US Slips Again In Freedom of the Press Ranking 989
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."
I would like to say.. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you mean... (Score:5, Funny)
P.S. I love America.
Re:Don't you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
What source is this? (Score:4, Funny)
I only accept news from reputable, unbiased news sources.
Re:What source is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What source is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What source is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What source is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:What source is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is, it's most likely shares your biases so you'll allow yourself to be convinced it isn't biased.
Re:What source is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What source is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yay Canada (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can read this, we're not that bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you can read this, we're not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you can read this, we're not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:If you can read this, we're not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you can read this, we're not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hate this particular argument. The "isn't that bad here, look at North Korea!" argument. The "a little bit of torture is ok, under Sadam it was much worse!" argument. The "ok we've lost a few freedoms, but we're much freer than the Chinese!" argument.
We should compare ourselves with the best in the world, not the worst.
government control of media? (Score:4, Insightful)
Finland, the #1 country, actually has strong government-controlled media (with government radio making up 61% of listening time).
Re:government control of media? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The BBC? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The BBC? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, calling for a theocracy or arrest of royalty would be a crazy thing to do and will probably never happen in countries like modern Britain and Finland, since everything is going fairly well. Some of those countries who rank low on this freedom-of-press scale may not be so bad when it comes to press freedom, it's just that the country itself is so messed up that the solutions border on treason, so when the journalists call for the proper solution, they get in trouble.
There are several countries I can think of that, since the end of the cold war, have been able to get a fledgling democracy going. But at the same time there are factions still trying to instigate war, or otherwise topple the government. The press in places like that may be allowed to criticize the current president or prime minister and the way they do things, but as soon as they criticize the system itself as a whole, they are considered to be siding with insurgents/revolutionaries. Which may actually be the right thing to do if the government is turning totalitarian.
So, it may be fine to have state sponsored media when things are all well and good, but when things go sour it might be better to have some media that is completely, politically and economically, independent of any part of the government.
Re:government control of media? (Score:5, Informative)
The BBC is THE most impartial news agency I know - part of their mandate is to be unbiased, and as there's no politically biased financiers, and no advertisers, they can be free to criticise anyone.
It isn't funded by the government either; it is paid for by the license fee, which is mandatory for anyone with a TV set, which admittedly does imply some kind of state control, but if the government did try to interfere there would be a massive outcry.
Put it this way: I'm British, and I'd take the BBC over any independant news agency financed by advertisers any day
Re:government control of media? (Score:4, Informative)
Those are obvious because there WAS the public outcry you talk about. You don't often hear about many instances of BBC censorship, like say, the BBC blocking of dozens of programs on the subject of Northern Ireland, dating back to the 1950s, including silliness such as a Star Trek: TNG episode cut for mentioning the IRA, and an Alan Whicker documentary on betting shops banned for showing, in passing, sectarian graffiti. One study showed about 50-60 Northern Ireland related programs were actually censored as of 1987, and the knock-on effect of programme-makers preempting the censors and not submitting controversial material would constitute the 'chilling effects' that US lawpeople talk about.
It's probably going to get worse soon too. The next time the BBC pisses off the government in some way, then Rupert Murdoch is going to have another crack at firing up his 'privatise the BBC' campaign, just like he did with Hutton. The BBC now has a clear incentive to toe the line...
Sure, the advertising-supported corporate media aren't any better but the BBC has its own problems...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the BBC didn't cover it?
Re:government control of media? (Score:4, Informative)
(Speaking as a Finn.) Government-funded: yes. Government-controlled: no! Finnish law clearly states that government should not meddle in the affairs of YLE, the national broadcasting company, and governemnt has no power of censorship. While I normally tune in to YLE, I also follow it's private competitors on TV, which aren't far behind in the ratings and also offer top-notch reporting. So does the majority of Finns.
What I fail to understand is why some people seem to think that a private company, with economical interests and investors in eg. the oil business and arms trade, would necessarily offer more reliable and impartial news than a publically funded company. Why would corporations somehow be more honest and unselfish than governments. I mean, sure, don't trust the government blindly, but why should you trust a corporation blindly? Perhaps you'd like your news a bit more Fair and Balanced?
Problem with this ranking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem with this ranking (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a good point, but if that group's power or ability to levy punishment is significant, I think it makes sense to include. The reason censorship is wrong is that it's a violence-based denial of free speech. Whether it's a government, para-government, mafia, or militant group is largely irrelevant to the overall problem: lack of freedom. Presumably, the ranking takes into account the severity of the threat involved.
Denmark (Score:5, Insightful)
``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?
Re:Denmark (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Denmark (Score:5, Insightful)
As I was reading this, I could already see people making comments about those stupid Americans and uneducated, NASCAR-watching rednecks.... but some of the most hateful and dangerous comments come from the most educated people. Liberal campuses are very hateful toward conservative speakers often creating heckling mobs to try to disrupt their meetings. Professors routinely repress opposite points of view and openly deride those who try to express them. People are made to feel stupid if they have a difference of opinion because the "smart" people know all of the answers. To go against the opinions of the elite intelligensia is intolerable.
The problem is that education creates pride, and pride often blinds people to the truth. Some of the most profound observations come from children -- the most uneducated of all of us -- because they are not bogged down by the distractions and biases that education brings. Yet, the educated feel they are above that, and since they know so much more than those around them, they silence the thoughts and observations of the others since they cannot possibly be right.
One thing to remember with Americans is that compared to the world (not just Europe... there are other continents out there as well), we are very educated. Almost everyone has graduated from high school and a very large percentage of our population has been to or graduated from college. Yet there is a lot of hostility toward other points of views both from conservatives and liberals. I have certainly witnessed this harassment here on Slashdot where being conservative or religious can be grounds for modding down (regardless of the validity of the point) and Slashdot tends to be very educated. Censorship and repression of freedom are not only practiced by the ignorant -- but also by the proud.
Do I sense a little over-the-topness here? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Return to your home, citizen. The Government will protect you and feed you.
Liberty vs Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedon
Liberty: Liberty, or freedom, is a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority.
RSF is stupid (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:RSF is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does this include the most recent degredations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, as a journalist, I'm a little bit biased in favor of the first amendment (for everyone, not just my viewpoint).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only way for it to be definitely Constitutional is for it to be in a Constitutional amendment or otherwise in the Constitution.
It says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." in Article 1, Section 9. We are not in a state of rebellion (sadly; what's it going to take?) nor are we being invaded.
There was a state of rebellion during the US Civil War, which is why
Re:Does this include the most recent degredations? (Score:4, Informative)
Arguably they should have the right to keep their sources secret. It's actually considered pretty fundamental in freedom of press. In many (perhaps most) other democracies they do. And in 33 of the US states. But the rest of the states and the federal courts don't recognize this right.
This is freedom of journalism not freedom of press (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Right to not reveal sources? (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
Why was this tagged 'fud'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazing! (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
1) al-Jazeera shows news articles portraying the US and its allies negatively, e.g. by showing photos and video footage of American soldiers killing or torturing civilians.
2) This increases support for terrorism among their audience.
3) Therefore al-Jazeera is providing material support to terrorists.
4) Therefore al-Jazeera are all terrorists.
5) Therefore al-Jazeera are all unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield while fighting against American soldiers.
6) T
Oh woe is us (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
[MOD UP] (il)Legality of SWIFT (Score:3, Interesting)
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_swi f [theregister.co.uk] 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
Triple-negative (Score:3, Funny)
ERROR: Stack overflow
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, peop
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Get those most responsible, but know where to stop (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Get those most responsible, but know where to s (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 res
Re:Two Words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Until they want help. (Score:5, Informative)
From the first hit on google [sourcewatch.org] 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.
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:4, Informative)
how about 10 or 20 ? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don
enjoy
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Informative)
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> 13. American's espousal of greed and selfishness exudes from many TV programs whilst their gov't takes the moral high ground
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 viol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "American Tourist" stereotype (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: 10 reasons the US is hated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ?
Re:10 reasons why the US is hated all over the wor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nebulous (Score:4, Interesting)
Simply read the following page [rsf.org], here they explain their methodology.
Nice troll. RSF simply assumes journalists should be granted the following rights:
As a side note: your comments clearly reveals your lack of understanding of even the most basic universal human rights.
Re:Nebulous (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Nebulous (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Free press is about reporting facts ; if a journalist can't assure his sources anonymity, some won't talk, and the press is matter of fatly gaged. On the other hand, hate speech is *not* free press. It is unfounded opinions, based on biaised facts - or no fact at all, and while I agree it should not be prosecuted, it's absolutely not in the same league.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If journalists have to reveal their sources, then those sources may not speak to journalists, and free press is hurt. You may think that some things are more important than freedom of press, and you might be right, but the freedom not to reveal your sources is fundamental to a free press.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have these things been happening to US journalists? If they have not, and neit
Re:Nebulous (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look at this page [rsf.org], 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.
Re:Nebulous (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nebulous (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. and forcing them to reveal not-yet-convicted-and-still-innocent-until-proven- guilty individuals does not consitute a restriction on the freedom of press?
It is however either way besides the point. Most societies place different restrictions on their individuals. This index measures journalists ability to write whatever they want. Just because you deem them
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The case involved a riot outside an international summit, and a police car was damaged. The CA DA asked for the unedited video tape the blogger made in the vicinity, was told no, and was unable to proceed due to the CA shield law. The Federal govt then proceded to demand the tape under the argument that "having given the city a grant for public safety, they had partial ownership in the vehi
Re:.. without BORDERS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nebulous (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The reporter is imprisoned for not telling the authorities their source. Future whistleblowers fear being turned in by the reporters, and do nothing when things of this nature occur.
2) The reporter reveals all. Future whistleblowers are even more hesitant about revealing things of this nature.
3) The reporter is protected by the courts, and is not required to divulge the source.
Which of these do you think is optimal? The press is here to tell us stories of importance, nothing more. They are not policemen. They are supposed to operate independently of the government. They are supposed to tell us what they see. They are supposed to go to secret places and talk to secret people to bring us important information. If they are unable to tell us some of these secrets for whatever reason (wartime operations, anonymous sources, fugitives, etc), then they should under no circumstances be forced to reveal this information.
In my books, it's the most important freedom that the press has. Nixon might never have been impeached if reporters had functioned as you say they should.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nebulous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Suspicious (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least if you watch and learn from the Bush administration...
Re:You've got to be kidding me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Irland? (Score:5, Funny)