Slashdot Mirror
Online Reporters Now the Journalists Most Often Jailed
bckspc writes "The Committee to Protect Journalists today released the results of its annual survey of journalists in prison. For the first time, they found more Internet journalists jailed worldwide than journalists working in any other medium. CPJ found that 45 percent of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. Their chart of journalists jailed by year is also interesting."
People are going to JAIL for speaking their minds? In a blogging sense, this only clarifies that the Internet Blogosphere is being taken seriously. The ones in jail are probably blogging about anti-government related things, probably in countries where people are actually being killed. In countries like the middle-east, cuba or other very rough climated countries. But, the average blogger in UK. US, Australia and etc, blogging about how microsoft vista SUX, do not fit in this category. So, fear not bloggers, oh and BLOG ON.
Reading blogs is often like reading a trashy tabloid, only they're even more comfortable posting outright lies.
Blogs can make a good starting point for finding info on something but overall they generally only post stuff that doesn't appear in papers or news channels because they lack the quality control or journalistic integrity of news organisations.
What we actually have is a fall in the numbers from a few years ago - and including pretty much antone who writes a blog as being a journalist is misleading. Further, since pretty much every "paper" journalist gets published online, there is no real differentiation between the two groups.
In short, this article sounds like some guy bleating on and trying to get attention that frankly, neither he nor is line of work deserves.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Calling someone a journalist just because they write a blog does not make them a journalist...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
online journalists are usually bloggers. They just don't have the legal protections that a print or tv journalist would have with the backing of their corporate entity.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Are you using the fact that some journalists are arse-holes to justify curtailing freedom of speech? That's mental.
The principle of press-freedom is separate from how that freedom is used in individual cases. That freedom is an absolutely vital component of a healthy democracy, because it means that corrupt or self-serving officials always have the fear that what they do will be uncovered and made public.
Yes, some journalists are whiny bitches. However, we must fight with all our might to protect their freedom to make a fuss.
Yeah because "You libeled me," is a really good reason to deprive a writer of his/her freedom.
Not.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
You seem to miss the point that no matter how disposable yellow journalism might be, the types of stories that get journalists arrested are the ones that you and I, regular people, typically need to hear about in order to be informed participants in modern society. Do you really think China is jailing its journalists for "shrill bloat"?
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
you can't slander the king in thailand, you can't talk about nazism in germany, you can't besmirch attaturk in turkey, you can't question islam most anywhere islamic, you dare not question the technocrats in china, you dare not be a journalist writing stories critical of the kremlin in russia, you dare not question the tinpot dictator in autocratic countries, etc., etc., etc.
but in much of the west: canada, australia, the usa, i can, for example, call gw bush a fucking moron, and i haven't the faintest doubt nothing bad will come of me for that
that reallty means something in this world
and you who question my pride in the west for this freedom: you have something you wish to criticize about the west and its behavior?
ok. go ahead
thereby further proving my point ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thoreau didn't have a wife and kids. His job was living in Ralph Waldo Emerson's house.
It's easy to make a stand when you're taking no risks and no one depends on you.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I had a similar thought, but we're not talking about WorldNetDaily or Matt Drudge...
(From TFA)
China continued to be world's worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 10 consecutive years.
The article goes on to mention other countries, such as Cuba. So, in the most oppressive nations on Earth, people saying illegal things do it on the internet, instead of television or radio...
It doesn't seem very surprising when put in that context...
Do us all a favor o graciously arrogant one, and share with us your omnipresent definition of a journalist, be sure to highlight in particular the part that clearly carves out a blogger as not being a journalist.
Oh, and fuck off too.
You're right that it's annoying when these guys whinge. However, it's not too hard to just ignore it. All I'm saying is that the alternative to letting them whinge is a good deal worse.
It's a shame that this needs to be the case, that a person needs to go through a lot of effort to remain anonymous, just to comment on a government ostensibly there to protect them.
Sigh. The world today...
Unity in Diversity
They'll twist any story to meet their means any if they need to add cridibility to their viewpoint, 10 minutes on google will find you a view by someone who is incredibly qualified that will match the point you're trying to make. No matter how stupid.
The US election and the primaries brought out the very worst in the blogosphere. Take the whole Ron Paul fad. A commodity backed economy cannot and does not work in a global economy (evidenced by the fact that not a single country does it and the last attempts to create one failed). However suddenly everyone on the blogosphere who went crazy after Ron Paul went into overdrive. They found books that backed him, they found economists they'd never heard of before and built them up to be incredibly famous, powerful people who are never wrong.
Bloggers are after their scoop. They'll scan speeches for out of context quotes, twist around statistics, post slight glimmers of rumours as major exclusives. All so they can get Dugg or Reddit or whatever.
Given that one must apply the 90% Bullsh*t Rule of the Internet before buying into anything you read on there, I'd say this doesn't surprise me. The problem I have with these so-called journalists on the internet especially those of the blogger ilk is that they are not required to back up their drivel with actual corroborated facts which are then submitted to an editorial board for verification. What's worse is that so many morons believe this crap. That's not to say that traditional media outlets are blameless as well. The simple fact that traditional media survives on advertising dollars means that they don't give a rat's ass about getting the story right as long as it's scandalous and inflammatory because those kind of stories sell and simple just-the-facts-ma'am reporting does not. If the New York Times gets it wrong today, they don't give a damn because they can sell a followup article tomorrow. Why is it that the TV news teases you with clips like "It's one of the deadliest substances known to man and you might be eating it for dinner...the story AFTER the movie........Ummmmmm....is it peas?" But they got you to keep watching their precious advertising. Even DURING the news broadcast they tease you to keep you watching. And what the hell is up with reporters constantly INJECTING OPINION, THEORY, and CONJECTURE into the report? What makes them qualified to do that? I'd bet good money that the so-called investigative journalists haven't the tiniest bit of factual knowledge of what they're blathering about.
The real shame is that so many people *who should know better* say that online anonymity is a bad thing and that only "criminals" try to remain anonymous.
What they don't realize is the person making the laws and appointing judges gets to define who is a criminal. That's pretty much true everywhere.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you