U.S. Ranks 17th in Freedom of the Press 1367
reimero writes "According to this article on Yahoo! Germany the U.S. has experienced "serious restrictions" in freedom of the press, according to Reporters without borders' first worldwide press freedom index. Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands came in tops. An interesting study, to say the least."
Rumors also have... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there are place far worse than the US. It just isn't the best, it seems.
So the U.S. Isn't the best at everything. (Score:2, Insightful)
what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, you meant freedom for what the reporters could say.
You've come along way baby...
"For the average American freedom of speech is simply the freedom to repeat what everyone else is saying and no more."
- Gore Vidal
One of the metrics is based on reporters in prison (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry but if you cross police lines and pose a security risk you most definitely should go to jail. I don't think it unreasonable. As for imprisoning reporters who don't reveal their sources I can see both sides of the issue, but obstructing justice should have a penalty.
Misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoop dee doo. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, so the US arrests journalists who, y'know, break the law? Astounding.
I understand the bit about protecting sources. I even agree with the reporters (in most cases). But jumping security at federal buildings? That's just dumb.
Re:Horse hockey! (Score:5, Insightful)
does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
But instead of course, they'd dig up dirt on more secretive events.
It'd be like complaining about a carton of sour milk when one has a lactose intolerance..
Re:So the U.S. Isn't the best at everything. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I do not believe the problem is any Government intrusion on that right. It's more of a problem of media companies having to compete for ratings by sensationalizing and making sure stories are interesting. In that sense there is no true freedom of press because sometimes the truth is spun or slants are added to make it "interesting". And any "free" news agency that tries to report the actual news that is not one of the big guys (CNN, FOX, etc) is just seen a "conspiracy rag".
Take for example someone trying to write an article pointing out some negative aspects of all the aid money we send to Israel. I'm not leaning one way or the other, but clearly, according to our media big dogs, Israel can do no wrong, so any article like that would be slapped as "anti-Semite" right away, and the newspaper labeled as some backwards commie tabloid. Just an example of what I see as the true limitation of our freedom of press here in the U.S...
Thoughts?
I'd like to see the raw data... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh-huh. And yet -- funny -- the Western European and Scandinavian countries that practice these press freedoms you resent don't seem unpleasant places to live. I mean, people's lives and careers don't seem to get destroyed there any more often than in the US. Their press covers a much wider spectrum of debate than ours. And if you think the US press doesn't frequently label people guilty by inference...
As for "putting forth our own political agendas and parad[ing] our biases as Journalism," have you watched Fox News lately?
There used to be a proud tradition of advocacy journalism in the US. That's what got us most of our labor and sanitation laws, after all.
Interesting inverse correlation (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like the countries with the most "free" press are the countries without too much news to report in the first place. Since when did those countries have any interesting news event take place there?
I guess if you don't have any news to report, not really a problem having a "free" press.
An article from France reported by Germans (Score:2, Insightful)
"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings"
I've always wondered why the fuck a little piece of index card with the word "PRESS" stuck into the band of your fedora should entitle you to go anywhere, and do anything.
Anyways, realize that these countries are just listed in arbitrarily.
I mean, in Canada they don't allow camera's into the courtroom. Nor does it allow reporting on the action of what the government deems "hate groups". Hear no evil, see no evil. But that didn't seem to hurt their rating.
Frankly, given the number of countries in the world, 17 isn't all that "poor", even by these guy's "pull it outta our ass" standards.
Re:Canada is 5th? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds just fine to me -- the guy who owns the papers gets to print whatever he wants. On the other hand, it does sound like a serious problem of a monopoly dominating the forum of ideas...
Re:This report is a lie (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ok.. I'm norwegian (Score:3, Insightful)
By "freedom of the press," Reporters Without Borders seems to be referring to how easy life is for big-media / international reporters. None of this silly American "free speech for the plebes" stuff counts. Apparently. Can't get to the site to see what their metrics are, but that might explain some of the oddities in the rankings.
are we really surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even when they do successfully run a story, notice how the story is presented by the same slant from almost all media sources. What good does that do us?
My Russian Professor in college used to regularly speak about how here we pretended to have freedom but had none while in the Soviet Union they had very little freedom but what there was was all REAL freedom. I've heard very similar comments from immigrants from countries noted for their "human rights violations". Clearly there's a need to closely examine things here in the U.S.
Re:One of the metrics is based on reporters in pri (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends on *where* the lines are. And *who* gets to decide what constitutes a risk.
The cockpit doors were wide open and the airlines and FAA were too damned stupid to realize that it was a security hole. So now that the cow is out of the barn, we should put armed guards around the chicken coop?
Re:Horse hockey! (Score:5, Insightful)
You might want to let John Ashcroft know that.. it seems to have slipped his mind.
Re:Politics, politics, politics. (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there some other factor you believe the poll missed, that would have placed the US closer to the top? If not, what's your point?
Why freedom of the press is undervalued. (Score:5, Insightful)
This report isn't really unexpected. The reasons are fairly obvious.
The public in the US is mainly educated in political matters by the press, especially cable media. Alternatives to the cable giants, ala BBC are not readily available. The cable media are owned by mega-corporations. It's no surprise that these corporations are interested in preserving their power through economic and political means.
Because money is the main concern, their agenda tends to be a conservative one. Hence they will:
The corporate media own american politics. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Their methods are suspect... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes the self-proclaimed allies of freedom can be be freedom's worst enemies.
More problems with index. . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:how scary is it ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The original index of freedom of the press is on a French server. An article ABOUT it was published in Germany.
Re:Interesting inverse correlation (Score:1, Insightful)
Here in the states we got jackasses who pretend to be cutting edge and unfiltered. Folks like O'Reilly, Geraldo, and Donahue. Entertainers who could not function without their make-up and queue cards nice and large fonted.
Dennis Miller and Bill Maher are the only renegades on the side of free speech, it seems.
[sarc]But they're just comedians, what do they know?
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that malicious, false, and misleading like "Clinton is a sex-fiend" or "CEOs are stealing our pensions?"
B: We have the right to interfere with police investigations putting people lives at risk. Including invalidating/contaminating evidence.
Is that like "Clinton stole a bundle from whitewater" or "We are holding a bunch of people without bail?"
C: We have the right to report secret government information that places security at risk and could result in the deaths of our soldiers and aid our enemies.
Okay, is that like "The US tested nuclear and chemical weapons on its own citizens" or maybe "We have evidence that terrorists will attempt to fly planes into buildings?" Oh wait, that wasn't reported, was it?
D: We have the right to put forth our own political agendas and parade our biases as Journalism.
Sure, biases, whatever. Every goddam thing ever written shows bias, if not in the writing itself, then in the choice of what is written about. If you don't see the bias, it's because it matches your own.
E: We have the right to, without jury or due process, label someone guilty by inference.
Hmmmm, is that like labeling Clinton guilty, or the people in Guantanamo, or Hussein, or is it when we pillory Good, Upstanding CEOs for triffling irregularities?
I question The Journalist, too. Freedom of the press extends to those that own a press, and if you want to work as a journalist, you almost have to work for some fat cat with a press. Said fat cat isn't going to let you print stories that criticize fat cats in any meaningful way.
Channel Kxxx (Score:2, Insightful)
Yuckkk!!!
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Canada is 5th? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the U.S. you really can publish most anything you want. Notwithstanding some of the recent DMCA crap and excesses of IP, you are perfectly free to say whatever horrible things you want.
You'll probably never get on CNN saying that slavery is a good idea, but at the same time you can certainly publish your own newsletter if you have the money (or even start your own TV station).
Not so in Canada. The media may be a little less interested in slanting things toward their own political agenda, and a wider range of viewpoints may hit the mainstream public, but that's not near the same as a free press.
Try to have a copy of "The Turner Diaries" in Canada and see how far you get before being arrested for having hateful literature.
No one needs a first ammendment to publish a cookbook.
I hope slashdotters can think for themselves... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what the founding father's opinon would be of it's country being just 'good enough' and 'better than a lot of people'. I'm not particularily a left wing thinker, but I guess I'll spin this to the left anyways. Having a country who guarantees freedom of the press in thier constitution lagging behind countries that have no such beginnings makes you wonder about how much the people of said country care about thier own history. It makes you wonder how much people care anymore about being free as thier own country defines it.
The press is supposed to be more than just somewhere you find out the news. The press is supposed to be an independant check on the integrity of the government and the status quo.
**Standard 'Maybe This is a Troll' Disclaimer**
Please note the difference of words here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably someone didn't have a dang name tag and didn't make the requisite 5 bazillion calls to a government official to get to their office. Now, because people have heard that terrorists posed as a news crew in North Afghanistan, they don't escort you out over clerical errors, they start freaking out, and that freak out might throw your ass in jail.
I know this sounds ridiculous, but as a journalist in the US, it is nearly impossible to get in touch with a person in the US Govt if they don't contact you first. You sure as hell can't pop by their offices without some rent-a-cop giving you hell about it, or worse. So you see, this listing might not take those factors into account.
Even something as benign as a grain price advisory board is locked up in some big ass building that makes you feel like you're playing Splinter Cell to just get a call back.
Here's the scenario, you know someone that hasn't been honest in the gov't. Well, you're screwed. You don't know their home address and they won't return your call. Worst of all, you can't get to their office to even talk to them because they are at the top of the big government building to get a hold of them. The rent-a-cop is calling them as soon as you walk in the door and escorting you out like a criminal even faster. So if you even need to talk to someone in the Gov't at all AND THEY HAVE AN INKLING THAT YOU ARE AFTER THEIR IMPROPRIETY, you're screwed.
Some days you have to just grow a pair. A lot of journalists do.
So here is how most of that goes:
"Hi, Mister Comptroller. I'm from the news, you know, the group that has been calling you for weeks about you stealing from the government. Care to talk about the fact that you have been locking yourself in this office and the grand jur-"
"Security!!!"
There is an old news addage (now this is just s humourous statement so clam down people) that says that "if you haven't been thrown in jail, you aren't doing your job right."
Trust me, its a joke.
Re:What's the rest of the ranking? (Score:1, Insightful)
To get your answer, change 'costa rica' to the name of your own country and ask the question again. I'd be willing to bet the citizens of costa rica and your own country place great value in freedom of the press in their respective lands.
Re:Reporters without borders? (Score:3, Insightful)
Curious... (Score:4, Insightful)
My suspicion is not so much that press is limited, or that information is censured, but rather the bias in the distribution.
Take books; these are fairly conservative in nature. Liberal view points don't sell as many books as conservative view points do. Take telvision and radio; these are fairly liberal in nature. Conservative view points aren't expressed as readily as liberal view points are.
The problem stems from the fact that each group views itself as the normal. That is, liberals don't think they're THAT liberal. Conservatives don't think they're THAT conservative. So, to be "fair", they extend a little to the left, and a little to the right when reporting.
On a normalized scale, this means we really _are_ getting biased data. For instance, when a Republican is in office, we have a homeless problem. When a Democrat is in office, we don't have a homeless problem. Given the number of homeless stays the same, what's changed -- that's right, what gets reported. Suitable examples exist for the other direction.
So, my bet is that it's the selection of the news that gets printed, rather than the prevention of printing news.
Re:So the U.S. Isn't the best at everything. (Score:1, Insightful)
Wake up, there is no democracy. It's not soviet communism, but sure as hell isn't democracy either.
We live in a country that refuses to take care of it's old and medicine-needy, has 300,000 homocides per year, can't track down terrorists(anthrax,sept11,snipers,fbi counter-spies), we are the worlds biggest polluters, have a president who is illiterate by presidential-standards. Oh but we do have freedom. Like for example, anyone of us can get a driver's license, or a cool cell phone. Yay! freedom rocks. Kill the backwards-ass brown people!
Re:Politics, politics, politics. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
So? If they were trespassing on high-security areas of government bulidings, what the hell did they expect?
The issue is more about where those security lines are drawn, and who is drawing them. The government should not be allowed to arbitrarily prevent press coverage by drawing a security line.
Re:News Reporting Must not Spook Advertisers (Score:5, Insightful)
Watching an hour of CNN, then watching an hour of, say, BBC World or Sky News is a very eye opening experience.
CNN is closer to 24 hour talk shows than to 24 hour news, I'm afraid.
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm Canadian.
Re:and ... (Score:3, Insightful)
why the US may be ranked so low ... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a feeling it may be that the rest of the world largely looks at your mainstream "news" such as CNN, Fox, CBS etc, as edutainment instead of reporting. I'd say about 99% of the folks I know here in Canada do, at the very least. And when all your major information channels (TV, newspapers, radio, now internet) have been crapflooded with corporate "news lite," and when all your *real* reporters can't find work anywhere, unless they sell out, your country as a whole loses out.
*I* don't see any real mainstream freedom of the press down south (and don't forget, mainstream is the only thing that really counts). And it's only getting more and more scarce up here.
Re:Reporters without borders? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the other nine in the Bill of Rights. Look at countries such as China or Iraq as examples of what happens when the people's right to bear arms is violatedby the government. Hell, it was Mao who said that "power flows from the barrel of a gun"...like other mass murderers before him, he knew the dangers ordinary people with guns would pose to his regime. Only tyrants and criminals fear an armed citizenry.
Free as in Press (Score:2, Insightful)
On another topic, you bring up an interesting point on how it's not our gov't that censors the media, but the media itself. There's also a post below that talks about how Canada's papers are owned my two men who can say what is and isn't printed (that sounds quite unreal to me... is that true?).
But even if this is the case, it's important to remember that this has nothing to do with "freedom of the press". Say there is only one agent of the press in this nation. That reporter would write the only news any of us read, and in all likelihood it would be a pretty biased account of what was going on. But is that reporter free to report on whatever he/she likes?
As long as it's the case that a reporter can investigate whatever whim comes to him/her, that reporter is free and freedom of the press is maintained.
If there is only one story or one point of view covered by the press (due to bias, competition, compensation, &c.), but officers of the press are in theory free to investigate whatever stories they like, the fault is not in a nation's freedom of press, but with the nation's lack of diversity in reputable news sources.
Is the US guilty of this? Yes, I think it is -- mostly for the reasons you list above. And really, when it comes down to it, this is the type of thing that the US is notorious for. We have freedom of speech, but we get Howard Stern. We have freedom of press, but we get the Enquirer.
Still, I'd much rather be accused of not fulfilling the potential of a principal than be accused of not defending the rights that principal grants.
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, as well, the lambasting that Bill Moyer took for his comments on the Hijackers (( and I fully agree with him on that one -- As much as I may disagree with them, I'm not going to call someone who's willing to die for what he believes in a coward.. Misled and stupid, yes.. but not a coward)).
There were also things like the censorship of anti-WTO protests and protestors in Seattle. The US is far from a fully 'free press' state.
There is also the issue of 'directed' press... Things like various networks pushing the 'popularity' of sister companies' movies as news or supressing news that might make their parent companies look bad. Many companies have gotten so big that, when they start to push for censorship of the press, it's almost as bad as having the government do so.
Re:Actually it is America-bashing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One of the metrics is based on reporters in pri (Score:3, Insightful)
The licensed protestors (I have a problem with freedom to demonstrate licenses, but they were licensed) were told to disperse. Then all avenues to disperse were blocked and they were all hurded into a park and arrested. Including campus reporters. To cap off the deal, if they waived court and pleaded immediately they could go free. If they wished to discuss it with a lawyer or contest the arrest, they were heald until monday (after the demonstrations would be over). Campus reporters, dorm residents (one hurding area was right in front of a lawschool dorm), pretty much everybody except for "commercial news" reporters.
Oh, btw, this was not some "Evil Right Wing Bush Thing", it was the LEFT WING D.C. government in all of it's glory.
There was an interesting writeup about the situation by a Washington Post cloumnist (too lazy to look it up).
Anyway, this was so recent that it may have not made this study, but it was still wrong to do just the same.
Re:Whoop dee doo. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your point? That's also why they arrest journalists in the worst countries eg North Korea etc.
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what, I'm not going to the US, nor will I ever if things stay the way they are right now. A few years ago I was seriously thinking of emigrating to the US after my study, but now I've grown older and more aware of what's happening in the world I found out I already live in the best country in the world: The Netherlands (#1 in the freedom of press list btw).
Sure the weather sucks, but everything else is pretty good. We have real freedom here, I can smoke pot on the stairs of the police station, and offer a hit to a police officer and all he will do is politely refuse the offer. (before you start gibbering about gateway drugs or whatever crap you've been brainwashed with, consider this: we have one of the lowest percentages of drug addicts in the world. besides, I'm not hurting anyone, why should the government decide if I can smoke pot or not.). We have a real democracy, not just 2 parties both sponsored by the same corporations, no there's at least 10 parties. we count every vote instead of using some dumbass 19th century system in which it is possible that even when more people vote for one candidate, the other becomes president. There's no creepy "citizens corps" style organisation here (from what I've read about the CC , it's probably going to be worse than the east german stasi). Guns aren't allowed but why would I want to have a tool designed to kill a person ?
Re:Reporters without borders? (Score:3, Insightful)
or how could a ragtag group of frenchies stand up to their imperial govt...
so outgunned, out classed.
or how could a backwards jungle country make a superpower run away with its tail between its legs?
or a remote asian country make another superpower run with ITS tail between its legs.
yeh, i totally understand your point - david has never beat goliath.
Re:Reporters without borders? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is a very disturbing thought. I'm not a tyrant and I'm not a criminal, and yet I'm very afraid of armed citizenry. In a lot of Ocidental countries it is much easier to get a gun than to get some shooting courses. I'm forced to think it's very likely a lot of people get guns without knowing how to use them. And a lot of us know how dangerous guns can be in the hands of unaware people, especially when they decide to use their guns.
Re:...and yet again! (Score:3, Insightful)
-- Rommel
Yeah, nobody ever notices us.
Quote from article on why US is 17th (Score:5, Insightful)
And I never heard of those arrest. Scarry, isn't it ? Journalist get arrested and nobody heard of it.
Reasons for US Rank (Score:2, Insightful)
First, the US imprisons reporters who do not reveal sources in court when subpoenaed. But nowhere in the Constitution are journalists given some sort of doctor-patient or lawyer-client confidentiality. Indeed, this is not a restriction of the press. They can still write what they want - they may simply have to spill their source if relevant to a crime. One can argue that this may hurt their livelihood if future sources elect not to talk to them for fear of being turned over, but this isn't a responsibility of a society.
Second, they argue that many security perimeters were established around buildings after September 11, and that reporters were arrested for crossing them. Shocking. You mean that reporters were arrested for blatantly commiting a crime? They should be arrested, just as I would have been. Reporters seem to think that their occupation gives them some license to break laws that apply to the rest of us. It doesn't, and shouldn't.
Ultimately, I don't think we necessarily have the most free press. There are a lot of secrets, but military and intelligence secrets should be just that. A lot of institutions blatantly violate the FOIA. But the arguments put forth by the organization that made the report are not in the least compelling.
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:3, Insightful)
When somebody can take arrest a citizen without due process of law and detain that person for as long as "they feel like it", there comes a point where freedom is no longer truly freedom, just a pretend term used to appease the masses.
Re:Reporters without borders? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free as in Press (Score:2, Insightful)
The media are corporations. It's pretty hard for a corporation to be anti-corporate. So, in the US, we get all pro-corporate news, all the time, from the corporate press. Did anyone think it would be different?
FOX News repeats their slogan, "fair and balanced" all the time throughout the day. If they didn't, people would just assume they were owned by the Republican party. Glad they cleared that up for us.
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because often the source would lose his livelyhood and possibly his life if his identity were revealed. Remember, telling the truth about someone with power/money/influence can often be a dangerous thing. There are many ways to prove the validity of information without revealing the messanger.
Not a flamebait...but (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do american "patriots" so often feel the need to blindly defend the U.S? Saying that the marks are irrlevant, that the european press is more evil and not free at all, and it's some damn liberal plot again.
I thought that patriotism meant love for ones country, not for ones goverment, I thought a patriot of a democracy was supposed to always question anything that might infringe on his freedom or that of others. But it seems that whenever an article like this is seen in the news, the american "patriots" refuse to question their goverment or their nations policy, instead they stand up behind it no matter what and dismiss the criticism as some foreigners and/or liberals having their panties in a bunch.
This is I believe, the opposite of what the founders of the US would have wanted. The US is not the greatest nation on earth simply because patriots say so, even if they yell it from the rooftops or chant it every chance they get. If the US is the greatest nation it is because it allows people freedom, they have freedom to question their goverment and its actions among other things, but it seems that the more patriotic an american is the less they feel a need to question anything. That apathy and contentment is a real danger to democracy, because it means no one is protecting the democratic rights.
Narrow minded are you? (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact is that the only news you americans are allowed to (or what you want to) read about from other countries is this:
1) about something going on that goes against what YOU believe in, i.e. what you consider human rights violations, what you
2) countries not willing to do what YOUR government wants them to do (same as no. 1 really), Iraq, Palestinia, China etc.
3) gossip and humour (or: what YOU find funny), i.e. the misfortunes of the Royal family, the spaniard that married his horse, the china man who cut of his penis etc. etc.
yes, I think it's pretty obvious that you are from america, but your ignorance of what is going on in the world is not entirely your fault, it because YOUR COUNTRY HAS INSUFFICIANT FREE PRESS!! (see headline).
Open your eyes, ryuie2ie.
p.s.:As for the "why are they moving here if the press has more freedom in their home countries?", well, guess what, free press is not essential for building a working economy...
Re:Reporters without borders? (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at countries such as Finland as an example of what happens when the people's right to bear arms is violated by the government.
Re:Canada 5th & Costa Rica beats out the US!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK ranked below the US on this survey, incidentally.
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'm not fully convinced about this whole WMD in Iraq...I didn't see any smoking gun."
When did you start to hate America?
"I thought we were supposed to be going after Bin Laden...?"
How long have you been a terrorist?
"Boy the economy is sure in the crapper and corporate fraud is rampant. When are they going to clean this mess up?"
Get me TIPS on the line, I've got some suspicious activities to report. Why do you hate America?
"I'm not comfortable with the USA Patriot Act, the new airport security measures, and the huge databases they are building..This kind of thing may end up abused."
Why do you hate America you pinko commie liberal scum, love it or leave it.
"Our president wasn't even elected by a majority of the voters..."
Why do you hate America?
Re:Reporters without borders? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. The reason that the US is arguably the most free society in the world is because it's one of the most armed.
For example, Bush would be unable to do to the US what his father did to Latin American, simply because we are as well armed as any terrorist groups he might send out to attack us.
I am anti-conservative and anti-Republican. I fully support the right of people to keep and bear arms. From the looks of the Bush's plans for America, we will probably need them.
Re:I'm surprised the US managed to make 17th (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether or not the book the person references is real, whether the research the reporters did was accurate, whether you are right or not, whether growth horomone does anything or it's all just silly panic, and whether a full grown person drinking monsanto pesticides on one occation with no visible immediate effects has anything to do with the long-term health effects on a child of ingesting large quantities over extended periods of time of milk affected by monsato growth horomone..
mmmm... milk
Re:Canada is 5th? (Score:5, Insightful)
The press has gone from being watchdogs to being a megaphone for those with money and power.
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:4, Insightful)
A personal firearm is about as effective in protecting liberties as is a four-leafed clover. Guns are fetishes of masculinity, that is when they are not used for murder.
Re:ok one last time (Score:2, Insightful)
Political Corruption Survays (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of the Press (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not a matter of reporter's violating a law unrelated to news gathering - this has to do with laws with the specific effect of making news gathering difficult. The security lines referred to here are (likely) not simply ones that even-handedly protect public safety, but more likely refer to those designed to prevent public knowledge of facts some in the government would rather keep private. Restricting access to government facilities is a very convenient way of preventing the public from knowing what goes on in these facilities. A bit like the "sensitive but unclassified" [slashdot.org]label that is now preventing all sorts of information from public review (e.g., basic scientific research, workplace injuries in chemical plants, etc.)
If suddenly reporting on discussions of certain goverment agencies were made illegal, this would be an abridgement of the ability of the press to operate, even though the law would "apply to all other people" as well. The issue isn't whether the press should be able to disobey laws "that apply to other people", but whether these laws create a huge obstacle to basic information getting out to the public.
Re:how scary is it ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Proving that you (Germany) still remember what that war was fought over, and that the US has completely forgotten.
Re:Canada 5th & Costa Rica beats out the US!! (Score:2, Insightful)
you're not number one
staring at your precious constitution doesn't mean those rights are protected by the government. It's just a piece of paper. Text written down to it means shit by itself. Just look at the history of african americans, and tell me how well their rights have been protected in the past by US constitution.
Re:This is what the Freestate Project is all about (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, back on topic (sorry, I love voting theory, and I was the one who moved the FSP to a more sophisticated voting system): the erosion in freedom of the press is connected with the erosion of other freedoms. In order to catch drug traffickers, terrorists, tax-evaders, and other such criminals, law-enforcement officials tend to push the boundaries. If the USA legalized vice (drugs and prostitution), reduced its meddling in foreign countries, and lowered taxes, there would be fewer criminals, and less pressure to violate rights in order to catch them.
The Free State will address what it can at the state level, but somethings, like foreign policy will remain out of our control.
Read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can somebody post some substance in this thread (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm for example not bashing Finland for being #1 - i'm happy for them. I'm not particularly worried about the freedom off the press in the US either - it's doing just fine.
what worries me are all those Americans throwing aimless insults towards countries ranking higher than them - or Earthlings/non-americans attacking the Americans for being too narrow minded.
America is not perfect - neither is the rest of the world.
Congratulation on the #17/#10 spot.
the Dane
Some background for my fellow Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
As some of the posters here have shown quite clearly, Americans tend to confuse an individual's freedom of speech (me and my soapbox) and the freedom of the press (what CNN is allowed to do). This is understandable, since (to simplify it) they have the same legal grounding the Constitution. However, this is not the way most other democracies do things. Germany, for instance, learned about the power of the press the hard way under the Nazi propaganda machine, and therefore distinguishes between Meinungsfreiheit (freedom of speech) and Pressefreiheit (freedom of the press). The press in Germany is considered the "fourth estate" and as such is integrated into the system of checks and balances with special rights and obligations (!). German law also tries to take into account that the media is a multi-million-dollar industry that sometimes tends to try make money first and hunt for the truth later.
So the American posters here who are going "yeah, but you're not allowed to say there wasn't a Holocaust in Germany" are perfectly right, but they are also completely missing the point. That is a question of freedom of speech, not freedom of the press, which is what this study was about. The German press reports all the time about people running around saying there was no Holocaust, and there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it.
This system also gets rid of most of the gripes about the trashy press in the U.S. presented here: The German press has duties as well as rights. For example, you can be sued for Verletzung der journalistischen Sorgfaltspflicht, which could be translated as "journalistic negligence". If you say A did X, you have to prove you really, really tried to get A's own version. Then there are a whole host of privacy laws that are considered a basic right in Europe and are designed to protect the public from the press, a very alien concept to Americans, who are told that the press is protecting democracy when it is broadcasting the photo, place of residence and full name of a four-year-old rape victim.
The second part is that the rest of the democratic world considers the freedom of the press such a very basic and important right that is dealt with at a federal level in federal laws that apply to everybody in the country. So when some American judge in Somewhere, Ohio decides that a journalist has to give up his sources in a murder trial, while a different judge in Somewhere Else, New York in a similar case says he doesn't, this shocks Europeans who have this humanistic belief that the law should treat all people equally, especially when we're talking about basic freedoms.
Americans, on the other hand, don't have a federal law book, and are furthermore stuck with a legal system that never made it past the 18th Century. Trial-by-jury is something that the rest of the free world thinks is only a minor improvement on using a lottery or chicken guts to decide who is guilty. It does not bother Americans that a court in one state or even town will interpret your basic rights differently than another judge a few miles down the road, since they have been told that this is the way it has to be. To the rest of the democratic world, this is as unbelievable as, say, not being able to count your ballots correctly in a federal election.
So basically the study is only examining the different degrees of freedom of the press in different countries, nothing more and nothing less. And by that measure, the U.S. in fact does not deserve a top spot, because the enemies of the press (who at times include the press itself) can and do use the legal uncertainty inherent in the American system against journalists. The question of banning "The Story of O" in Germany or IRA literature in Britain does not enter into it, as valid as these questions would be in discussion of freedom of speech.
War Justifies Suppression of Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
-Poverty
-Crime
-Drugs
-Terrorism
The beauty (if you happen to be inside the government monopoloy) of a war on an abstract concept is that the concept never surrenders and the war never ends, so the temporary extra powers become permanent, and eventually taken for granted.
Any erosion in press freedom (or press access to government officials) is part of a larger context of increasing government size and power, and reciprocally eroding human rights. This sort of report is the equivalent of an annoying fly biting the sheeple; they will quickly go back to grazing.
Those who are concerned should review their Constitution and Bill of Rights:
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/bil
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charter
and check them for erosion. Those who are really concerned should join the Free State Project:
http://www.FreeStateProject.org
Re:War Justifies Suppression of Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure there wasn't war declared on Iraq during desert storm (lasted less than 90 days), I'm not sure about Vietnam...
Maybe it goes all the way back to the WWII
Attention all non-US Slashdotters (Score:0, Insightful)
I'm sure there are 100's of sites superior to Slashdot on the European extension of the American Internet.
Thank you.
If you read the web page... (Score:1, Insightful)
In addition, this was based on a survey given to Journalists. No offense, but the journalists in the U.S. are the biggest bunch of crying babies to every walk the face of the earth. Did you EVER see a news story about something another reporter or newscaster did wrong? Do reporters or news casters ever cheat on their spouse? Who knows, but if a politician does you'll know all the details the next day.
I'm sorry but that report is so skewed that it's not even worth taking seriously. It's like giving a survey to Linux users only to ask them which is the best operating system. And to compare being arrested because you crossed a security line when you were told not to with reporters being killed or tortured for saying something they weren't supposed to, I think you loose all credibility.
The U.S. is so bad, Bla Bla Bla. But everyone and their damn brother wants to come here. I'll tell you what, if the U.S. sucks sooooo bad, then why don't all these fools just stay in their own country or go to Canada or Finland or where ever.
Re:Wait a second (Score:1, Insightful)
Going by this thinking a country declaring a law denying journalists to contact government officials for instance would rank well in journalistic freedom (as long as the journalists won't break that law).
Denying journalists' access to governmental information that in most countries is considered public (the ones with better freedom in this regard) under an excuse such as 'national security' is restricting the journalistic freedom (because, as in the US, the journalists are forced to break the law to access it, which means not as many are willing to do it).
Stop making excuses and face the fact that things aren't going well in the US. Concentrate on making sure they don't continue to get worse.
Re:I just want to know how the ranking works (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at a "friend" of the US.
Saudi Arabia [state.gov]
from further down
Pakistan [state.gov]
Who else is the US asking to help them in the "War against terror"? Maybe they should have a look at their friends before they claim to champion democracy.
The little bit I read on my own country, Australia [state.gov], seems fair. I would really like to read a review of the US that uses the same standards. (The review of australia mentions 6 people killed by police either while in custody, being arrested ot escaping/resisting arrest, out of a population of almost 20 Million.)
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't believe small arms are effective? What can one man with a rifle accomplish, you ask? Ask Gunnery Sgt Carlos Hathcock. With 93 confirmed kills (and over 300 probable), Gunny Hathcock was the top sniper in Vietnam, possibly the best ever. At one point, he single-handedly kept a NVA batallion pinned down for 3 days. Or how about MSGT Gary Gordon and SFC Randall Shugart? Armed only with their rifles and sidearms, sergeants Gordon and Shugart held off an attacking force numbering in the hundreds for several hours. You can read the details of their sacrifice in their Medal of Honor citations [army.mil]. Don't say that one man with small arms can't make a difference. The facts speak to the contrary.
So much for the "Land of the Free." (Score:3, Insightful)
All of our fine Nation's problems stem from the educational system, which has lost all its power, even to the point that teachers are afraid to discipline ANY student in ANY way for fear of getting on national television. As a matter of fact, even private school teachers I know of award A's and B's to students who are obviously failing the class, simply because the school is afraid of parents pulling their children out of the school. Students graduate high school without knowing jack. This has turned into a daycare system rather than an educational one. This leads to problems such as:
- People believing EVERYTHING they read.
- People believing EVERYTHING they hear.
- People expecting the government to take care of everything, entering into every aspect of private citizens' lives and pocketbooks in the process, as opposed to the correct system called individual responsibility.
Fix the educational system, get rid of 90% of the government (thus creating opportunities for private businesses to handle the functions that have no business being in the government), and get rid of the crap that hacks away at our individual freedoms one by one.With an academic system in place that teaches people to speak and write correctly from day one, and no restrictions on what you can say and write, we'll have a lot of bullshit to filter through, but at least we'll have our freedom, and that's worth more than all the alleged safety in the world.
Re:how scary is it ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a flamebait...but (Score:2, Insightful)
Following your logic, Americans have no right to comment on any other country, so would your please tell your government to stop labelling various places as "Axis of Evil", to stop threatening Canada over their proposed drug laws, yadda yadda yadda.
Re:17th... is that very bad or very good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, they apparently scored on a scale of 0-100, where the first 39 fit in 0-10, and the last 15 or so had scores of 50-100, median 23.50 ( Mozambique). US had a score of 4.75.
They have a page about the criteria and methodology [www.rsf.fr]. Namely, they sent out questionaires to jouranlists.
Note the last point in their criteria:
Re:Linux and XP - use both (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a lesson we must never forget; that even a Constitutional Democracy isn't immune to falling under the spell of a power-hungry, charismatic dictator.
Re:Reasons for US Rank (Score:3, Insightful)
If future sources opt not to talk to journalists, it won't affect their livelihood adversely. (Most publishers will be only too glad to pay the reporter for a fluff piece that advances advertisers' interests rather than a serious invetsigative report.) It will affect the functioning of a democratic society, because it will deny readers access to information.
Re:how scary is it ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's in countries like Cuba, Iraq, and Belarus that journalists are feeling extreme pressure to be quiet, and are being murdered if they speak up.
This poll is not asking the countries leaders, politicians, or residents the questions. It's asking the one group of people who matter most in this issue: The Journalists.
Freedom of the press means exactly that; the ability to say what needs to be said so that other countries may know what is going on, sometimes in real time, as in the case of the current Russia hostage crisis.
Without the courage of these people who risk their lives daily, the world would be a much duller, repressed society. Think about that for a bit. Imagine throwing our cultures back 200 years or more because we don't allow people to speak up.
Re:Not a flamebait...but (Score:2, Insightful)
Which would be all good and well, if you weren't so set on critisising the rest of us all the time.
When you go on and on about how you are "the greatest country in the world", the home of freedom and democracy and bla-di-bla. All the rest of us hear is of course: "And the best that any of you other loosers can hope for is a distant second", and "We used to be a bit full of ourselves, but now we're perfect."
If I with the same consistency tried to shove Sweden down your throat, with the same apparent lack of critical thinking, I'd be run out of here, and for good reason. So take it down a notch, will you? Polite company, OK?