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.
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...
how about 10 or 20 ? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don
enjoy
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.
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.
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.