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
This post has definately not been censored by anyone, especially anyone in government.
P.S. I love America.
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 I get your point, but by your logic, it's always not that bad until it' too late.
There's a difference between government-funded and government-controlled media.
The Finnish YLE, along with the BBC and others, is funded by the government (mostly through a specified tax on all TV sets), but the government do not control what they air. They set guidelines, but do not censor.
There is not only the issue of being able to complain, but also the issue of being properly informed.
You can't exercise your democratic rights properly if you're not properly (or at all) informed of what your government does wrong.
Not trying to ignite a political flamewar, just speaking in general.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
I highly disagree with you. Sure, there are a lot of reporters who are bottom feeding fucktards, but saying that lessening their freedoms because of a lot of jackholes is a slippery slope. For example, we in most developed countries have freedom of speech. A lot of people use this freedom of speech to call eachother asshats, promote racism, speak lies, misinformation and nonsense... but I feel more comfortable tolerating all that stuff than having it banned.
Freedom of the Press can be trampled on just as badly in a democracy as in a theocratic dictatorship; all it takes is a population of sufficiently violent, uneducated people with strong views, who have no respect for human rights and civil liberties. The end result is that, no matter who does the repressing, and no matter whether it's life, limb, property, or the ideals of liberty that are threatened, information which should be published, is not. And if there were any way to measure precisely what got published and what didn't, I'm sure it would make a better index -- but for now, this will probably have to suffice.
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
Well different people have different ideas of what it means for the press to be free. For me, the right not to reveal sources is not fundamental to the freedom of press. On the other hand, many of these countries ranking high in "freedom of press" outlaw "hate speech". I consider the ability to speak one's opinion, no matter how nasty it is, as a necessary prerequisite for freedom of speech. So if you change those two aspects of the rankings, I imagine the ordering would change dramatically.
I'm not rah rah about the freedom of press as it currently stands in the US. The report points out some valid criticisms, and the Bush administration's tendency to be less and less transparent under the guise of national security worries me.
But the methodology of this report is a bit question-begging if we can't all agree on what it means for the press to be "free".
Take a look at this page, where you can find a list of attacks against freedom of the press, that were committed in, or by, the United States and its administration.
You can agree -- or disagree -- with this list, but the fact is that there is a basis for the US low ranking.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Well, I'm European and I spent some time working in a project in the US. I watched Fox News every evening because it made me laugh a lot. It's completely ridiculous.
We have some pretty bad journalists, and our media are very biased, you can tell right away most things are manipulated. But we couldn't get to the level of Fox News, it's too brazen, people just wouldn't take it seriously.
Of course, if some Americans take the Fox crap seriously, it ceases to be funny, it becomes very, very dangerous.
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?
Problem is, it's most likely shares your biases so you'll allow yourself to be convinced it isn't biased.
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?
Now what happens if those classified documents reveal the fact that the government has been conducting illegal activities, say something like wiretaps with no court orders? How is that not just another form of whistleblowing?
Personally, I'm not willing to give the government carte blanche to do whatever they want by just making it classified.
Freedom of the press exists as a quasi-check on the government and I believe the current administration is trying to supress the presses ability to gain access to documents to avoid public scrutiny.
When was the last time the press published something classified that actually harmed this country as opposed to bringing to light some kind of power grab by the administration?
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.
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
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
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?