Slashdot Mirror
Online Media Representatives Face Jail
OSDNBoss writes "According to the US Watchdog Committee to Protect Journalists a total of 134 journalists were in jail on December 1, 49 of which were Internet journalists. China leads the way with the highest number in jail. I'm sure the censors have already blocked Slashdot and other news and opinion sites in the countries mentioned. It begs the question, however, as the blogosphere grows are online journalists and editors more or less protected than their print and TV counterparts?" From the article: "China is challenging the notion that the Internet is impossible to control or censor, and if it succeeds there will be far-ranging implications, not only for the medium but for press freedom all over the world."
What criteria must one meet to be considered a traditional journalist, entitled to the same protections as, say, a reporter for a big newspaper?
If I, as an online journalist or blogger, print my missives on dead trees and distribute them in some manner, does that count?
All the jailed journalists from countries without free speech or freedom of the press would have been jailed for what they did reguardless of the medium (classical newspaper journalist, televised, or internet)
NOT ...
u sted-uses-bogus-source-for.html
a /iraq_revenge_attacks
... Doesn't sound like a civil war at _all_ actually.
....
See :
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/ap-is-b
Do you think something like this stops them from falsifying news ?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_re_mi_e
Think again. Obviously looking at an actual live video feed in the iraqi capital will reveal a quite normal life, with markets, loads of people
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/bagCam.html
hmmmmm
Here's a modest proposal. Publish lists of censored sites and then encourage many many blogs/entertainment/poker/pr0n/history/shopping sites to set links and mirroring to slip past the blocked IP addresses. Then when you go to even not very popular sites, there are links to redirects to the blocked sites and blocked information.
It would be unstoppable if a suffient number of sites provided links.
A 'non-icon' possibly a greyed out 'f' which otherwise was just a normal part of the text could open a list of links. Leave the code choices up to each site to prevent easy blocking.
I did much the same thing when the war on Iraq was gearing up, posting to multiple sites that had nothing to do with politics or war or civics, as the censorship of messages agianst the war was all pervasive. Even those were roundly attacked, snipped and derided.
Posting censored material is really our duty.
I feel your pain. Why is it that nobody these days can use the phrase 'begs the question' appropriately?
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Last time I was in China (admittedly 11 months ago), I could access Slashdot just fine from China (and that was mainland china; Beijing, Shanghai and Xian, as well as Hong Kong)..
Must we do this every time someone uses the phrase "begs the question"?
n #Modern_usage)
"More recently, "begs the question" has been used as a synonym for "invites the question" or "raises the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be addressed". In this usage, "the question" is stated in the next phrase." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questio
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
China is on a steep learning curve. They are trying to transition from a massivly centralized controlled society where everyone works for the government. To a society where indivuals are allowed to make business decisions. The old guard allows no questioning or criticism of any authority. The new world will be far different from that. The old timers are trying to hold on to their power, and the only tool they have left is censorship of dissent.
Will censoring stop the transition? No, it will slow down the transition, and probably cause a softer and safer transition (Compared to Iraq where the opressive government suddenly ceased to exist, and sponsored anarchists are trying to take over).
The Chinese "Old Guard" are trying to form a Facist economy (where government works in partnership with business, kind of like the US social services), and that will likely happen, I think the free economy will eventually prevail and squeeze out that Facist one. The history of Socalism/Communism is of a political machine fully funding every inefficiency to the ruin of society. The newer leaders educated in the scientific method will make decisions based on wether things work, not strictly following sanctified procedure based on the musings of a 19th century economic idealist.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I think the problem people have with misused words/phrases is that as the language evolves to accept the distorted meaning, it reduces our ability to make nuanced distinctions. Reduced granularity if you will.
Taken far enough, you end up with Newspeak
In all honesty, you don't want your language to descend to the level of the lowest common denominators.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
[I]f there is any suggestion of shooting people down, then let it be the journalists for the way in which they have used and profited by the simple classes. God knows I am not bloodthirsty...but nevertheless, I should be ready to take the responsibility upon me, in Gods name, of giving the order to fire if I could first of all make absolutely and conscientiously sure that there was not a single man standing in front of the rifles, not a single creature, who was not--a journalist. That is said of the class as a whole.Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
As a traditional journalist on paper and now on the Internet, I would say that you're a journalist if you have readers.
I started an informal email newsletter, and whenever I had to establish my bona fides, I would say, "I have 600 readers in your field." That got me into press conferences and got people to spend time with me for interviews.
It's a lot more impressive to have a million readers or listeners, but at the time of the American revolution, there were a lot of newspapers with 600 readers. I used to write for business newsletters with a readership of 600 industry executives.
But if you talk about rights of freedom of expression, I think that anybody who writes anything has the same rights that I do. That's true in the U.S. under the Constitution. If you write a letter to a friend denouncing the President, you still have those rights under the Constitution. If you write rants that you hang up on trees and nobody reads, you still have those rights under the Constitution.
A big newspaper like the New York Times has a big legal department to fight libel suits and subpoenas. They also have a publisher and board members with connections to politically influential people. They have the power to enforce those rights. They also get special favors, like admission to White House press conferences. But those are privileges (perhaps unfair) that go beyond rights. Those are the perks you get with a $1 billion a year business.
Not true. Languages do lose distinctions over time, some *much* more significant than this one. However, we invent new ones at about the same rate. There is *always* a way to say what you want to say unambiguously. Worst case, you invent a phrase yourself, and if the language needs it, it will catch on.
'The committee said the United States imprisoned two journalists without charge or trial -- Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, now held for eight months in Iraq, and Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj, jailed for five years and now held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Joshua Wolf, a freelance blogger who refused to turn over video of a 2005 protest to a U.S. federal grand jury, was also in jail.'