story, not a Censorship story.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
All of our fine Nation's problems stem from the educational system, which has lost all its power, even to the point that teachers are afraid to discipline ANY student in ANY way for fear of getting on national television. As a matter of fact, even private school teachers I know of award A's and B's to students who are obviously failing the class, simply because the school is afraid of parents pulling their children out of the school. Students graduate high school without knowing jack. This has turned into a daycare system rather than an educational one. This leads to problems such as:
- People believing EVERYTHING they read.
- People believing EVERYTHING they hear.
- People expecting the government to take care of everything, entering into every aspect of private citizens' lives and pocketbooks in the process, as opposed to the correct system called individual responsibility.
Fix the educational system, get rid of 90% of the government (thus creating opportunities for private businesses to handle the functions that have no business being in the government), and get rid of the crap that hacks away at our individual freedoms one by one.With an academic system in place that teaches people to speak and write correctly from day one, and no restrictions on what you can say and write, we'll have a lot of bullshit to filter through, but at least we'll have our freedom, and that's worth more than all the alleged safety in the world.
This is a lesson we must never forget; that even a Constitutional Democracy isn't immune to falling under the spell of a power-hungry, charismatic dictator.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
If future sources opt not to talk to journalists, it won't affect their livelihood adversely. (Most publishers will be only too glad to pay the reporter for a fluff piece that advances advertisers' interests rather than a serious invetsigative report.) It will affect the functioning of a democratic society, because it will deny readers access to information.