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."
10 reasons why the US are is hated.
1. The US has started (and "encouraged") more wars and murdered more
humans in a 50 year period than anyone else before in recorded
history.
2.The world constantly watches images of starving children whilst in
the US people are dying of over eating.
3. The US boasts that it has spent billions on being able to bomb
anyone, anywhere on the planet. Meanwhile starvation, and premature
death continue to affect millions of people worldwide whose only crime
was being born where they were.
4 The US makes virtuous speeches about fairness, liberty and justice
then continues to enact policies designed to keep a third of the world
in a state of constant starvation. For example, The US purposely
stopped the supply of cheap non-brand Aids drugs to Africa just to
placate the drugs industry. As a result millions will die who could
have been saved.
5. The continual support by the US of regimes that oppress their
people so that other US parties can gain an economic foothold.
6 The American belief that profit is all. People don't count.
7. American hypocrisy. ( I feel most of us in this NG could write a
book on this one but I'll keep it short)
Virtue, honesty, truth. None of these mean anything when US economic
advantage is at stake. We have watched the US invade and murder
thousands all in the name of "regime change" or "protecting US
economic interests" in various countries. If they haven't been there
pulling the triggers you can be sure they paid for one sides (or both)
weapons.
There isn't a continent on this planet that the US aren't killing
people directly or indirectly. Even their own yet the US tells the
rest of the world that they cannot have weapons that kill
indiscriminately. ( the US has once again refused to stop using
cluster bombs and uranium tipped shells) and is the only country to
have used nuclear weapons and poison gases to kill thousands of
people.
8. The continual military support of Israel and it's attempted
genocide of the Palestinian people. Once again, humans die to protect
US economic advantage.
9 The insane belief that most Americans in this NG espouse that we
(the rest of the world) are jealous. That somehow we are not affected
by the murder and slaughter committed by US troops all over the globe.
That somehow, other humans , i.e us, should not criticise the US govt
for the same reasons Americans don't. WRONG. We are not blinded by
your flag If anything the US has taught us a lot about the dangers of
blind loyalty backed only by a flag. Your govt kills innocents then
hides behind the flag and you idiots buy it all.
10. The worst criminals in all this are the US electorate because they
are the only ones who can stop this slaughter but they refuse to
acknowledge their govt has done any wrong. Even with 90% of the world
screaming for the US to stop killing , the electorate do nothing. You
just sit there, hiding behind the flag or using any excuse your govt
has given you to justify the continual slaughter of innocents.
So don't ask me why America is so hated. I find it more interesting
to know how the world will respond eventually to a country that is
nothing but evil. And respond we will.
#1 non-European country baby! ...er.. yeah :)
Am I the only one that finds their entire ranking system a bit nebulous? Countries get low scores when a "reporter" is arrested for not releasing information when subpoenaed by courts, etc. Are they wanting reporters to be above the law or what? What does that have to do with their freedom to publish what they want? Do they feel reporters should be extended the same privileges as the attorney / client relationship? If so I don't agree with that, because the press is not (strictly speaking) a necessary part of the court system.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
The fact that you can complain about it here like the above says we're not *that* bad yet. If you stop seeing anyone complaining at all, then you know things are REALLY bad... those people are being censored/arrested/etc.
stuff |
I wonder if they take into account such matters as government presence and control in media (since this is inversely proportional to how free the press and media are). It's kind of high in the UK (BBC) and kind of low in the US (as indicated by the low ratings of PBS and NPR, and how nobody really knows about VOA).
Finland, the #1 country, actually has strong government-controlled media (with government radio making up 61% of listening time).
Where were you when the voynix came?
The problem with RSF ranking of countries is that it does not make a difference between institutions (basically, the government) threatening journalists and individuals or groups not linked to the government. So if some islamist group threatens, say, danish journalists/cartoonists, the ranking of Danemark will go down. That does not mean Danish journalists are not free to report on whatever they want. So what you see in this country ranking is that countries that are not involved in "world affairs" have a high ranking, while countries that are rather large, with numerous minorities and a voice in world affairs are lower. I think RSF (which has an important role to play) should provide a more sophisticated ranking than this all-in-one rubbish.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
I think they lost an 'e' and a 's' in there. Maybe i'm wrong, but I dont think the english spelling of said countries is quite like that?
Sure we all typo, but in a 'big' position statement like this, by an organization composed of folks who presumably contain writers and editors....
Although givin my 1337 typo skillz, I shouldnt be the one arguing this, but it did jump out at me...
</end rant>
Huh? Theres millions of Americans with the viewpoint that we do TOO MUCH for other countries. It gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling to help others, sure. The rest of the world isn't our problem though.. IMO the problem is they need to focus more on American citizens and less on being big brother to the rest of the world.
FTFA:
``Denmark (19th) dropped from joint first place because of serious threats against the authors of the Mohammed cartoons published there in autumn 2005. For the first time in recent years in a country that is very observant of civil liberties, journalists had to have police protection due to threats against them because of their work.''
I don't see how this is supposed to work. These threats didn't come from the government (at least, it seems that way); in fact, the government _protected_ the journalists. And now, for thanks, they get a worse rating?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
That's not a bit of yellow-yournalism is it? The examples they give are very different than what the above sentence says, in fact they don't give any examples of reporters being treated suspiciously for merely questioning his "war on terrorsim", they do give examples of other things that are bad.
By tring to throw in a completely un-needed "soundbite hook" like that they really do a disservice to their report, and it makes it look like they are doing a biased hatchet job than rather than a real report. That sentence does nothing for their report at all, other than give an opportunity for people to dicredit it.
I may not agree with a lot of that this organization says but.... The US makes a lot of noise about the importance of Freedom while at the same time fostering a system that is steadily eroding individual liberty. Just look at the size of the prison population and count how many police you pass on your way into work each day. Then ponder how many laws you are unintentionally breaking right now. A system where anyone can be nailed at anytime if they upset those in power (or are able to play the system).
:Freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination,as an expression of the individual will.
Freedon
Liberty: Liberty, or freedom, is a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Did anything in it advocate the common ownership of the means of production? Or a centrally planned economy? Or high taxation of the rich to fund a comprehensive welfare state and public services?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
In other words:
The US defends itself when attacked.
The US system allows prosperity whereas the totalitarian systems in other countries cause starvation.
The US is capable of defending itself when attacked.
The US defends the property rights, including intellectual property rights, that are necessary in order for prosperity to be possible.
The US enacts foreign policy that supports its own interests.
In the US, it is possible to make money.
Everybody in the world, including the US, preaches the value of self-sacrifice on behalf of others. But when other countries actually practice it, they starve; the more consistently and thoroughly they practice it, the more they suffer. The US cheats on it, and thereby survives. (Something must be wrong with self-sacrifice as an ideal. Too bad even the US doesn't challenge it.)
The US supports freer countries, such as Israel, which are free enough to produce wealth and actually offer value for trade, as opposed to dictatorships like the Palestinian authority, which demand unconditional obedience at gunpoint from their own people, and produce nothing.
The US defends itself when attacked, sometimes even against regimes that use their own people as human shields, such as by putting a biological weapons lab in a hospital, or a weapons cache in a school.
The US people support the US, and the ideas -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- that make it possible. (However, they do support it more or less on an emotional level, whereas American intellectuals actively oppose it.)
America is hated because it stands as a reproach to the rest of the world (and to its own intellectuals): freedom and prosperity are linked, and can work.
That's why America has such a problem with immigration.
11. Americans abroad are patronising and arrogant in other countries, and look down on local customs and mores as being inferior, quaint, and/or silly - and make this opinion obvious and loudly
12. Americans are blind to many of their own people who live in poverty and without access to decent health care, and their gov't ignore their plight even when a disaster unfolds which attracts the attention of the world
13. American's espousal of greed and selfishness exudes from many TV programs whilst their gov't takes the moral high ground
14. The war in iraq, the prison camps, the secret flights carrying prisoners to countries where they can be tortured, the gov't ignoring the Geneva Convention and even making torture perfectly legal...
15. The trampling of their own citizens rights as corporations bribe their way into positions of influence
I'm not sure I agree with your view of the BBC. Yes, it's funded in part through a form of taxation, but it's hardly a spokesobject for the administration. On the contrary, it's often the government's biggest critic among popular media, and it has a good reputation for accuracy and impartiality, even when reporting on itself. It seems closer to the case in Finland than you're giving it credit for.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Huh? Theres millions of Americans with the viewpoint that we do TOO MUCH for other countries. It gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling to help others, sure. The rest of the world isn't our problem though..
trouble is USA doesn't "help" anyone without huge caveats for themselves, want that food aid ? then you have to do [insert corp agenda here] first, like the bilateral warcrimes agreements (no aid if USA commit war crimes and you might prosecute us) or abstinence instead of condoms in Africa to stop AIDS, people see these all underhand dealings and see the "help" offered for what it really is
and the rest of the world is your problem, that is if you want to stop them wanting to fly airplanes into your assets
I can see 11, 12, 14, and kinda 15... but 13 cracks me up... because, everyone knows TV programs are an accurate portrait of reality. *yawn* If you're short on reasons to hate America, think for a few minutes instead of pulling random crap outta thin air.
> 13. American's espousal of greed and selfishness exudes from many TV programs whilst their gov't takes the moral high ground
Shadus
Since the report was recently released (yesterday), I wonder if the US' ranking includes the fact that habeas corpus has more or less been abolished for any US citizen that the president deems to be an "enemy combatant"?? I'm guessing that after the election, there are going to be journalists who will be shut down (read: vanish) on the grounds that they are undermining the War on Terror(tm) by vocalizing criticism of administration policy.
Then again, as a journalist, I'm a little bit biased in favor of the first amendment (for everyone, not just my viewpoint).
Transistors and Beer!!
Maybe because the Daily Show is a more reliable source of truthy news than Fox News.
Many (most? all?) people who can watch "images" of starving children probably are well-fed themselves. Those who aren't, well, let's just say they have more important things to worry about than US obesity epidemic.
The rest of your arguments can grouped into two categories:
1. Problems with capitalism
2. Problems with countries at war
No. 1. is an inherent problem with many countries. But we ignore them, right? Anything to go after the perceived "authority figure". No. 2. is more serious and unique to the US.
The real problem here is not that your arguments are invalid (some are), or that your arguments are reptitive (most are), it's that you refuse to see anything good about the US. No-one is perfect. Hell, I bought this computer and am buying this bandwidth from my ISP at the expense of some poor starving African Kid. I give to charity, but I don't go overboard. Does buying my computer and my internet access define "me" (or even my capacity for charity)?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Our (I'm dutch) newschannels aren't owned by multimillion dollar corporations, whose main agendapoint will always be (intricate part of any large corporation) how to make more money.
Unbiased news is sadly not the way to make the most money. Unbiased news takes a lot of research, which costs a lot of money. Writing what your audience wants or expects to hear makes more, and costs less.
This will probably be a large factor in how the list is set up.
Also, there is a reason why reporters were only allowed to follow the army "guarded" by a military representative, and I assure you, his safety wasn't the reason.
So much happened in Iraq and Afghanistan that wasn't on any of the major newschannels over there. Also, reporters being tapped and followed by the NSA when they report something critical about the "war on terror", or how about a reporter that dares to explain what communism really is *shiver* (real communism is not that which stalin and mao etc do. that's dictatorship with just a slight whiff of communism. (okay, granted, that's less of an issue now, but that's only a recent change. You're still frowned upon if you mention *the c-word*)
Really, that "American Freedom" all americans talk about may have been a fact in earlier times, but the presidents in the last century have been slowly but steadily diminishing that.
It's perhaps time that some new rules should be added to who can be president there. Perhaps presidents should have a Bachelor or higher university degree, and have no more than twice the average assets, be it in investments or raw money. Nor the president or his family or friends should have any bonds with any company worth over $ 1,000,000.
This report is about more than the US of A. If you RTFA then you will see that you merit less than one quarter of one page of four pages of explanation in eight pages total.
Why are US slashdotters so parochial? Actually I take that back, but there always seems to be at least one who can't see beyond the US borders.
Funny how this argument comes from Europeans, Canadians, etc. that spend all their time telling Americans that their culture is crap, their entertainment is crap, they're fat, they're stupid, they're too religious, they have too many guns, they're too prudish when it comes to sex and too liberal when it comes to violence, we need to provide universal health care, etc. In other words, we need to be more like European countries, because they have everything figured out and do everything the right way.
But we're the ones who aren't accepting of other people's culture and way of life...
IMO the problem is they need to focus more on American citizens and less on being big brother to the rest of the world.
I agree. And I'm quite sure, a LOT of countries all over the world will agree, too.
Especially countries that have been "helped" recently.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While the blurb headline may be construed as US-bashing, TFA does nothing of the sort, and shows that RSF has made a serious effort to measure freedom of the press. Also, the article merely confirms what everyone's been able to observe over the past few years. I see no FUD here, just a statement of fact.
I won't comment on being arrested for questioning the Holocaust, but in the other cases you pointed out (Denmark and Netherlands) the oppression is not caused by the government of those countries, but rather by people from a faith that doesn't believe in individual freedom.
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
If you want to make blanket statements about a country, you have to base it on its people, since it is they whon constitute it. Therefore, per-capita aid is the best way to claim that America as a whole is or isn't generous.
i agree generally with your statements about democracy and diversity in India, but i do think you're painting a somewhat overly-rosy picture. there is the occasional spat of violence (as in bombs going off, not just some street brawl); last time i was there, a bomb went off the day i left the country. and while the "holy men" certainly above scrutiny, equating the outlook on Hindus in India to the outlook on Christians in the USA isn't really fair: certainly the civil calendar is much more based on Hindu festivals and they're much more ingrained in the secular culture of the country (it'd be something like if all half the country didn't show up for work on Ash Wednesday and all 12 days of Christmas were de facto holidays).
still, the fact that it works as well as it does is pretty impressive, really. there's certainly no lack of bad blood, between the human tragedy that was Partition and the on-off war with Pakistan (among other things). yet it mostly just works. again, i agree in general, i just think you're overstating it.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
You're right about that. I have asolution to that then, let's stop giving aid to other countries and pass laws forbiding anyone in America to give food and to anyone that is starving in other countries and billions of dollars to help other countries. We have people that are starving here in America, so I guess we Americans should go by the old saying "Charity begins here at home"
Who, while they're making said arguments, are watching American TV programs, listening to American music, surfing American websites, eating at American fast-food restaurants, etc. This is especially pronounced in Canada. The hypocracy is galling, and I say this as a Canadian who got tired quite some time ago of my country's wholly undeserved chip on its shoulder when it comes to our American neighbours.
The Daily Show is nothing more than a good source of apathy - a lying president who kills the innocent is nothing to be laughed about. I can't help but laugh with Stewart b/c he's good at what he does, but I don't want to laugh.
Kosovo, Somalia. Care to explain those? I know you can't, but try to explain where's the US's hidden agenda was on those interventions?
I just destroyed you.
That's what they do. They are called suicide bombers for that reason.
Earnestly: There are still more U.S. citizens dying because they choke on a fishbone (about 2500 each year) than because of terrorism. Puts things to perspective, doesn't it?
evil sect of Islam?! lol you forgot the scare quotes. You americans are hilarious, you even believe your own bullshit. Try thinking for yourself and don't believe everything FOX News tells you *shakes head*
I suppose we're up for another healthy round of "bash Americ(kkk)a"? Please folks let's just give it all a rest.
Let's see what we've got - the most egregious case of a reporter being prosecuted for refusing to reveal a source was the now infamous Plame "outing". Do I need to bother pointing out that it was the media's incessant demands for an investigation that led to this in the first place?
Maybe we should instead look at the NYT's public editor's recent mea culpa where he admitted that the NYT shouldn't have broken the story about the SWIFT monitoring? Turns out that the program was secret, effective, and *gasp* legal. Oh well, NYT and the LAT got their scoop, secrets be damned.
If we want to talk about press freedom how about we get worked up about the cartoon drawers who have had to go into hiding? How about the newspaper editors who have been killed? How about the riots that emerge anytime anyone even breaths something that could be misconstrued as insulting to Islam.
Here's your press freedom quiz:
1) You're reporting on riots caused by the release of some political cartoons. Do you show the cartoons?
2) You're reporting on Iraq and you receive an obvious propoganda video of sniper shooting, do you show the video?
CNN's answer was No and Yes, you can guess which order those were in.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Problem is, it's most likely shares your biases so you'll allow yourself to be convinced it isn't biased.
oh, but you forget. America its the biggest so we should give up all personal fun and give everything we have to the poor people around the world. /sarcasm
My outlook is this: I will only listen seriously to someone who actually does it. The poster doesn't even stand a shot at naming a single country that gives everything it could to the poor countries around the world. But it is really fun to pick on someone(anyone) else than admit you are just as guilty.
Sadly, this country has been hijacked by those that use knee-jerk reactions and fear as their tools to stay in power, and those of us who can think logically about the rather small threat that terrorism presents are seen as "pro terrorist" since we don't want to give up the ideas this country was founded on, in order to have the illusion of safety.
I don't like either party all that much, but since I know they're not going to go away, can we at least go back to the system where repubs had the house and dems had the senate (or vice versa) so they'll simply spend all their time arguing and none of their time doing things that take away my rights or otherwise hurt me?
Any "system" that allows CNN to shows enemy snipers picking off our troops, all to CNN's delight, can't be ranked that low.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
People around the world need to realize that US Citizens and the US Government are two different things. Ideally the US Citizens should control the US Government, but realistically we don't. If you think it is so easy, then become a US Citizen or better yet a US Politician and help change it. By the way millions of US Citizens help people in other countries all the time, but without the help of our government it makes the process take longer.
Can I bum a sig?
Shouldn't that be the US attacks sovereign nations when its economic interests are threatened? In the context of direct military intervention when was the last time the United States was attacked by another sovereign nation?
"Per-capita" spending is meaningless to the people who are in need to help. The starving kids and people who receive the aid don't care how the aid breaks down by the country's per-capita giving.
In other words, the US is so fucking rich, it can afford to help the most while giving the least per capita. God bless America, we have it so good. Don't be so jealous.
Probably not, but if it's against censorship, I guess it has to be "leftist propaganda".
At least if you watch and learn from the Bush administration...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I watch the Daily Show, I enjoy it for the most part. But it is not less biased. More factually correct? Quite possibly. But it is extremely biased. It can be used to define what bias is.
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.
Modern politics is diabolically media savvy. It can assert the most outrageous lies, and even when the media rises to the occasion and challenges the lies, that still plays into the hands of the politicians. The secret of the "Big Lie" is repetition. It doesn't matter what the reporter says as long as they show the message. Propaganda techniques are meant to engage the emotions and dull the critical faculties. The more outrageous the lie, the more repetitive the objections of the press become, subsiding into a kind of incomprehensible background hum.
It's all about nudging people into habitual tracks of thought.
I think it was Wittgenstein who said that the ideal philosophical text would be written entirely in jokes. If you didn't laugh, you didn't understand what was being said. While there is an element of simple Schadenfreude in all political humor, the key element of TDS is that it is ironical. Irony makes you laugh because it takes you out of one frame of mind and forces you to look at it in another. This is the typical Daily Show joke setup: they give you the political message, then they ruthlessly force you to look at that message in context of the actual news.
A few years ago somebody figured out that habitual Daily Show viewers were better informed than habitual network news show watchers. In part this may be selection bias; but I'm not sure that's the complete story. It may be that at its best, political humor makes you think critically in a way that regular news does not.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
At least one difference between Fox News and The Daily Show (putting factual accuracy aside for the moment) is that the Daily Show makes no bones about being biased - it makes no attempt to hide behind objectivity. Fox News, on the other hand, actually takes itself seriously.
Bias in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing; attempting to claim objectivity when clearly you're not objective is far worse. Owning up to your own bias is in my estimation, a very mature thing to do.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
"The US State Department is VERY aggressive at making sure..." "Its an ugly system, but living so close the the US (and being so similar) its necessary to give some market niches breathing room."
Chicken, meet egg.
NO. The difference is that many countries are trying to preserve elements of their own culture. The US is using diplomacy and trade to EXTEND their own culture. I have no problems with numerous film/music/tv imports coming into the US and failing miserably -- survival of the fittest. Hollywood has alot of money, and also attracts alot of foreign talent; I don't have a problem with that eiter. What I have problems with the US dictacting to other countries how they should regulate their media, based on their own commercial interests. We're not talking even talking about tariffs on US media; the US invokes various levels of trade sanctions if a country subsidizes their own arts & culture. THIS is ridiculous.
Given nipple-gate, the FCC, and reality TV, the US has no moral authority to dictate cultural expression abroad!
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
I'd mod you up except I'd like to make the point that, instead of getting modded up as "insightful", they were modded up as "funny". And no matter what stance you have on this issue, in context of the article, the above posts are rather amusing.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
Yes, everyone in the US is absolutely rich, and we have streets of gold and pay people to wipe our arses for us. Would that were true - the reality is, the US is not the cheapest place in the world to live. However, the per-capita card never seems to take that into account.
According to many, cost of living in the USA is cheaper then say most of north-west Europe. This is also my experience from having lived in both the USA and the EU. Despite that, per-capita spending on support for developing nations in the EU is higher then in the USA. Conclusion can only be that while your argument makes sense at first glance, reality shows it wrong.
I've travelled quite a bit and lived abroad for a year, and I can say that wherever I go I get along great with the locals. You know why? Because I don't have a bad attitude. I try to learn at least a few words of the local language. I take an interest in local culture. But mostly I interact with people as if we were all just, you know, people. People seem to like that. People don't like people who think they are superior.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
it's that you refuse to see anything good about the US. No-one is perfect.
I think that that is a response to how many an American deals with any form of critisism whatsoever. If you are not perfect, thats fine, thats just human, and no different from the rest of us. The issue is that the first thing you should do when you realize that you are not perfect is to start listening to others who do see the imperfactions.
As it is however, pointing out any imperfections of the USA gets you a combination of the following:
- being dismissed as anti-american.
This is really stupid, your enemies won't point out your mistakes, they will abuse them.
- screaming and raving about the imperfection not existing.
No chance on fixing anything when you refuse to see it
- pointing at others who make similar or at times even unrelated mistakes.
A strawman argument, someone elses mistakes don't justify your own mistakes.
The problem is you feeling attacked instead of taking note and trying to improve.
Sometimes laughter lets the truth slip in when the cold hard facts would just make someone so defensive they couldn't even consider it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What I find far more incredible that no one says "Hey, look at Israel economically helping a group of people that continue to launch attacks on its civilians. They collect taxes for the government and have even transferred money to it. I wonder why they would do that?" You might want to ponder that before you go and claim genocide.
1. Palestinians in occupied territory pay taxes as well, but have no representation in Israel.
2. Israel as occupying power has responsibilities under international law, if they don't like those, then stop the occupation
3. Israel refuses to compensate people for very substantial losses resulting from the founding of Israel. Don't be surprised about those people being upset about this.
No, I do not agree with palestinian suicide bombers and attacks on civilians within Israel. I do however agree that the palestinians have some very good reasons for fighting against Israel, and that Israel's army, and EVERY ISRAELI in occupied territories are legitimate targets there. (please note, according to international law, civilians placed in such occupied territories are not protected because they are an instrument of occupation and thereby a military target)
Honestly, the people who really are seeking to bury the US (read terrorists), have our number. They understand that if you fight the US to a stalemate, use our liberal press to spout out all the bad things the US is doing and show how oppressed people over there are, the US citizens will tire of the fight. American's don't like losers or stalemates. And with the Press tying the Preisdent's hands by revealing classified programs that are LEGAL(and then the terrorists adapt), all we can do is fight to a stalemate.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I watch the daily show, mostly because it is on right befor the colbert report. But it is biased in mor eways they just humor. They take the message a person is trying to say, inform the audience of it, then select parts of the speech, take them out of context and attempt to make it look like the person is contrdicting themself. Then some comentary or jestor about how they cannot believe it or how surprised it is or what ever. Sure there is humor at it. But in the process they have totaly taken statments out of context in order to make it apear to say something else. Also they disperportionalty do it to republicans over democrate when the subject of the joke is either.
Sadly, If you leave the humor part out, It will mirror the exact complaints about other network news channels. Fox included. So maybe the trick is to watch more then one show to get the entire story.
I am all in favor of freedom of the press, and stand by journalists who are willing to even be jailed to protect their rights.
The grey area for me, at least, is when they are informed of something that is illegal to be told to anyone. Something classified, for example. The law says "this cannot be told to anyone", someone tells a journalist, and suddenly there are two classes of "anyone" - a journalist, and everyone else in the country. Suddenly it is alright to tell the journalist (since he/she has freedom of the press, and should not be compelled to reveal their source), but not anyone else (since they do not enjoy the same "freedoms").
Suddenly we are equating "freedom of the press" with freedoms above and beyond what normal citizens get.
I am not saying I agree or disagree with that statement, but then let me ask one more thing.
Where does "being a journalist" start? Surely someone writing a column for the New York Times is a journalist. Someone writing for The Greenville (Ky.) Ledger is, as well. Surely Drudge could be considered a journalist. What about someone who keeps a political blog? What about someone who writes about politics in their LiveJournal on occasion? Someone that posts to Slashdot?
Where does that line begin and end? If we are going to guarantee additional freedoms for "the press", we have to have a clear definition of what constitutes "the press", and I do not currently see that definition anywhere.
I do believe that we need to get to the heart of some of the problems we have had recently - this Presidential Administration needs to be a lot more forthcoming in its actions, even if it just informs the Legislative Branch more fully. It seems that, to this Administration, "oversight" is evil, and should be avoided at all costs.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Concerning point 11:
I'm not American.
One of my best friend is American. We know each other for 10 years. He lives here in Brussels. He is one of the niciest guy I've ever met. Extremely open, well mannered and funny. A good man.
You can critize as much as you want their government. But these pompeous over-generalizations over 200 millions human beings are nothing but stupid xenophoby.
I don't mind striking back, but it has to stay somewhat in proportion. Assuming Bush was right about Osama being supported by the Taliban, what is the appropriate response for 3000 dead in the WTC? Invading the country and toppling their government?
Yes I think so, but that should be enough. If you turn it into a worldwide "War On Terror", you will step on a lot of people's toes who really had nothing to do with September 11th, and create a lot of new terrorists in the process.
Thus I was (despite some doubts) in favor of taking out the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But the invasion of Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I'm sorry, I completely stopped reading your post after the first point. That is patently ridiculous. You ever hear of the Nazis? Crusaders? Inquisitors? Mongols? Khmer Rouge? Roman Empire? Aztecs? Egyptians?
Mankind's violent history has gone on for millenia. While the U.S. has done a lot of bad things in the past 50 years, lets keep things in perspective here.
Sometimes the worst punishment of all, is for people to get what they wish for.
When is Europe going to send the bulk of the troops on UN missions? When is Europe going to develop a blue water navy? When is Europe going to start doing any of the hard jobs that nobody wants to do, but absolutely need to be done?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
And we need to translate "not revealing their sources" into what it really means. In areas where keeping silent is legal, something is not being said. A lawyer is not revealing what his client told him, a person is not forced to testify against himself, a priest doesn't violate the confessional. No lie is being said. The truth merely can't be discovered by a certain path because it would violate principles that are very important.
But a news media that can conceal their sources is a news media that can (and clearly does) broadcast their lies to tens of millions of people. It's a license not to keep silent but to lie on an enormous scale and not be held accountable by revealing a source whose credibility we can then judge. That's foul and that's precisely why the media wants this right. They want to conceal often dubious sources from us.
CBS Memogate is a good example. Thanks to a fax number printed on the alleged memos, Internet blogs were able to track down the source. Dan Rather had told us his source was "highly credible." He turned out to be someone who'd been under psychiatric care, someone with an ugly vendetta against Bush, and someone so screwed up, the Texas Democratic party didn't want to have anything to do with him. That is why "we the people" need to know these sources. We can never, never trust the news media's claims about their sources. When it suits their purposes, they lie.
We also need to get one thing very, very clear. Our freedoms, our rights, our liberties do not depend on on the mainstream press or professional journalists. Many of them lack the objectivity, the integrity and often the intelligence to give us the news fair and balanced. The more power they get with exceptions from legal responsibility, the less safe we are as citizens. They can and do distort the political process, searching after dirt on people with one point of view, while concealing the serious crimes of those whose politics are different. Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, was ruthlessly pursued because of poorly supported allegations that he talked 'potty mouth' on a few occasions. Highly credible charges by a woman (and a Democrat) who ran nursing homes that Bill Clinton raped her were dismissed and got little play.
That is the press that in this country has such an inflated opinion of itself and that wants "rights" against criticism and legal accountability that are denied to the rest of us.
--Michael W. Perry, Editor of The School of Journalism by Joseph Pulitzer
There is no such right, even though journalists love to pretend it is etched in the First Ammendment or something. And even if there were such a right, any responsible journalist wouldn't rely on anonymous sources anyways. They are notoriously unreliable (at least with a named source you can go back and verify what they said, and investigate how they know what they said they know).
Well, actually, 31 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes that enable journalists to keep their sources confidential and most of the rest have provided common law equivalents. The ability of journalists to keep their sources confidential is absolutely essential to a 'free' press since journalists rely for their information on people telling them 'secret' things and a lot of people (for their own protection) will not tell the 'secret' thing they know to a journalist if the journalist is going to tell everyone who it was that told them. You seem to be confused about the difference between an 'anonymous source' (which journalists do not use) and a 'confidential source' which journalists use frequently.
The famous 'deep throat' source who revealed a lot of information to journalists about illegal activities going on in the Nixon administration during the watergate scandal was not an 'anonymous source' but was a 'confidential source' who years later was revealed to be a high official with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If journalists did not protect the confidentiality of their sources, there would have been no 'deep throat' source and Nixon would have served as president until 1976.
People around the world need to realize that US Citizens and the US Government are two different things.
That's as maybe, but the same applies to a lot of US citizens who railed against the French for their criticisms of Gulf War 2 ("freedom fries", anyone?), etc. Speaking of a country (or indeed any group of people) as though everyone in it holds identical viewpoints is hardly a solely non-American trait.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
So you think The Daily Show will suddenly stop making fun of the president as soon as a Democrat gets elected? I believe they will make fun of whoever is in power and making the most blatent mistakes. If that turns out to be the case, then I wouldn't call them very biased. Now do you think that Rush Limbaugh will suddenly start rooting for the Democrats when they are in power?
Any "press ranking" list that places Bosnia and El Salvador higher than the United States, has a pretty obvious agenda that has little to do with improving freedom of the press and all to do with pushing a personal vendetta against the hated single superpower.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Seriously, I believe that the moderation system is abused, but does every thread in every topic need two or three of these posts?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
More whining reporters. No reporter is required or forced to reveal their sources. However, that doesn't absolve them criminial investigation or other consequences. Freedom is not free. Sometimes that price is jail time.
I'm tired of reporters thinking their press pass makes them immune to the law. These are the same people chiding government officials and businesses for doing the exact same thing.
only once I said I was English not American did the non-Americans even acknowledge my existence
This is becasue of the stereotype associated with a typical American. Basically it is as follows:
"Americans are the best hosts in the world, however they make the lousiest guests"
And it's a stereotype that persists because it is largely true. I have travelled the US extensively and can say first hand that American people treat visitors like their own families (perhaps even better). Hospitality and service is second-to-none. The food is delicious (and big....y'all have REALLY BIG FOOD in most of the US...and not very heart-healthy....but it's very tasty). People are very knowledgable about their locality and will not hesitate to offer you their assistance in making your stay an enjoyable one. Contrast this level of hospitality and service to what is offered in "friendly Canada". Service and hospitality in Canada is utter crap in comparison...service is polite and friendly but not considerate---tourists have to ask for help even if it is obvious by their appearance. People do not know their own back yards, there is no attention to detail and not the level of pride in their homeland as compared with the US. It is quite a noticeable difference in culture given that these two countries share the same language and land mass and have so much culteral cross-pollination.
The case of a US tourist in another country is the exact opposite situation. The US Tourist sees himself as an HONOURED GUEST. They expect (some would say demand) the same kind of treatment that they would give to an honoured guest back home. "Heck, we liberated your continent you should at least show your respect" some might be thinking as they travel Europe (never mind that the British Commmonwealth just kinda-sorta helped out with that liberation-of-Europe thing too). When in Canada the American Tourist gets annoyed at the lack of consideration, attention-to-detail and so on. In some parts of Europe, where offering a modicum of hospitality is seem as some great favour, it gets even worse--the American Tourist gets angry. Not only are the locals offended by the thought of having to bow down and treat the American Tourist as royalty, they are also afraid of the consequences--they don't want confrontation. Thus, the poor American Tourist is simply avoided entirely by the locals whenever possible.
Canadians aren't THAT much different culturally from the Americans, but as is the case with how each country treats its tourists, Canadians behave much differently as tourists. This is where the "quiet, polite, friendly-but-boring Canadian" stereotype comes from. As a guest, the Canadian feels grateful for being accomodated and doesn't want to put the host out. The Canadian Tourist says "sorry" for the slightest inconvenience put upon the host, and "thank you" for the slightest little favour. And to one degree or another many other cultures are the same. This is why a tourist with a Canadian flag is catered to much more warmly overseas...they are simply great guests. That above all (including current and past foreign policy) has to do with how tourists are treated.
I do agree with the parent poster here...to the American Tourists out there, remember that not everyone shares your way of live, nor wants to...and when you are a guest in another nation do try to be a GOOD guest and leave a good impression. I'd like to add to that however--TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD: Americans may have a brash way of living but they have a level of civic pride that is sorely lacking in the rest of the world. Take your own advice, live and let live. Furthermore, visit the USA and learn what it is to have real pride in your homeland and HOW TO BE GOOD HOSTS.
If we simply learned more from one another then the world would be a much better place. After that things like foreign policy in the middle east and institutional reform in government would work themselves out much more smoothly as well.
Why not believe both sets of numbers? The first was about economic aid to poor countries, and the second counted all volunteering and giving. Donating money to the ACLU, or to Pat Robertson, is not likely to help poorer countries, so would be counted in the second set of statistics, but not the first. Right?
The press openly disagrees with the president's policies, and this is a sign of reduced freedom of the press?
> Thus I was (despite some doubts) in favor of taking out the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But the invasion of Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.
Sorry to disillusion you, but things are not going well in Afghanistan. Very good, the govt. was toppled and a new one put in. Unfortunately, that doesn't by default leave things in a stable condition; in fact things could be worse than they were before in the future.
Sure staying the course might help - but it is untenable to do so, the more soldiers die. It is unlikely to be so very long now before the British are forced to withdraw; and this is partly *because* they have put more troops in and made a huge effort. There have been a lot (as far as the UK are concerned) of British soldiers dying in Afghanistan in the last while. And other countries are having a tough time and didn't even want to put more troops in.
Pakistan is right to be worried about the Taleban just coming back in again, stronger than ever.
You can't just go around the world willy-nilly toppling governments by force just because they are awful govts, or allow a base of operations for terrorists (poor/unsupported govt. or lack of govt. allows this too). And it for sure is not Christian (look up Christian teachings on govt. and authority - or just look at Jesus' take on the Roman occupation of Israel) - which is ironic considering Bush and a particular segment of his support.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...