Freedom of the press!?

[MidGe]

The news media advocacy organization Reporters Without Borders released their fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index this week, and it shows that the United States has dropped 9 places since last year, and is now ranked 53rd, alongside Botswana, Croatia and Tonga. The authors of the report say that the steady erosion of press freedom in countries like the US, France and Japan (two other countries that slipped significantly on the index) is "very alarming.

From the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1027/dailyUpdate.html)

[FortunaMaximus]

Or more countries are catching up on a basic needs level and the US is self-toppling anyway.

Nero probably fiddlin' bluegrass somewhere and having hisself an elbowtipper of moonshine.

Eh.

[whiskeytown]

bear in mind - a lot of this isn't government censorship -

the press, particularly in the US is owned by corporations - ergo - TV News and it's subsidaries put profit ahead of objectivity or anything -

not that it's restricted - more like it's been sold to the highest bidder.

rb

[MidGe]

I don't think that the index measures media corporate or self-censorship but rather takes into account certain government actions or interferences.

[guesswest]

I agree with the basic point here, that erosons of press freedom in recent years in the US is a huge problem, and one that's becoming very noticable in terms of content to anyone that travels to and from the US regularly and gets to see the contrast. But I have to point out that it's a bit disingenuous bolding 'Botswana, Croatia and Tonga' to show this. The fact that a country is poor has no necessary relevance here - I'm in fact surprised Tonga isn't rated higher since I'm guessing its press corp consists of one guy with a notepad.

[MidGe]

Hiya guesswest,

I agree with your sentiments about freedom of press being a huge problem. I don't quite agree with your dismissing or putting down being compared to Botswana, Croatia and Tonga. I think, whether a country is poor or not, whether it has one journalist or 100,000, it is the government actions that are being judged/ranked here, fairly or unfairly. Look at the top rankers and the bottom one's. I was trying to get a feeling for it, and I was a bit surprised at both the ranking and the score of the US. Other first world countries did not score well, a few ex-communists scored better than I expected but are in line from TV program I have seen from those countries, when I think about it. It is the tolerance of government criticism, by the government, that tips the balance imo.

BTW, France and Japan were singled out for a tightening too.

[guesswest]

The US is being compared to Botswana, Croatia and Tonga on a specific measurement, not in general terms. Governments have different reasons for restricting the press, and may not have a vested interest in doing so in many cases, nor may they be able to do so because of infrastructure, legal systems etc. Some poor countries enjoy great freedom of press - look at the ranking Benin got, that's a miserable country in abject poverty. The press is largely unrestricted there because nobody has a TV and the majority of the population is illiterate, so the government doesn't care what reporters get up to.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The press is largely unrestricted there because nobody has a TV and the majority of the population is illiterate, so the government doesn't care what reporters get up to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am certain that is right! /images/graemlins/smile.gif and hopefully this does not apply to the US, hence the censorship!

[madnak]

The US government is violating journalistic confidentiality, increasing restrictions on what's allowed in public discourse and otherwise, making a variety of threats about "unpatriotic" or "anti-American" rhetoric, and taking a much harder position on "treason" and dissemination of "sensitive information."

[valenzuela]

How is the score reached?
Btw Chile is just above USA /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

edit: thanks for the link, very intresting

[RED FACE]

I've heard of lawyer-client privilege but not "journalistic confidentiality". The government must regulate the media just like they regulate money in campaigns because it is such a powerful force. Media conglomerates should be broken up to an extreme degree to prevent undue influence. Also, only citizens should be allowed to own them.

Also, maybe it would be a good idea for journalists to belong to some organization in which they say an oath like doctors. Like, "will make every effort to remove any personal bias in my reports and strive to inform rather than educate".

[ShakeZula06]

Awesome find Midge. I've X-posted this in politics fwiw.

[madnak]

Excellent point. We should just make all journalists send a list of their sources to a government agency. That would make it so much easier to make sure everything's accurate.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent point. We should just make all journalists send a list of their sources to a government agency. That would make it so much easier to make sure everything's accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That IS sarcasm right?

[madnak]

Not at all. Didn't you read RED FACE's post? The idea of confidentiality between a journalist and a source is obviously ludicrous. Think - they could be sharing secrets of national security or something! And since people are so deeply affected by the media, we need the government to regulate it. After all, we wouldn't want it to fall into the wrong hands.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Not at all. Didn't you read RED FACE's post? The idea of confidentiality between a journalist and a source is obviously ludicrous. Think - they could be sharing secrets of national security or something! And since people are so deeply affected by the media, we need the government to regulate it. After all, we wouldn't want it to fall into the wrong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but its not just that. I mean, obviously there are things that the people are just better off not knowing. Why would we want to burden them with such things, things that would surely only confuse them and lower their quality of life? These things obviously should be kept from them, for their own good, and who better to decide what is in their best interests?

[guesswest]

[censored] you both /images/graemlins/grin.gif