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."
This post has been censored.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Hm, well this isn't from Fox News, so it's blatantly just not true.
I only accept news from reputable, unbiased news sources.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
This just in: Journalists complain about the USA.
Thanks for the news. I'll be looking forward to your stories about the sun coming up and water running down hill asa the morning progresses.
This post has definately not been censored by anyone, especially anyone in government.
P.S. I love America.
#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.
And what about Slovaquia?
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.
Since Slashdot is a web-based news site and forum, and not a newsgroup, I have to ask: which newsgroup did you copy this post from, and who was the original author?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
FUN FACT: They also spelt Reporters without Borders wrong... as Reporters sans frontieres...
OH MY GOD THEY MAY BE FOREIGNERS.
games journalism blog
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.
from bias are the most enslaved to bias.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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
May Peace Prevail On Earth
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
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
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!!
Let me demonstrate the difference in what I know about.
10 Hungary 3,00
What does it tell you? It would be wrong to assume that the press is great in Hungary. It only means that the press is not physically threatened. That is freedom of journalism.
Freedom of press also means that there is no outstanding bias in either way, which is simply not the case in ex-communist Hungary. Most of the press has been privatized into the hands of ex-communist businessman, so currently the press shows around 80%-20% bias towards the socialist side.
The hungarian "public" tv is called state tv for a reason, even by European media experts, in contrast for example the BBC which does a good job at maintaining balance and trying not to be too biased to either side. That is freedom of the press.
So yeah, you're free to write about what you want in Hungary, but informed opinion is hard to be established for the common people, because most of the domestic media is so biased. It is not even free market, when the government while doesn't jail journalists they don't like, but they do fund news sources they like (by advertising only in those papers for example) and boycott the ones they don't.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
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.
"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media's right not to reveal its sources"
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). If I wrote "an anonymous official deep within the WhiteHouse said the other day that the Bush Administration only went to war in Iraq to get oil", that statement has no credibility. Yes, my "anonymous official" may have been Karl Rove himself, but it is just as likely (if not much more likely) that it was a janitor. I have essentially told you nothing while still making an attention grabbing headline.
Many like to point to Watergate as an example where anonymous sources (Deepthroat) broke open a case, but that is just not true. Neither Woodward nor Bernstein wrote about something simply because Deepthroat told it to them, instead they used his information as a guide as they sought independent confirmation. Had they written about some anonymous source named after a porno flick who told them the president had broken the law, they would have been laughed out of Washington. Though I'm not sure if that would have happened today now that the public's expectations in terms of evidence seems to have been lowered to the point where any scandal becomes instant credible news.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Based on per-capita giving, America is almost dead last among first-world nations.
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.
One correction here: several countries have used poison gas in warfare.
Now, come on. We're all geeks here, we know our Boolean logic. The statement was quite correct, although misleading. The US is indeed the only country to have used nuclear weapons AND poison gas. Many countries have used nuclear weapons OR poison gas, but that's a very different statement.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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
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
Just outside the visual spectrum, on the other end lies Uvland.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Your comments are legitimate. But you also need to consider that one of the US' greatest exports is its media -- music, books, magazines, movies. The US State Department is VERY aggressive at making sure all of its trading partners have open markets to US product. Unfortunately most of the rest of the world doesn't consider culture = product. When there's a KFC 100' from the base of the pyramids, I think the world has just become a slightly less interesting place.
In canada we have an anachronistic, painful, paternalistic system called CANCON (canadian content) which mandates various %s of broadcast media/sales must be Canadian originating. Its an ugly system, but living so close the the US (and being so similar) its necessary to give some market niches breathing room. In music, alot of groups get a good starting base in Canada and then go onto larger fame, unlike 30-40 years ago when Joni Mitchell and Neil Young HAD to go to the US if they wanted to pursue music.
I think the bigger issue is that with the US national media being so insular, that when (many) americans travel abroad they're not appreciative of the differences between themselves and others. Its not that US is better or France is better, its that France does things differently and that's okay too.
And for the record, I've seen Canadians act like drunken idiots abroad and make me cringe, and German tourists are a species unto themselves.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
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?
ERROR: Stack overflow
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Wow. Where's Bin Ladens head on a pike displayed on the White House lawn ? I don't see it. I did see him featured in a campaign ad, however. Wonder why this is so ?
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?
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!
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
"I heard this story about an American who visited once
I have travelled to 25 countries round the world, to USA many times, spanning four continents. I many many cases I have seen people treat Americans obsequiously, in a transparently patronising manner, because of their wealth, and yet the moment the American is gone the hatred is clear. In one country, I was with a group of tourists, with an American party, and only once I said I was English not American did the non-Americans even acknowledge my existence. I have noticed Canadians explain the same and seen an instant change of attitude.
If you're American, and offended, don't be - just remind yourself that yours is NOT the only way of life, and that the people who represent you both formally and informally on the world's stage do NOT give a very good impression, and that maybe it's about time you made your gov't accountable to the people, and put a stop to the corruption and crap dished out. Even Condy Rice admitted that the USA's stance on Iraq has been a disaster.
Just look at what Ed Bernays did with his "Middle American News Bureau" when he :-=
... especially today.
2 379575.html
faked all the phony news reports about Guatemala. The Father of Spin indeed
With US-Opinion that accessible to the elites, I must saz America has indeed the
freest press in the world...
FYI:
http://gsn.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2006/10/2/
And everyone else did what to help? Regardless of reason, something > nothing
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
"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?"
SWIFT was not legal in EU *and* US jurisdictions. Over here, we take our privacy rights more seriously, and this is why, for example, for example the Belgian Data Privacy Commission and the Swiss Federal Data Protection Commissioner have denounced the scheme. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/17/swiss_swif t_transfers_illegal/ Oh, and by the way, the July 2005 bombings were carried out with only £3000. And Muslim terrorists use the hawala system to move money around without alerting banks, so its effectiveness is moot. Please tell me of a case where this data helped to catch a terrorist. Oh no! Wait, you can't tell me, because it's not just the detainees and the charges but the evidence that's secret. The scheme certainly was secret, though, even from those government departments whose remit is cross-border data transfer. Tom
It's not because it ruffles some feathers that it isn't true that the US knowingly trampled on EU laws. And it won't be soon forgiven.
how about 10 or 20 ? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don
enjoy
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
Whats your point? Were all playing for the same side (Western nations) so you tend not 'attack' each others interests, especially when your team mate is an 800 pound gorilla. The reason nobody else did anything is because two thirds of Somalia had been granted as oil concessions to Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. American oil companies.
Striking coincidence that after the US's warlord Barre was overthrown in '91 a UN resolution was finally passed in 92' huh. Bonus points if you can figure out who is the most prolific vetoing nation at the UN.
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.
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)
Why should they pay war criminals for self inflicted losses? The largest "loss" was, when at the time of the founding, the allied Arab powers decided to launch a "final solution" to push Israel into the sea.
The largest loss within the official borders of Israel result from the founding of Israel. Sure, the war directly following on that helped quite a bit as well, but the problem was that when Israel was founded, they effectively controlled about 50% of their territory at best. The remainder was in Palestinian hands, and that needed a 'fix'.
Large numbers of Palestinians left their homes to clear the battlefield: thus participating in attempted genocide.
Yes, they should have stayed where they were and get killed, sounds like a better solution indeed.
Lets just try a bit of a thought experiment...
A couple hundred years ago, New York was actually Dutch territory. How about the Dutch buying half of the property there, and then declaring it independent from the USA, meanwhile confiscating th eother half of the property there? The rest of the USA would not accept this? Why the hell do people in the USA expect the palestinians to accept something similar?
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
My point is the US gets blamed for doing nothing and for doing anything. No one is stopping any of the European nations from stopping the genocide in darfur. No one was stopping anyone from stopping it in Rwanda or intervening in Somalia. I'm saying that more often than not the US is the only nation that does anything to help while other nations do nothing except for sit back on the sideline and criticize.
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
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.
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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
Another near disaster has been averted! Thank you AC-man! Thank you!
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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
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.
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.
Apparently being jailed for questioning the Holocaust is not considered an issue for press freedom.
The theory behind it being a crime to deny the Holocaust is that by doing so, you are in effect calling all Holocaust survivors liars (as it never happened, so they must be lying about what they saw/did). That would be libel or slander, a civil crime, *except* that in this case it is felt that the survivors have already been through enough, and should not have to defend themselves in court, hence it is a criminal matter, so the state can do it for them.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
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...
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.