Slashdot Mirror
US Slips Again In Freedom of the Press Ranking
npwa writes to tell us Reporters Without Borders has released their annual worldwide press freedom index. While developing nations like Haiti and Mauritania continue to gain ground developed nations like France, Japan, and the US continue their downward spiral. From the article: "The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism.' The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism."
There's a difference between government-funded and government-controlled media.
The Finnish YLE, along with the BBC and others, is funded by the government (mostly through a specified tax on all TV sets), but the government do not control what they air. They set guidelines, but do not censor.
*cough* Bolivia *cough*. Not to dampen you're enthusiasm, but Canada shared this erm... honour with Bolivia which, if I remember my geography lessons correctly, is in South America.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
It seems to be a common mistake that people outside of Britain think the BBC is government controlled. It isn't; in fact it's usually the first to be critical of the government.
:-)
The BBC is THE most impartial news agency I know - part of their mandate is to be unbiased, and as there's no politically biased financiers, and no advertisers, they can be free to criticise anyone.
It isn't funded by the government either; it is paid for by the license fee, which is mandatory for anyone with a TV set, which admittedly does imply some kind of state control, but if the government did try to interfere there would be a massive outcry.
Put it this way: I'm British, and I'd take the BBC over any independant news agency financed by advertisers any day
It ranks India 105, mainly because it thinks one big Govt of India banned or censored the publication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons. What really happened was real vote bank politics very familiar to most Americans. India is a democracy with about 85 Hindus, 12% Muslims and the rest Christians and other smaller minorities. The Muslims vote as a block and all the political parties fall all over themselves, including the ruling Congress Party [*] to get that vote block. Hindu vote is split midway and the Muslims form the swing vote minority. State governments would routinely ban anything that offends Muslims and Christians. Or anything the self proclaimed leaders of Christians and Muslims declare that offends them. There is open season on Hindus. India should rank much closer to USA in this respect.
If you look at the way Indian media portrays Hindus, Hindu deities and Hindu practices, something startling will emerge, which is again familiar to most Americans. Lurid details about financial, sexual and criminal activities by Hindu holymen is order of the day. A Muslim painter painted Hindu goddess of learning in the nude and all these reporters staunchly defended the freedom of expression of the artist, much like they defended the disgusting portrayal of Christ in a dirty bodily fluid in USA. Infact the mainstream Indian media's treatment of Hindus identical to the mainstream American media's portrayal of Christians in USA
As for exposing corruption of the politicians, they record politicians taking bribes in hidden camera and broadcast it in National News. The only difference between India and USA is that, in India there is no Fox News for Hindus. But rest assured, it will come soon. Robert Murdoch owns quite a few networks there, and there is this seething discontent among the Hindus for being constantly portrayed negatively. It is a free market there. Someone is bound to serve that market.
PS: The ruling party Congress is headed by a Roman Catholic Italian woman, widow of an assassinated ex Prime Minister. The President of India is a Muslim, nuclear/rocket scientist nominated to that office by the previous government largely declared to be a Hindu nationalist party. The previous defence minster was George Fernandes, a Christian. A country of 1 billion, 85% Hindu, 12% Muslim routinely elevates microscopic minority people (present Prime Minister is a Sikh) to the highest offices. When you despair about democracy, take heart. If Democracy can thrive in such a poor country like India, it can thrive anywhere.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"Finland, the #1 country, actually has strong government-controlled media (with government radio making up 61% of listening time)."
(Speaking as a Finn.) Government-funded: yes. Government-controlled: no! Finnish law clearly states that government should not meddle in the affairs of YLE, the national broadcasting company, and governemnt has no power of censorship. While I normally tune in to YLE, I also follow it's private competitors on TV, which aren't far behind in the ratings and also offer top-notch reporting. So does the majority of Finns.
What I fail to understand is why some people seem to think that a private company, with economical interests and investors in eg. the oil business and arms trade, would necessarily offer more reliable and impartial news than a publically funded company. Why would corporations somehow be more honest and unselfish than governments. I mean, sure, don't trust the government blindly, but why should you trust a corporation blindly? Perhaps you'd like your news a bit more Fair and Balanced?
Lemon curry???
Based on per-capita giving, America is almost dead last among first-world nations.
What I find the most amazing here is that you americans are bitching about how the ranking is made, but not stuff like this:
:)
Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.
Land of the "free" eh?
Anyways I'm proud to be finnish, we've been #1 since the first index was made in 2002
Take a look at this page, where you can find a list of attacks against freedom of the press, that were committed in, or by, the United States and its administration.
You can agree -- or disagree -- with this list, but the fact is that there is a basis for the US low ranking.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Erm, I do prefer the BBC over any of the corporate media outlets, but you're dead wrong on government interference. The obvious cases would be the banning, for twenty years, of Peter Watkins' "The War Game" in 1966, the banning of Alan Clarke's 'Scum' for about 10 years, and the confiscation of Duncan Campbell's 'Zircon' documentary and the ridiculous silencing of Sinn Fein's spokespeople in the 1980s.
Those are obvious because there WAS the public outcry you talk about. You don't often hear about many instances of BBC censorship, like say, the BBC blocking of dozens of programs on the subject of Northern Ireland, dating back to the 1950s, including silliness such as a Star Trek: TNG episode cut for mentioning the IRA, and an Alan Whicker documentary on betting shops banned for showing, in passing, sectarian graffiti. One study showed about 50-60 Northern Ireland related programs were actually censored as of 1987, and the knock-on effect of programme-makers preempting the censors and not submitting controversial material would constitute the 'chilling effects' that US lawpeople talk about.
It's probably going to get worse soon too. The next time the BBC pisses off the government in some way, then Rupert Murdoch is going to have another crack at firing up his 'privatise the BBC' campaign, just like he did with Hutton. The BBC now has a clear incentive to toe the line...
Sure, the advertising-supported corporate media aren't any better but the BBC has its own problems...
We need to distinguish between the Slashdot article and the report from Reporters Without Borders.
The title of the report was actually North Korea, Turkmenistan, Eritrea the worst violators of press freedom. It then continues France, the United States and Japan slip further. Gaps widen inside the European Union. So the US is mentioned fifth and one-eight of the text is dedicated to it.
The Slashdot article is titled US Slips Again In Freedom of the Press Ranking but even there the US is mentioned fifth in the summary underneath.
I stand by my previous comment.
Republican in office? US rankings drop
Democrat in office? US rankings rise
You're probably right about that. But maybe that's because of the actions taken by those in office, rather than simply the party identity?
Ahh yes, I remember that statistic. It was based on per capita giving by governments. Americans have a long history of charitable donations given privately to non-governmental charitable agencies.
This tradition wasn't counted in the per capita donations. Case in point:
The actress Sandra Bullock. After the 9/11 attack she wrote a check out for $1 million and gave it to one of the foundations set up to help.
After the 2004 tsunami, she did it again. What made her a class act was the fact she didn't publicize it. The information on her donations was released by others, and as far as I know she hasn't said word one about it.
She put her money where her mouth was. Of course, since she isn't a government, her donations don't count in the statistics.
That dork Leonardo DiCaprio found out about the second donation and wrote out a check for the tsunami relief as well. Of course he was blowing his own horn all over the place trying to show what a great person he is.
However, he did donate to the relief funds, and again it wasn't counted.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are setting up foundations and endowing them with billions of dollars. Regardless of what you think of them and the reasons they are doing it, they are giving away their money. Again it won't be counted in the per capita stats.
I also donate what I can to private organizations. I like to know that most of what I'm giving will go to those who need it and not to some fat cat UN bureaucrat slurping at the public trough.
I would also remind you that some of the first responders in 2004 was a U.S. navy battle group on it's way to the gulf. Would you care to hazard a guess on what that cost? Helicopters, pilots, maintenance crews, medical personal, engineers, etc aren't cheap.
just my $0.02
Multiple stupids don't make a smart.
The only way for it to be definitely Constitutional is for it to be in a Constitutional amendment or otherwise in the Constitution.
It says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." in Article 1, Section 9. We are not in a state of rebellion (sadly; what's it going to take?) nor are we being invaded.
There was a state of rebellion during the US Civil War, which is why Lincoln could get away with it.
Can you cite specifically that Roosevelt suspended habeas corpus? He did intern the Japanese-Americans (removing their HC rights) but I can't find where it says he did so on a general basis. There was, for a time, a danger that the US would be invaded by Japan but that was ended with the Battles of Midway in June 1942 and Guadalcanal in August '42-February '43, the Japanese occupation of a couple Aleutian islands notwithstanding.
The only time the US was invaded was during the War of 1812, and HC was not suspended.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
how about 10 or 20 ? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don
enjoy
The case involved a riot outside an international summit, and a police car was damaged. The CA DA asked for the unedited video tape the blogger made in the vicinity, was told no, and was unable to proceed due to the CA shield law. The Federal govt then proceded to demand the tape under the argument that "having given the city a grant for public safety, they had partial ownership in the vehicle." From the resolution, the federal judge didn't buy it when it got to his docket.
Also: I direct you to: here and here for people who were ticketed and harassed for bumper stickers.
I also direct you to here for a person who was detained for several hours by sherrifs deputies for writing "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on the clear toiletries bag inside his suitcase. So, while you can say "fuck Bush" all you want here on slashdot, I wouldn't recommend you try exerting that particular right standing in front of the Whitehouse - unless you have a few days of extra vacation you want to spend as a guest of DC's finest.
Yes, you are missing something. Divert your eyes to the right sidebar of the page. There are sections called "In this country" and "Reports", which contain more info.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Here's the thing: would you just hand cash over to the bum who is pan-handeling outside a liquor store, knowing full well that he's just raising cash for another bottle? Or do you set conditions for yourself (thereby imposing your conditions on the begger) before you give out aid? If you had an alcoholic family member that was constantly getting himself in trouble, would you just keep helping him ou of a jam, over and over as the years go by? Or would you set conditions before you helped? Like you say, the rest of the world IS our problem, in the same way that the alcoholic family member is, and it's perfectly all right to say that we sometimes set conditions that are way out of line, but the real reason that a lot of these third world countries continue to have problems (in spite of our most persistant efforts) is because we don't frame our arguements sensibly before we "help" them.
"Judith Miller [wikipedia.org] never spent 85 days in jail"
She did not get jailed for reporting, or out of retribution for anything she printed. She got jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury: something any one can be jailed for. Last time I checked, reporters were not in a special class to have a "get out of grand jury" card.
If you count this as an "action against a journalist", I can find numerous instances of journalists and reporters being arrested for drunk driving.
Where were you when the voynix came?
It's bias is to get a laugh at the expense of the people in power.
Which makes it is one of the few major information outlets that has any kind of adversarial relationship to government.
I guess the Rush Limbaugh Show is NOT biased so long as the Democrats are in power.
But when Katrina hit New Orleans, what other country (besides my Canada) offered aid or assistance to the US?
... The State Department said offers so far had come from Belgium, Canada, Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, China, Australia, Jamaica, Honduras, Greece, Venezuela, the Organization of American States, NATO, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, South Korea, Israel and the United Arab Emirates."
From the first hit on google for "katrina international aid":
Sue Pleming, "Foreign governments line up to help after Katrina," Reuters AlterNet, September 2, 2005: "The United Nations offered to help coordinate international relief efforts for the United States.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
>Reporters have not 'disappeared' for any reasons other than perhaps organized crime.
The article listed two reporters in extralegal US custody.
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
Of course, this is hardly new at the BBC
It's a pity more news institutions don't do a little more self-examination, especially before they act.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The language is pretty clear. There is no trial that determines that you are an enemy combatant, you simply get fingered by your ex-wife or your neighbor or your coworker, and the government's tribunal (per definition ii) agrees through some completely undefined process and "detains" you. Or if you think that the FBI knows better than to listen to some petty complaint (worked for McCarthy) a terrorist gets your name, SSN and credit card numbers off IRC. Then you sit in jail, whine about your innocence, and the guard says "tell it to the judge" and laughs at you.
Statistically speaking it probably won't happen to you personally, but saying that it's not something for US citizens to worry about is making the rather bold claim that the government never messes up.
She did not get jailed for reporting, or out of retribution for anything she printed. She got jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury: something any one can be jailed for. Last time I checked, reporters were not in a special class to have a "get out of grand jury" card.
Arguably they should have the right to keep their sources secret. It's actually considered pretty fundamental in freedom of press. In many (perhaps most) other democracies they do. And in 33 of the US states. But the rest of the states and the federal courts don't recognize this right.
My point is that when you take charity as a whole into account, Americans are among the most generous people in the world. If you want to say that's because they're all giving to Pat Robertson rather than a "worthwhile" charity I'd like to see some evidence of that.
I really only have one complaint about Gonzales, and that is his statements in support of removing court oversight from the "war on terror", and his attempts at trying to expand police powers through the "war on drugs", although this isn't unique to him."
What I have against Gonzalez is this 50 page memo, written by Gonzalez as Counsel to the President. It is filled with legal perversions to justify torture and use of any means short of causing 'organ failure or death' as interrogation methods.
Hmmm. Lets see, attempting to remove court oversight from the 'war on terror', attempting to expand police powers, and justifying torture. This is why the thought of this man as a Supreme Court Justice is so scary. Read the memo. Its a real eye-opener.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.