Slashdot Mirror
Press freedom
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)."
The country responsible for getting the Indymedia servers pulled?
We should definitely not press freedom, for any even slight pressure thereon might be very dangerous.
... but don't practice it. It's pretty sad when you have to cringe every time you hear "... land of the free ..." Not that the U.S. is a bad place to live, mind you. The United States is the best place to live if you happen to like money.
Comparing the Western European countries with vast freedoms of the press to the dictatorial or communist countries with outright persecution of journalists is eye-opening. What is most disturbing is that in this day and age that there still exists repression of thought in some countries. Control the media and you can control the minds of your subjects. To have a truly free thinking society means that the media cannot be controlled.
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.
It's interesting to note the results and see why it's difficult to trust ANY news coming from Iraq.
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 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.
Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet
"Reporters Without Borders compiled the index by asking its partner organisations (14 freedom of expression organisations in five continents), its 130 correspondents around the world, as well as journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists, to answer 52 questions to indicate the state of press freedom in 167 countries"
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.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
That's the country on the top of the list.
The truth is its worse than in the U.S.
In Denmark you can be jailed
for making a comment online if a judge determines that it is racist.
Makes you wonder what the motivation behind this study is.
I would have thought that we were closer to about 40-50. Sadly, we are no where near the free country that we like to believe. In fact, we are much closer to USSR-1955 than we are to US-1955.
I think that the biggest threat to the free press in the United States today comes from the owners of media conglomerates, not the government. The continuing centralization of media ownership and the ongoing lobbying campaign in support of media consolidation leave us with an oligarchy of giant media groups. Often, the major media outlets of a city are owned by one or two large corporations, with interlocking ownership.
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.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I mean the US is where freedom of the press started. And how is Europe so high, with their lefty media. And furthermore how is free press defined? The ratio between commie media to real media?
MOD ME DOWN!
Call me and my voicemail! 914-713-6795. (wow, I have the balls to post my voip number on
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.
Were they arrested for reporting on a protest, arrested for protesting, or arrested for breaking the law during a protest?
Here's what they had to say about the USA and Canada The two North American giants score well A police raid in Canada on the home of journalist Juliet O'Neil and the national regulatory authority's stand against the pan-Arab radio station Al-Jazeera and the local station CHOI FM downgraded the country to 18th place. 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. Really, we're being accused of minor things in the grand scheme of things... the top of the list contries are just small enough to be lucky to have not had any incidents.
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."
So you're saying the freedom of the press is limited those who own one . . . interesting.
Honestly though, that is rapidly changing with the advent of the Internet.
They didn't forget Poland...
Spot on. Exactly the same reason why Australia found itself down the list as well.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
when you live in a corporate state like the us it is hard to distinguish the two
Continuing war has made Iraq the most deadly place on earth for journalists in recent years, with 44 killed there since fighting began in March last year.
scratch one concerning the abc cameraman (or another big network?) who was shot by americans for censorship purposes which we ignore
(-10 trollbaggot)
Americans frequently claim that others are "jealous" of their freedom.
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.
It is sad and somewhat disturbing that my old home country, South Africa is only four places behind the bastion of the free world. Remembering back to the censorship and talking to those still there, I worry about what we don't hear in the mainstream (or perhaps any) press in the US. When did this situation start to occur, i wonder?
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.
You have 100% freedom with blogs, and they don't have borders.
My examples here and here and in my sig. Visit them and enjoy your freedoms.
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
In general, it refers to how much freedom members of the press are given, not to how free speech/publication is. For example, the US is cited for trouble giving press visas, and the arrest of reporters during demonstrations. It makes no mention of any other restrictions on speech, no mention of a climate that is hostile to some forms of the press, no mention of the way that the president grants the media access and chooses questions.
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.
I think the internet is pretty dang independent. I mean you dont get much more independent then a free for all. I think what the big problem is that the news that is owned by corporations tends to be catered to the masses. so its mono.
So you're saying the freedom of the press is limited those who own one . . . interesting.
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 actually are a source of news, but a lot of monkeys banging on keyboard who are ready to interpret the news for you. [e.g. Just because a news report comes from the CBC, BBC, El Pais, or Al-Jazerra does not make it any more credible, it is just another data point that someone will use to spin an event...]
Is this any better? I really don't know.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
While I am sure you think that you provide some useful interpretation of the news and events happening in the world outside your living room, have you actually ever provided news?
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 thier lives on the line to actually tell the rest of the world what is happening.
Given this site or this story, I say US position raked as 22 to be bull.
The curse is finished! Congrats!
Saw an article on just this topic at http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004 /10/27/417f2e371f8fc. Might be worth a look if your interested in it.
Red Sox are world champions! WOOOOOO!!!
Mexico was rated 95th this year. The reason given is violence against journalists in several specific states, which are mostly the same northern border states where most of the US businesses have relocated under NAFTA and where Mexican businesses that export to us under NAFTA have the substantial majority of their factories.
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 violence up to and including murder against the Mexican investigative press, but cooperate fully with gringo inspectors?
Who is John Cabal?
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?
yes it's a mistake, but it's a far more understandable one than what you'd normally see.
At least it's not an apostrophe for pluralisation....
Advanced users are users too!
I can tell you how relevant and meaningful this index is to me...(Sounds of whistling, farting, and a turd dropping)
You are free to know the REDSOX won the world series!!!
Score: 1,000,000,Informative!
Freedom of the Press does not mean that press is fair. Fair has nothing to do with it.
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.
I find it funny that our country is so out of it as far as freedoms, but think about what sells; the glitz and glamor of the 24 hrs news channels. It's why no one hears 90% of the news out there. Luckily we have the internet, however with most of the electorate more concerned about Paris Hilton than the election, most of the news is wasted in place of commercials for 'erectile disfunction' medications.
PCB#(!!!)$(*
free ipod and free gmail!
I would also liked to know, Australia is ranked 41, one of the lowest 'first-world', freely elected,US/European Centric, etc counties on the list.
But when I looked a the evaluation by region in hopes of finding out what our goverment did to censor the media. There was no mention of Australia anywhere.
I thought we had a fairly open media with two channels stand out channels SBS, and ABC. The ABC which is goverment funded but not run, and often very critical of our goverment.
The worst cases of censorship I can think of are that we don't have an R rating for games. So some games a lightly censored before entering the country [The only game that I can think of that may have been banned in Postal 2. But thats only because I haven't seen it on shelves]. And the have in the past banned movies (including one that caused a big up roar. Which included an illegal public screening in which the host of 'The Movie Show' was arrested). But this is mainly due to things such as underage sex, graphic underage rape etc.
None of which has much to do with freedom of the press.
Does anyone know why Australia is ranked so low?
The United States should really be ranked in the lower quarter of this index. The United States is now hated around the world because our citizens are so misinformed and ignorant about the world, thanks to media consolidation and bad news programming. Libraries and schools censor the press here through the use of filters. The RIAA, Microsoft and other corporations control speech through draconian intellectual property law. Dissenters aren't allowed to exercise their free speech outside of political conventions without being violently attacked by the cops. There just isn't much press freedom in the USA these days.
... why don't you spend some time reading Jurgen Habermas, Noam Chomsky... just some head nerds of the topic.
I remember once this subject came up, and somebody pointed out that even though Canada scored higher, they actually do things such as filter pamphlets from certain political groups, including certain Jewish groups. Freedom of press and freedom of speach can be two very different things. Ideally, both rankings should be presented together, otherwise you give a lopsided picture.
Table-ized A.I.
... has been liberated !!
... well done US & UK!
... and Switzerland has a lot of good doggies writing there.
148 out of 167
And where's the list measuring self-censorship ?
I know, just invert this list!
North Korea has NO self-censorship as it's already done for the journalists
-----
This advert was sponsored by the Freedam to Right Crop Craporate Thank Tink.
Eveything this author said is his own opinion, honest.
"What is most disturbing is that in this day and age that there still exists repression of thought in some countries."
What is most surprising is that most colleges have Speech Codes which expressly violate a student and faculties 1st Amendment rights.
Of course, they prohibit speech (and hopefully thought) that is Politically Incorrect.
Odd that the types of people doing these freedom surveys don't seem to be bothered when the type of speech prohibited is speech they don't like.
Odd that they don't have problem with government funding this repression either via public schools, or student loans in private schools.
The rules of most college are simple, follow the "herd of independent minds" or be ostracized, be turned down for grants, doctoral positions, and tenure. Or worse, fight the herd and be bought up in front of a pseudo-court to be expelled and banned from other schools, greatly reducing your earning power in life, or publicly repent as Galileo and many others did during the Inquisition of their day, and be sent to a re-education program.
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The real shame is that you even have to point this out. It should be painfully obvious to all.
Unfortunately, and even more painfully, it is apparent that your observation is not obvious to many, so thanks for making it.
Since I didn't read the actual surveys, I wonder how sensitive they were to such non-governmental manipulation.
Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
That site is remarkably uniform for a journalistic point-of-view. Very little background information, no debate. What you got on that site is freedom of opinion.
Look at the content of that site.
P-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a.
Are you people blind?
"Click here for in "
Who are they targeting? Muslims, cubans, chinese, i.e countries/people/cultures that are in opposition to the western world-view. Look at that map.
P-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a.
Five seconds of that site, and I felt my stomach turn.
Denmark, Finland, Iceland.... hmmm.
In today's news: The peace treaty with Hobbiton was ratified by the minister for modular funiture.
Now that EU nations have attained prosperity after plundering and enslaving the known world for a few centuries, they like to see themselves as some sort of moral benchmark. Good old Switzerland (8) is built on protecting the profits of war and organized crime. It kind of reminds me of the Kyoto protocols: It doesn't require any real effort or sacrifice on their behalf.
Also worth checking out for comparison's sake are the Freedom of the Press rankings put out by Freedom House.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
(Somewhere in N.Korea)
In just released news.
North Korea *THUMB THUMB* has come in 167th in the third annual *BOOM* *CRASH!* worldwide index of press freedom with 10%$##! *SMACK*
[No Carrier]
An even bigger problem is that apparently the U.S. Courts don't seem to regard the internet as 'press', and hence afforded first amendment protection, even though it is estimated that 15% of the U.S. use it as their primary news source.
The Napster, decss, 2600, sundry p2p, Sklyerov(?) cases are all press-freedom cases and should all have been thrown out of court on first amendment grounds alone. (please note: the first amendment does not say '..except in cases involving copyright or kiddy porn').
Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
What about some of the countries that have laws against people who deny the holocaust or publically express revisionist views?
Being 22nd in the World, I am surprised that John Ashcroft didn't invoke the Patriot Act to suppress this report! I will put the USA up against any other country in the world on the number of press outlets that are operating within our borders, print, radio, TV and internet. The Freedom of the Press is so prevalent in Bush's USA that I am almost going deaf from the cacophony of screams of people saying their right to free speech is being abridged.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The article seems to have been changed since it was originally posted, It originally listed United States of America in 3 separate places, i.e, one for Iraq, one for American territories, and one for mainland. It now only lists the American Territories and America in Iraq. The mainland ranked somewhere very close to Turkey. Does someone have a mirror of this to confirm?
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
Congratulations, you have passed.
Steven Colbert: After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said "Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach."
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?
- Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
Even when it is illegal to criticize the Chancellor's hair?
t ions/week/2003/031003/politics5.html
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publica
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Yes, if your comments threaten voilence to the President that is a crime. For that matter, if your comments threaten violence to me it's a crime. It's called assault. This difference between me and the President is that people take his security seriously.
Point #2
All I see in the link provided is hearsay. Show me something more substantial than someone's blog. FWIW I heard the same trash about President Clinton, some guy made a rude comment in person and the Secret Service allegedly came to his door in the middle of the night. That too is hearsay, and I give it the same credence.
Point #3
Speaking of attempted censorship, I notice my original post has been modded as a Troll. Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony? All I'm doing is asking a question that implies that GWBush might not be a total facist and someone feels the need to "punish" me. It's actually pretty funny, even moreso because whoever did it probably think it makes a difference.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
This is shown at the top:
:-P
No Country Note
But I can't find any links to the explanation of the notes. Is there somebody who can read better than me?
bash$
It most certainly can. Socialism, as defined by Marx, is the evolutionary phase of a society immediately following the Revolution*. Due to the soft propaganda of decades most people don't understand this but Communism relies on a democratic political model when it's fully realized. The Socialist period, when dissent may be present and the economy and society are in process of being transformed, was assumed to require an authoritarian approach until the final transition was ready to be completed. This phase is, again, what the aforementioned countries supposedly were in.
I understand your point, though, touching upon it myself: Communism and Socialism are both terribly misunderstood terms because of the atrocities committed under their labels -and also in part because of propaganda.
[*] I'm not a Revolutionary Communist, I'm an Evolutionary one.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
The margin of error of this survey is +/- 25.
I don't fully understand this american hatred of Switzerland, since it mostly seems to fall in one of two categories: The Banks hiding illegal money and Switzerland's neutrality.
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.
I don't know where you get this, but for sure, if Fox News Channel (tv being very small part of the press) speak about France in french, perhaps french people will look at it.
Yeah, internet's changing it...very slowly. Too slowly. Only problem is, on the internet the biases are much much worse, though they're usually quite open about it. Unlike the media, which tries to hide it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
108. United States of America (in Iraq)
Wow.
Does anybody else notice how a lot of the countries at the top of the list were formally communist and fascist. Perhaps having little or no freedoms allows one to apprciate them more fully.
One would have thought that Americans would have raised hell if you tried to take away their rights, but clearly, with enough propaganda, they're quite complacent (at least if it's for national security).
This is what happens when you get a 'FCC' sending out fines for things 3 years later, and they are finally 'catching up', so even more fines are being given -- Makes you wonder what happened to the First Ammendment.........
--
Amiga OS for President!
Video Production Support
Isn't Rupert Murdoch Australian?
Either way, the Sun is a UK Registered company. It's (for better or for worse) a UK company.
I can't see why a smaller country would have less corruption than a large one. Proportionally, of course. It seems more likely to me corruption would flourish in a small country, where everyone (who is anyone, at least) knows everyone.
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.
Disclaimer - I live in Europe and am a South African
1. Americans on this board seem to be overreacting to the US not being in position 1. That's the only reason I see for them being so on the defensive.
2. The US is not doing so badly. There are a lot of places that are worse.
That's total rubish. France doesn't ban people from receiving Fox news.
The reality is that people in France are just not that interested in Fox news. It doesn't make commercial sense for the cable companies to carry it.
Good to see New Zealand (my home) in the top 10. But Very Interesting to see Australia down in the 40s. Obviously having Kerry Packer owning all the media outlets, scratching the aussie goverments back, is perhaps NOT such a good thing.
I love /. because if I get to feeling too good about being an American I can come here and see just how crummy I really am.
My son and hundreds of British and American troops have given their lives trying to "WALK THE WALK" and give Iraq its freedom. You self possessed judges have enjoyed safety and freedom because of men and women like my son! I am glad that he never took the time to read /. and its fine authors
Living in Finland, I have some thoughts on these studies.
Firstly, most of the journalists, at least here, get educated on universities that have rather dominant leftist atmostphere. It is easy to notice that the common logic among journalists is that good journalism is so called "critical" journalism, which in turn is essentially journalism that must find a contrast with things that don't belong directly to the most obvious sphere of control for them. With their average political background, that usually means privately owned companies and persons that have politically very different world view from their own. It may be very subtle discrimination, but after decades of such opinions among the press, it becomes a public fact.
Also, many international journalist organisations were strongly supported by USSR. Their views might have been on the same side before that support began, but certainly the views intensified with that support. It is rather questionable if USSR was there just for free press.
Then there are things I want to say about the press in Finland, specifically. There's only one newspaper that can be considered of national coverage - Helsingin Sanomat. Other newspapers are either regional or limit to swedish, which is mother tongue for only couple percent of the population. There are also two daily yellow press "newspapers", but calling those true journalism is a joke. So, even if there's freedom of press, diversity of press is highly questionable on newspaper side. Fortunately, in television, there are three organisations that have good national coverage - but depth of television journalism has always its limits.
And as last thing, anecdotal example from the local scare tactics. As there is no (external) censorship, most attempts to control the media show up as court threats when specific persons get bad light in the "yellow" press, often resulting from fabricated or strongly exaggerated facts. There's a recent example that illustrated different hidden standards for freedom of press, though: Both the person in the article and the journalist were threatened by court when an article about prime ministers' father, somewhat controversial person, was published. He claimed in his article that according to some research, caucasians are measurably more intelligent on average than africans, and many asians are even more intelligent, and that this has strong element regarding the chances of nations to prosper. The actual threat came from governmental anti-racism ombudsman, and probably reflects the politico-journalistic climate around here - any discussion on these kinds of subjects should be prohibited unless, at least, we, the natives, are on the bottom. Fortunately, the legistlative bodies in Finland are reasonably detached from political views and dismissed the case - after all, the subject matter was controversial, not clearly against any proven fact, and that scientific research and press coverage of it enjoys especially high freedoms as well as high peer review scrutiny - which must not be censorship, though.
If you don't mind, I'll save this and clip&paste it whenever some throws the usual "more free than thou, best of the best of the best" or other such misinformed and/or ignorant claim about US.
It wears one down pretty fast, fighting these endless masses of ignorant fools thinking they're the peak of civilized world... I'm hoping Bush gets elected again and that he would continue bashing and trashing around until even thickest numbskulls admit that they're no better than rest of the world.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
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.
I'm confused. When did freedom of the press become freedom of the popular press? Just because you can't swear in the NY Times doesn't mean you can't run your own newspaper and swear all you like.
As for independent mass media, well, I'm afraid that in order to become widely consumed, you have to write something that caters to an extremely wide audience which requires self-censorship.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
I'd like to know exactly who worked out that the USA has more press freedom than the UK. The BBC has no political or corporate ties whatsoever, how can that be more restricted than a government-approved, corporate funded national press? At least the UK has more than two media companies heh.
i'm sure the united states would rank higher on that freedom than most european countries.
I'm in China and the story is blocked! I can just guess where China ranking stands from that alone!
Real men don't need signitures!!!
I saw that Spain was bellow USA and I know that can't be true, as USA has much less press freedom that Spain so I look into the report an see this paragraph about Spain:
Spain's poor ranking is due to the resumption of ETA's terror campaign against journalists who do not share its views on international politics or the situation in the Basque country. It is also due to the manipulation of the news and the direct pressure put on the state news media by the government of Prime Minister José Maria Aznar in the immediate aftermath of the Madrid bombings of 11 March 2004.
So you are basing press freedom on what other people say???
This report is total bullshit!!!
I'm from Eastern Europe, and seeing, say, Albania, having a higher rating for press freedom than Croatia, or Romania, is just stupid. That's the problem with this kind of ratings (freedom, market economy, etc): people start by doing smart things (criticising bad policies) and end up doing stupid ones (creating hierarchies of countries based on hardly quantifiable stuff).
Having free media is necessary, but not enough, and you can see that in the US. The fact that Bush is doing blatantly stupid things is not that important, because he can pay for a lot of propaganda which makes his errors look like good choices.
And I really can't see how you could work around this problem. Any solution I see encourages consolidation into very large parties (e.g. democrates and republicans) that are subject to internal corruption...
...when Slashdot needs as +6 or +7 Insightful. Thanks for that comment!
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
please read the article, switzerland is not alone on #1, so are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway and (to my surprise) Slovakia.
The netherlands is not so neutral, nor is it mountainous, reputing the reasons some have given to explain the swiss #1 place.
Slovakia really is a surprise to me: it is a former communist country that has been critisized more than once for its authoritarian leadership; it seceded from checkia some years ago. Apparently they have greatly improved, and has surpassed some of the former communist countries such as slovenia and hungary that were much earlier 'westernized'.
Not "Reporters San Frontiers" as stated in the summary. They deserve respect, and as such deserve correct orthograph (or am I the only one who cares ?)
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.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
nother 'Nam but they eont call it till their political masters have fair distance. human rights - lemme get this - thats just for SOME humans????
has released it's third annual worldwide index of press freedom
"its".
without Slashdot and the internet, how many of you would have known that ...the Libertarian and Green candidates were arrested? ...that the "debates" are not debates at all, but carefully scripted political advertisements? ...that both Presidential candidates and the previous two presidents, belong to the same small power club of Yale?
The major media in America is owned by about 5 corporations, and they are *actively* censoring the news. Considering that the tactics involve controlling the political regime, I'd have to say that this person is right. But the internet does help, even for those countries that are not free (China, for example).
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Nice Troll. ;P Now if only Fox actually carried news...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This claim that if some larger or more influential countries would take the attitude of the Swiss is ignorant.
It is attitudes like that that resulted in the massacres in Rawanda. It is that very same attitude that is resulting in the same thing occuring in Sudan. Want more, Bosnia, Afghanistan, China, and even Checyna.
Seems to me that the real issue is not that some countries are more influential but WHICH countries that are and what they are doing.
I will take the current attitude of countries that do take action. Far better they do than we end up with millions more dead just because we were afraid to we might offend someone by acting up. Perhaps we can avoid another Hitler if we keep acting, after all he was harmless until he invaded Poland, right?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If you want a free press you better own it...
author unknown
Here is the reasoning behind the US being so low on the chart...according to the article:
"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."
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Often, the major media outlets of a city are owned by one or two large corporations, with interlocking ownership.
Whome also contribute millions to the political campaigns of BOTH "major" parties. Really, we should just have a robot president.
I think that the biggest threat to the free press in the United States today comes from the owners of media conglomerates, not the government.
I think that the media conglomerates are the government...Ok maybe not that bad, but they have enough money to tell the government what to do, and reasonably expect it to be done.
hey look another international type poll that turns into America bashing, what a surprise
in recent news, the US has surpassed Microsoft as slashdots favorite whipping boy
Another aspect of this...
Go back to the Clinton administration, for a moment...
For practically his whole time, the news was FULL of a small number of scandals - Whitewater, travelgate, and a few sexual dalliances. (None of those liasons even rose near the level of Kennedy's... or Ike's.)
But Monica was stuck in the news...
in the news...
in the news...
Now to the last 4 years...
Private interests invited to make (pardon me, "consult") national energy policy, with no public visibility...
Failing to pay attention to intelligence leading to 9/11... (failing to be imaginative, when the 'i's and 't's were in place, just waiting for dots and crosses)
Selecting/cherrypicking intelligence to justify a preemptive war...
Avoiding an accurate estimate of the true bill up-front, preferring a cheaper price tag, in order to make the war an easier "sell"... (a common business failing, in my personal experience)
Committing troops, lives, and national prestige to that lowball estimate, with all of the disasters that have followed, as a result...
*widespread lawlessness and looting, immediately afterward...
*insurgence magnet, especially with an unsecured border...
*loss of dual-use explosive materials... (actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam dispersed this material, after US forced UN inspectors out, and as invasion became imminent, but who knows, because nobody was looking)
*growing widespread lawlessness, kidnapping, etc, ever since...
Abu Graib - the seeds of this are in a government that keeps secrets - it goes all the way down...
Guantanamo Bay revelations...
Oh, and it's been scarcely reported that the current administration has underfunded the efforts to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, leaving an opening for terrorists to obtain the stuff...
(The missteps themselves remind me of upper-level management painting in broad brush-strokes, expecting the minions to fill in the details, and do everything right... Except that the details aren't getting taken care of, and the top isn't checking back to see if things were done, properly.)
All of this hits the papers, and drops out of site in less than a week, at least in the US. The news is getting reported, but for all the Conservatives cry about "the liberal media," IMHO the media itself has given the Bush administration even more teflon than Reagan had, by this "report and drop" coverage.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If anyone actually bothers to read the reports themselves, rather than just look at the standings, you'll see that all they do here is measure the freedom of journalists - not the government oppression of journalists. So countries like Spain, France and the UK, where there are terrorist organisations targetting or threatening journalists, drop down the table relative to their government alone influence.
Like...Rupert Murdoch who 'own's NEWS that owns FOX?
May you be sprinkled with Karma. what you said is 100% true and needs yelling out.
The US always falls a bit down the list on this report, and its always for the same reason: Anonymity. Journalists following the Creed want to be able to promise anonymity to their sources while US law says that if the Journalist is offered immunity from prosecution himself then he MUST reveal the identity of any source of information he publishes.
There is a strong case to be made that requiring Journalists to reveal their sources is damaging to individual rights, but there is also a strong case to be made that permitting second-hand libel is also damaging to individual rights. Anonymous accusers (and that's what journalists want to allow here) have been one of the centerpieces of every modern secret police organization. With the right to publish anonymously, journalists can easily become the tool of that very evil process rather than its counterweight.
My personal opinion is that there are enough people with the balls to put their names to their statements that we really don't need anonymity in journalism.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
The report said that US ranking was hurt by problems over secrecy of sources, problems in granting visas to journalists and the arrest of several journalists at anti-Bush rallies.
Given these reasons, draw your own conclusions. This is not a survey of media bias, but one of restrictions on journalists.
Personally, the first reason, secrecy of sources, is one I am not sympathetic to. If a journalist is participating in a crime (in this case outing a CIA operative) then they should be subject to the same laws as anyone else. The journalists were instrumental in committing the crime and the only witnesses to it. Freedom of the press means the freedom to print, not the sacrosanctness of journalists.
My $0.02.
Milo
If the News agencies didn't televise demands and beheadings, then the terrorists wouldn't have as much power.
Even though they claim its freedom, some news networks (Al Jazera) play the demands because it will increase ratings and they're afraid of what the terrorists would do if they didn't play it.
I don't think the press should have complete freedom to play everything in war time.
God spoke to me:www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA
God spoke to me
The major media in America is owned by about 5 corporations
There are lies, damn lies and Slashdot. Here is a list of the 50 largest communications companies, as of 2002. No matter how you whittle down the list of below corporations you're going to get quite a few more than five. Not to mention that all of these are larger than $1 BILLION in turnover per year so many of the smaller but influential players are not shown. I would guess that there are another fifty smaller but influential players below these.
Head to a newstand and look at how many magazines and newspapers there are. More than five. Turn on your TV and see how many newschannels there are. Turn on your radio, well you get the picture.
Company (2002 revenue, in billions)
1. Time Warner ($43.5)
2. Viacom ($19.6)
3. Walt Disney ($16.4)
4. Vivendi ($11.6)
5. Sony ($10.8)
6. Reed Elsevier ($8.1)
7. Bertelsmann ($7.9)
8. Thomson ($7.6)
9. Omnicom Group ($7.5)
10. Comcast ($7.4)
11. Hughes [DirecTV] ($7.2)
12. GE [NBC] ($7.1)
13. Gannett ($6.4)
14. Interpublic ($6.2)
15. Clear Channel ($6.1)
16. Fox ($6.1)
17. WPP ($5.9)
18. Reuters ($5.8)
19. Pearson ($5.5)
20. Cox ($5.5)
21. Tribune ($5.3)
22. Echostar ($4.8)
23. McGraw-Hill ($4.8)
24. Nintendo ($4.7)
25. Charter ($4.6)
26. SBC ($4.5)
27. Verizon ($4.3)
28. CSC Holdings [Cablevision] ($4.0)
29. EMI Group ($3.9)
30. VNU ($3.2)
31. Publicis ($3.1)
32. New York Times ($3.0)
33. Knight Ridder ($2.8)
34. Reader's Digest ($2.4)
35. BellSouth ($2.1)
36 Havas ($2.1)
37. Grupo Televisa ($2.1)
38. Liberty Media ($2.1)
39. Quintiles (2.0)
40 Washington Post ($2.0)
41. SEGA ($1.7)
42. EA ($1.7)
43. PRIMEDIA ($1.9)
44. MGM ($1.7)
45. USA Networks ($1.6)
46. Scholastic ($1.5)
47. EW Scripps ($1.5)
48. IMS Health ($1.4)
49. Belo ($1.4)
50. Earthlink ($1.4)
Milo
The US is #11. #22 comes because they are assigning ordinals to countries that have exactly the same rating, ie, Switzerland is 1 but so are 8 others ... but they still give New Zealand #9.
I wish I could claim it was an active attempt to slant it, but in fact it's probably because most reporters nowadays are dumber than dirt and have no observable education in anything except "pyramid organization" and how to avoid the libel laws.
You are so used to getting just the liberal side of things from the other tv "new" channels, that when one (Fox News) actually presents BOTH sides, you see it as biased. I really feel sorry for you.
.. and possibly in the next few weeks you're going to hear a lot of stories about fraudulent voter registrations and other voter fraud. I want you to listen to statements made by Democrats with this in mind. See if these Democrats aren't putting forth the proposition that every single person who shows up at a voting place to vote should be allowed to vote and their vote should count. Registered? Doesn't matter. Correct precinct? That doesn't matter either. Citizen? You had better not ask them to prove it. If you show up to vote, your vote should be counted ... regardless. Watch, folks, and see if this isn't ultimately the Democrat's position." ~ Neal Boortz
Have you heard this one? It's not from Fox, but from that dreaded right-wing talk radio. Betcha won't hear a word about it on CBS. You will squirm at little, but it's the truth and you can't handle the truth.
"In the next few days
Some of them are novel and have not yet been widely understood. We may employ rather modern technology to process, vet, and filter information through mechanisms not so dissimilar to slashdot's, that could make many organized disinformation campaigns more difficult. It is difficult to imagine such as-yet-unseen systems operating in a socially important way, on a large scale, but it was difficult to imagine the internet itself 15 years ago. The idea is simply to augment existing social and democratic conventions with software that can allow them to scale better.
In addition, surveillance society is coming, but not in the way anyone expects. Within a decade or two audio/video recording devices with effectively unlimited recording capacity will be small enough to be a fashion accessory, or for that matter just part of your apparel. Because they can be carried everywhere and recording constantly, they will be; this will change our whole notion of privacy, really change society as we know it. These little bugs will penetrate newsrooms, courtrooms, boardrooms, and back rooms, despite every attempt to keep them out. They will witness protests, halt arguments about facts, and generally improve the quality of and availability of first-generation source material by an order of magnitude. They will, most of all, make organized secrecy conspicuous, especially because "open" companies, and even political candidates, will win in the marketplace.
Democracy will always be threatened, but it can never be entirely stopped until we lose our ability to be creative in protecting it.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
If the 'business' that publishes pays any tax or dances to any government regulation, it is not free. If any reporter pays any tax, they are not free. I don't know of any country that has a free press except those that do the job for free.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Point # 1: They did not threaten the President, or even you. They had to take the original entry, that caused the trouble, down so you can't see how innocuous it was, or maybe you wouldn't.
Point #2: Hearsay is where you hear someone say something and you repeat it. "Hear say", get it? The linked journal entry is someone reporting what happened to them. That is wittness testimony or first person reporting.
Point #3: The troll mod is very subjective on slashdot. One person's troll is another wacko's well thought out and insightful contribution.
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
The Pledge of Allegiance hasn't been regularly recited in public schools (as far as I know) for almost 20 years.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
For several european countries (notably the UK, Spain and France) journalists have problems with paramilitary groups (resp. Northern Irish groups, ETA and Corsican independentists) and not the governments. These problems helped peaceful (even particularly boring) countries to the top of the list.
BTW if you can't spell Reporters sans Frontières (there are 3 spelling mistakes!), write it in english Repoters without Borders.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Finland at #1 - what a joke.
The country which gave us the term 'Finlandization', meaning self-censorship so that there would be no need for actual censorship!
Perhaps they should review North Korea and find out if there is actual censorship happening, or is everything self-censored already. If latter, DPRK should be placed #1 too.
First the State Police said that our station didn't qualify because we didn't have a full time news department (total crap). After much "discussion" and producing copious records affirming our position they backed off. The other requirement was I needed three recommendations from other press card holders. I quickly found out that everyone wanted at least $500 for their signature. I complained to the State Police about this and asked if they would simply grant me (and others from our station in the future) an ID based on the fact that we produced over two hours everyday of fresh news content everyday and not on who I bribed. They said no. Months later we coughed up the "tribute" money and submitted the paperwork. It was rejected without comment. I was privately told that I would never get an ID because I questioned "their system". Repeated requests for a press ID were rejected, always without comment. BTW, I was a pretty upstanding person back then, in the military reserves with a security clearance and nothing more than two speeding tickets on my record, so the reason for the rejection "on the surface" was never known.
In every state in the US access to press credentials is controlled by the State. Without these official press credentials one has very limited access to news events. While covering a protest my company car (a white wagon with the name of the station painted all over the damn thing) was towed from a legal parking spot while cars with press plates were left alone. Many times "freedom of the press" doesn't apply to those without that State issued ID. Can there be true freedom of the press when the state controls who are the "press"? I think not.
Last night I was watching the after game party in the Fenway on the four stations covering it. One of the stations repeated avoided showing any police "takedowns" of the people there. After the Boston Police killed a bystander last week (Victoria Snelgrove of East Bridgewater) and seriously wounding others one would think these stations and their news staff would want to catch any similar interactions. Instead what I saw a few times was over 10 Boston City policeman in full military battle gear taking down a single drunk that just wasn't obeying their orders quick enough with the coverage being quickly cut off by the station (by changing cameras or moving the action out of frame). Self censorship to have a good relationship with the police is still censorship. If the State Police decided to pull their press cards they easily bankrupt the station.
This is not the picture of the police storming a tv or radio station and shutting them down. This is the police controlling the station's blood supply (their money) and saying "we won't shut you down, your creditors will with our help so play nice with us".
This is the state of the press in the US. They can't take your voice but they can get the private sector to take your press and your home. Thankfully the web has made this more difficult. I seriously don't feel free to sign my name to this comment. I think I'll keep my mouth shut and fly under their radar "thank you very much".
It really doesn't sound like a free nation after all does it?
I did not know the police controlled who was the press and who isn't.
The BBC World News reported that 60,000 voter ballots can't be found in the state of Florida.
What I find very interesting is the TOTAL lack of coverage of such a blunder in the U.S.
I find it amazing what happens when freedom of the press is crib smothered.
Les américanins ne peuvent pas en dire autant avec leur (auto)censure!
At the same time, we (the US) created Saddam Hussein and are responsible for much of the power of the Taliban. Arguably we're creating the problems, or at least, some of them. The question is, are we actually helping the world more than we're hurting it, in this regard? Of course, a broader question is whether we help the world more than hurt it in all areas, but that's so subjective it's basically impossible to measure.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mod parent's parent up. P.S. Try actually READING it.
You very obviously missed the qualification in my statement. I said that said countries should take an attitude *MORE* in line with the Swiss.
I did not say perfect neutrality and self-containment should be the ideal. That is only the case if everyone in the world followed it, which of course is never going to happen.
There are instances where intervention is necessary. No one except the targeted party objected to intervening in Rwanda or in Kosovo. No one is actively pursuing attacks against nations because the UN intervened in the Rwandan genocide. What I DO advocate is a less interventionist policy, you know in the situations that create and then led to the rise of Augusto Pinochet, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Pol Pot.
This is not a sig.
Based on the original index, I generate different ranking, based on the number of events per million of population (rather than unscaled events).
See the result: Rigging Press Freedom. (Oh yes, the US takes the first place, Germany -- the second, and Netherlands -- the third.)
-- Stanislav Shalunov
Agreed.
My point way up the thread was that the free market needs some nurturing and care.
Those who believe central control can work better are naive.
But...
Those who believe the free market can sustain in the long term, especially free of some pretty horrible (some of them generation-scale) gyrations, are equally naive.
We are so poor at charting a course through the middle ground. I began searching last night with "neocon hoover" for more information. I found that in the current neocon thinking, if Hoover did anything wrong, it was in not keeping his hands far enough off of the economy. In other words, in their view the Great Depression was so bad because Hoover wasn't far enough to the right, not too far at all.
I've spent enough time in Corporate America (over 25 years) to know that Government has no monopoly on stupidity. Business has its share, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
No, they didn't have to take the entry down, they chose to. As far as I'm concerned your political convictions don't mean much if you can't take some persecution for them. And they must not be very strong if you cave in so quickly.
Point #2
I stand corrected, technically it's not hearsay. Nevertheless it is still unsubstantiated, unless of course you suffer from the "I read it on the Web, it must be true!" syndrome. I can point you to some really interesting pages if that's the case.
Point #3
Glad to know that lack of unreasoning hatred for another human being is a good reason to get modded as a Troll on Slashdot.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
How many times have you heard somebody mention "the land of the free" as if they invented freedom or are the only ones to have it?
We did invent it, moron. Or should I say the Founding Fathers invented it. It is the Declaration of Independence, an instrument of freedom like none other that ever existed or exists in the whole history of Humanity.
So go stuff yourself.
But its not just "American Christians" that are hypocrites, if you wanna throw out blanket statements...lets make it 50-60% of the world's population are hypocrites.
> if Fox News Channel [...] speak about France in french,
Then they wouldn't be an American station. You see, the primary language of USA is English.
If the article was about freedom of French-speaking press, you would have a point.
What was the name of your Alma Mater, and where was it? I'd like to find out more about this.
You have no idea what you are talking about mr AC. The problems with voting were EXTEMELY loose database matching for ex-cons and incorrectly printed voting cards. This is just BS from the side who just happened to benefit from the mistakes.
Much like many of the other republican statements, it is just wild speculation about what the other sides position will be. (i.e. if the democrats even mention wanting a fair election, it is just them spouting nonsense)
Has ANY democrat said they want unverified/unidentified voting??? No.
Has ANY democrat said they want people to vote in the wrong place? No. (perhaps they might want to make it easier to vote - shame on them!!)
I can't believe the absolute rubbish the right wing "press" comes up with at times. (and yes I realise there are some on the left side as well)
After reading your journal and following This link, I have found that TheIndividual has managed to remove the binary tags. (If you were already aware of this, I apoligise...)
And to everybody else reading this... READ THAT JOURNAL! Read it several times. Follow every link. Post links in your own journals, in your blogs, and anywhere else that you care to. Just get informed, and get the word out!
OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
Italys rating is probably because half the media in the country is owned by their Prime Minister.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After reading your journal and following This link, I have found that TheIndividual has managed to remove the binary tags. (If you were already aware of this, I apoligise...)
I found TheIndividual's page when I was first looking for the (GPL'd) source code without having to subscribe to their forums.. Just read through that page and got even more insight into the situation. It left me asking one big question:
Why has no one taken Sveasoft's firmware and forked it? Say thanks for your work, but you are a bastard, we don't agree with the way you're taking the project, so here's our own. Thats how ever other OS project works (well, maybe without the bastard part).
I suppose by posting this I'm doing the same thing I'm complaining about - namely, complaining without taking action. There are a few things that the sveasoft firmware can't do that I'd like to be able to do. Once I get time, I will definately start working on it if no one else has.. but surely I'm not the only one with no time to take on an additional project?
Speak before you think
You may be in luck. A forked project has already been started on Sourceforge. Unfortunatly, it's probably dead - there's no homepage, and the CVS doesn't seem to have been updated since the initial import. Several people on the Open Disscussion Forum have complained that the firmware is very buggy, and doesn't even work on the Version 1.0 router. But at least you can get the source. ;)
OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
Here's the post from google's cache that prompted the secret service-- get it while it's still hot.
From the post:
Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much. I think he is a giant dick and I want terrible things to happen to him. I'm not really big on the specifics of how he dies, but if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff. That'd be fucking GREAT.
You were saying?
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the post:
Not quite what you wrote.
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
He was not refering to censorship of swearing. He was refering to censorship of stories and positions and ideas. There are many stories the 4 or 5 media megaconglomerates simply will not touch.
Teh simplest example of media megaconglomerate bias and self-censorship was the FCC revised media ownership rules to rescue media megacorps who had already violated the law. Obviously big media isn't going to be happy with their employees reporting on the fact that their employers had violated the law.
It also has a more subtle but incredibly damaging effect in that much of the public has been mislead into a false perception of reality.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I don't think that this attitude of "America first"
will change under the leadership of George W. Bush.
Perhaps, if Kerry gets elected today, that might change.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body