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)."

23 of 598 comments (clear)

  1. Americans talk about freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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.

    1. Re:Americans talk about freedom by mpw2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speak for yourself... I never cringe when I hear "... land of the free ..." ... neither do my Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant and atheist classmates that are all allowed to believe and practice their faiths exactly as they wish.

    2. Re:Americans talk about freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That sort of makes the OP's point for them.
      Guess what? There are many many other countries where that very same situation applies.

      I think the OP was saying that Americans love to pretend they are the only country that gets it right when it comes to ensuring people's freedoms.

      But the truth is that USA is actually behind a great many other countries for true freedom. Take it how you like, but when we see international reports on corruption, the free press, courts, fair trials, rights of citizens - we always see USA coming after about 10-20 other countries or more.

      Some of us just get a little annoyed that the Americans are always talking the talk, but are falling behind when it comes to walking the walk :)

    3. Re:Americans talk about freedom by microbox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I never cringe when I hear "... land of the free ..."

      Give it a rest, most of the developed world has exactly those freedoms, and they find that type of talk self-serving and counter-productive to real freedom.

      If the level of civilization is measured by how will it treats the old, sick and poor, then the USA if full of a lot of hot air.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    4. Re:Americans talk about freedom by rsidd · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Speak for yourself... I never cringe when I hear "... land of the free ..." ... neither do my Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant and atheist classmates

      Have you asked any afro-americans and native americans?

      America has been, somewhat, the land of the free since the 1960s and the civil rights movement (and the current republican party originated as a protest against that, pandering to the white south -- a strategy originating from Nixon -- and is doing its best to undo all those gains.)

      Before the 1960s, America was marginally better than South Africa, that's all. And in the 19th century, it was guilty of genocide of many native American tribes, and was the last major country to abolish slavery, by many decades (and it still took a civil war to do that).

      Land of the free -- yes, if you're a white anglo-saxon protestant.

    5. Re:Americans talk about freedom by jlar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "And the rest of the "civilized world"[1] _DOES NOT_ always have our freedoms. In the UK, the press can be censored."

      And if you look at the press freedom index you will note that UK is 28th on the list while USA is 22nd. Maybe you should set your ambitions higher than that? For inspiration you can have a look at the countries higher up the list - like Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia or Switzerland.

      If you are satisfied with the current freedom of press and hence lower quality of the coverage please feel free to be so.

      As a Danish citizen I noticed a lowered quality of (parts of) the US press after September 11th and particularly during the run-up to the Iraq war (there seemed to be no room for doubt). From my point of view it was clear that the evidence for weapons of mass destruction were poor. My impression was that a discussion of the quality of the evidence was hardly allowed space in US media outlets. Is that also your impression in 20-20 hindsight?

      In spite of this I supported the invasion of Iraq but based on other arguments than WMD, but that is a different story.

  2. Press Freedom absolutely necessary by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary by saforrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite the contrary. Regardless of their bias, Fox reports the same news as every other mainstream media outlet. They are not tabloid, as far as tabloids go.

      Maybe the same as every other mainstream American media outlet, but there is a hell of lot of news they don't report on.

      As well, Fox News tends to have a habit of covering stories on issues which could be politically damaging for the Republican Party only after the stories have gained enough momentum in other media that they can no longer be ignored.

    2. Re:Press Freedom absolutely necessary by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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."

      Not even by corporations nor by shareholders nor managing directors.

      The reason that I believe that democracy cannot properly function in modern 'media-rich' societies is exactly this; who controls the media controls, among other things, *voting*behaviors* (I believe that human beings are extremely amenable to suggestion).

      Any media coverage of political matters risks being used as a tool to control voting behaviors.

      I like the *idea* of democracy but I fail to see how this sort of problem can be circumvented at all.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  3. Middle East by Indy+Media+Watch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Middle East by dcam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And right there you proved the point.

      No I have not. Let me try to explain what I mean.

      Facts are nuanced by the events that surround them. The surroundings place the fact in context. Without that you can draw anything you want out of some event.

      Reporters are not just reporting on a single event, they are reporting on a collection of facts to present people with a picture of the place.

      Take the Sudan for instance. We have a government committing or at the least supporting genocide. Now if you hear that this government has arranged a $1000 educational grant to make ammends for the genocide. Are you going to report that the government of Sudan is benevolent and kind for offering this? I think not.

      In the case of Israel, past performance makes people suspicious and less likely to trust the government. If you have read some of the followup articles on the shooting of the school girl (in one of the articles I linked), the army has said that company commander did not behave unethically.

      Now, if this was the first event of this sort you had run accross, you might be inclined to take the Iaraeli army explanation at face value. However as this is not the first time (by any means) the Israeli army has failed to prosecute their soldiers for gorssly innappropriate behaviour (that is an understatement), then you are less likely to trust the Israeli army explanation.

      Knowing also from previous events the kind of value that the Israeli army places on Palestinian lives, you might also be more likely to believe that this shooting was deliberate.

      Point?

      I really don't understand why I am arguing with a troll account created for the sole purpose of responding to this article, but anyway.

      --
      meh
  4. How did they decide? by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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...
    1. Re:How did they decide? by gollum123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also the study did not address anything about the inherent bias in the media. The fact that the government does not control the media does not mean that we get unbaised coverage of the news. And a lot of times the ownership of the media is not even clear to judge which side they are more baised against. This is as dangerous as govt. controlling the media because people think that the media is free and fair which is not true.

    2. Re:How did they decide? by luvirini · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think you ae partly missing the point.

      There are no really objective ways of measuring press freedom, as in the all repressed countires the press uses self-censure.

      Indeed you can mesure how many journalists are in jail and how many journalists are required to give up their sources and such on certain level, but the "but I cannot write about those things" cannot be measured in objective way.

      Thus the only way to try to get a grip on these issues is to ask the people in question, with anonymity.

  5. Media self-censorship a function of consolidation. by Behrooz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. USA/Canada not that bad... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Reason why the Swiss are #1 by Faustust · · Score: 5, Insightful


    The reason is that they allow themselves to be completely neutral. They don't care if they have George Bush's money in a bank account or Saddam Hussein's money, it's all the same to them.

    When a country's government is neutral, it allows for the media to be more openly objective. These laws allow for equal treatment of everyone. The only problem with that is you are --I hate to sound cliche-- "helping terrorism."

    1. Re:Reason why the Swiss are #1 by zx75 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Helping, or failing to hinder? Glass is half-full/half-empty here. Switzerland doesn't aid and abet terrorism, does not provide a refuge for wanted criminals, they take care of themselves and expect the rest of the world to do the same.

      In truth, if some larger more influential and powerful nations *ahem* took an attitude more in line with the Swiss, there would be less conflict in this world of ours.

      --
      This is not a sig.
  9. Re:Free Speech in Denmark?? by mjtg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's nothing. You can be jailed anywhere in the world if the US president thinks you're a terrorist. Give me a Danish judge any day.

  10. Jealous vs. Envious by wsherman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:U.S. is way to high by 808140 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're looking at this too practically.

    Freedom isn't much good, admittedly, if no one bothers to exercise it. What this article measures, however, is not the quality of information provided by the local press; rather, it is the ease with which journalists are able to obtain information in a country without the government interfering.

    American journalists don't take much advantage of the US's open nature, because our private media are here to sell news, and Americans culturally just don't care about what's happening in the world. I really don't think there's much of a conspiracy here. The US is a huge country, the most powerful in the world, bordered by another huge country that speaks the same language it does. People in the US just don't care too much about the rest of the world unless it affects their lives directly, and the truth is that as far as US citizens are concerned, what happens in most other countries has little bearing on their daily lives.

    This is hard to understand for a lot of Europeans, who mostly come from small countries that don't have the same natural resources the US does. For someone in France or Germany, what happens in Poland, Belgium, the UK, Turkey -- this all can and does affect their daily lives, economic stability, etc, in a way that is evident to the average joe. And so, not surprisingly, these people are better informed than Americans when it comes to world issues.

    Now, the press freedom in the US is pretty good. By this I mean that a reporter from Le Monde can go to the US with the intent to write an exposé on American government corruption, for example, and will run into very little static doing it. A New York Post reporter, in a similar way, will have little trouble getting the information he wants in France, even if his piece is called "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys: How a country entirely populated by homosexuals manages to remain adequately populated." This is because both the US and France are very free countries. And while the journalists of other countries may use this to abuse them, they understand that keeping information available is important.

    China and North Korea, on the other hand, will want to "approve" what you write before letting you do anything. They may even offer to write it for you.

    That's what's meant by press freedom. Not "is the local press open and non-self-censoring" but rather "do journalists have the freedom to ask questions and get them answered without too much interference."

    The US scores badly on the first but passably well (although not as well as I, as an American, would like) on the second. This article is about the second, not the first.

  12. Re:U.S. is way to high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The United States is now hated around the world because our citizens are so misinformed and ignorant about the world

    No, your citizens have always been misinformed and ignorant. That is not why the US is now hate. It's now hated because it invades countries, kills innocent people, tortures people, and tries to impose its beliefs and way life on everybody else. That is why the USA is hated. But then again, being an American you might be too ignorant to know that.

    BTW, nobody in the rest of the world gives a fuck about your freedom of the press or any other freedom. The rest of the world simply wants USA to leave them the fuck alone.