NationStates Jolt Archive

In press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639), the US ranks 53rd in the world behind such traditional bastions of liberalism as Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and El Salvador. (To be fair, all these places have shown great improvement in recent years because there's been relative peace and stability in their regions. The reasons for that peace vary.) The reason for our placement just inside the top third?
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.
When the government spends a lot of time trying to discredit the media, it should be no surprise when the media feels threatened.

Doesnt the media right not to reveal sources essentially mean they can make something up?

In press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639), the US ranks 53rd in the world behind such traditional bastions of liberalism as Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and El Salvador. (To be fair, all these places have shown great improvement in recent years because there's been relative peace and stability in their regions. The reasons for that peace vary.) The reason for our placement just inside the top third?

When the government spends a lot of time trying to discredit the media, it should be no surprise when the media feels threatened.

New Zealand droped from 2nd equal to 19th equal. The top countries are very close together. Still the best in the asia-pacific region though..

Yeah, but the people assigning rank in that list are probably liberal journalist types.[/conservative rebuttal]

New Zealand droped from 2nd equal to 19th equal. The top countries are very close together. Still the best in the asia-pacific region though..And shares the spot with Denmark...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.Now that's just seriously fucked up.

Doesnt the media right not to reveal sources essentially mean they can make something up?


I wonder what the ranking is for responsible media ?

The media these days has 24 hour,7 day a week shows they have to keep afloat, so they have to make news all day every day.

Mild,insignificant stories have to be made more sensational, regular programs have to be interrupted and non-issues have to be made issues.

If there is no huge scandal, no huge natural disaster, we get a sound prompt to introduce the California Highway Patrol chasing a punk on a motorcycle, live feed from a helicopter. People in Georgia are glued to their TV.

Its all crap. Even the real stories are embellished and ad-libbed, people forget they arent watching a news anchor reporting facts, they are watching pundits spout opinions and retired officials blathering over each other.

Doesnt the media right not to reveal sources essentially mean they can make something up?

No, it just means that they cannot be forced to reveal who gave them those top secret informations.
This is so that informants can contact the media about an issue without fearing prosecution-harm from the government-mafias-companyes that are trying to keep the issue under a lid.
For this same reason in some tryals the witnes's identityes are undisclosed (at least in Italy).

I call bullshit. If this were the case, then most of the members of the leftist media would be in Gitmo.

Yeah, but the people assigning rank in that list are probably liberal journalist types.[/conservative rebuttal]

And that couldnt be true ?

W.T.F.! Iceland in equal first? Someone really must not know of the small print, ie just how difficult it is to get Icelandic citizenship, and they can kick you out if you don't have it, without needing to explain anything..

I wonder what the ranking is for responsible media ?

The media these days has 24 hour,7 day a week shows they have to keep afloat, so they have to make news all day every day.

Mild,insignificant stories have to be made more sensational, regular programs have to be interrupted and non-issues have to be made issues.

If there is no huge scandal, no huge natural disaster, we get a sound prompt to introduce the California Highway Patrol chasing a punk on a motorcycle, live feed from a helicopter. People in Georgia are glued to their TV.

Its all crap. Even the real stories are embellished and ad-libbed, people forget they arent watching a news anchor reporting facts, they are watching pundits spout opinions and retired officials blathering over each other.
You're absolutely right. The 24 hour news cycle is a monster that has to be fed regularly. My biggest beef with it is that it's usually spitting out "where the white women at?" stories when there's plenty of real shit happening in the world to be reported on.

And that couldnt be true ?

It could, but with some pundits calling the NY times traitorous and with the corporate consolidation of media in the US the ranking could be valid too.

And that couldnt be true ?

It probably is the actual case. The most the US government has done is politely asked the NYT not to go to press with a story. The NYT did so anyways with no reprocutions.

That sounds like censorship to me:rolleyes:.

I call bullshit. If this were the case, then most of the members of the leftist media would be in Gitmo.
Fixed, since teal=sarcasm for you according to your sig.

It could, but with some pundits calling the NY times traitorous and with the corporate consolidation of media in the US the ranking could be valid too.

That is also bull. The US citizens can say whatever the fuck they want about the media. The fact is the government has NOT taken legal action.

If that is what this ranking is based on, then it is basically saying the only free media is one where the population is not allowed to question the reports.

I wonder what the ranking is for responsible media ?

The media these days has 24 hour,7 day a week shows they have to keep afloat, so they have to make news all day every day.

Mild,insignificant stories have to be made more sensational, regular programs have to be interrupted and non-issues have to be made issues.

If there is no huge scandal, no huge natural disaster, we get a sound prompt to introduce the California Highway Patrol chasing a punk on a motorcycle, live feed from a helicopter. People in Georgia are glued to their TV.

Its all crap. Even the real stories are embellished and ad-libbed, people forget they arent watching a news anchor reporting facts, they are watching pundits spout opinions and retired officials blathering over each other.

I was watching Glen Beck ranting last night about how the media loves to jump on stories and sensationalize bad news. Well it's simple capitalism, good news doesn't sell very well. Bad news sells, lots of bad news leads to political change, which also sells.

Good news is only reported in lulls between sensational stories.

Secretive administrations like the current one just make life rough for reporters. They don't like to talk, and they like to try to get the media to stay away from making it's own conclusions by not letting anyone get any information to them.

W.T.F.! Iceland in equal first? Someone really must not know of the small print, ie just how difficult it is to get Icelandic citizenship, and they can kick you out if you don't have it, without needing to explain anything..

that's got nothing to do with freedom of the press tho.

That is also bull. The US citizens can say whatever the fuck they want about the media. The fact is the government has NOT taken legal action.

If that is what this ranking is based on, then it is basically saying the only free media is one where the population is not allowed to question the reports.

What about corporations consolidating their grip over media and the FCC basically encouraging it? Doesn't that limit the freedom of the press? Doesn't it give a handfull of companies control over what everyone sees, hears and reads?

That is also bull. The US citizens can say whatever the fuck they want about the media. The fact is the government has NOT taken legal action.

If that is what this ranking is based on, then it is basically saying the only free media is one where the population is not allowed to question the reports.
So you admit to not having actually read the link posted above. No wonder you come off sounding the way you do. :rolleyes:

that's got nothing to do with freedom of the press tho.
Ooops..misunderstood, I guess...

Still I'm not so sure about us deserving such a high spot..Mostly because I actually live in Iceland..

Secretive administrations like the current one just make life rough for reporters. They don't like to talk, and they like to try to get the media to stay away from making it's own conclusions by not letting anyone get any information to them.
Precisely, and this group combined that with the pressure by courts to force journalists to give up confidential sources to come up with this ranking.

W.T.F.! Iceland in equal first? Someone really must not know of the small print, ie just how difficult it is to get Icelandic citizenship, and they can kick you out if you don't have it, without needing to explain anything..
Any nation reserves the right to 'kick' a non citizen out without reason.

In press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639), the US ranks 53rd in the world behind such traditional bastions of liberalism as Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and El Salvador. (To be fair, all these places have shown great improvement in recent years because there's been relative peace and stability in their regions. The reasons for that peace vary.) The reason for our placement just inside the top third?

When the government spends a lot of time trying to discredit the media, it should be no surprise when the media feels threatened.

In engineering and science, we usually do something we call a 'sanity check' on data before we fall for it. That makes us suspicious of things that just don't seem right. My favorite example is the cold fusion success of some colleagues at Georgia Tech. It was reported in a juried periodical and subsequently disproven.

Here's a great case of 'cold fusion', if you will. Does it seem reasonable to rate our fourth estate as less 'free' than journalists in South Africa? Of course not. What should we do next? Examine the criteria and just use common sense to arrive at a decision about the validity of the rankings.

If deteriorating relations between the press and the Administration are the sole reason for the ranking, I guess these guys aren't old enough to remember the Nixon enemies list, nor the McCarthy era Red scare. Journalism survived those episodes and they will continue to flourish under the current conditions, as benign as they might be.

[edit]
What's more, closer examination shows that the countries were ranked on the results of 50 questions, but I can't easily find the raw data for the rankings. The numerical score in the right hand column is clearly weighted or normalized, but it doesn't give us any better idea about how the rankings were determined. My conclusion is that this study is worth the paper it was printed on and no more.

I call bullshit. If this were the case, then most of the members of the leftist media would be in Gitmo.

Well... they got one journalist in there...

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.

Myrmidonisia I've bolded the question in the survey the US might fall foul of.
During this time, how many journalists:

1. Were murdered?

2. Were murdered, with the state involved?

3. Were arrested or sent to prison (for however long)?

4. Are currently in jail and serving a heavy sentence (more than a year) for a media-related offence?

5. Were threatened?

6. Were physically attacked or injured?

7. Fled the country?

Were any journalists (yes/no):

8. Illegally imprisoned (no arrest warrant, in violation of maximum period of detention without trial or court appearance)?

9. Tortured or ill-treated?Possible with the gitmo one

10. Kidnapped or taken hostage?Gitmo guy?

11. Did any journalists disappear?

Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):

12. Armed militias or secret organisations targeting journalists?

13. Terrorist action against journalists or media firms?

14. Improper use of fines, summonses or legal action against journalists or media outlets?

15. Routine failure to prosecute those responsible for seriously violating press freedom?

16. Prison terms imposed for media-related offences defined by law?

17. Attacks or threats against family, friends or colleagues of journalists?

18. Surveillance of journalists (phone-tapping, being followed etc)?maybe... if they're in jail now

19. Problems of access to public or official information (refusal by officials, selection of information provided according to the media’s editorial line etc)?

20. Restricted physical or reporting access to any regions of the country (official ban, strict official control etc)?

21. Media outlets censored, seized or ransacked? (how many?)

22. Searches of media premises or homes of journalists?

23. Surveillance of foreign journalists working in the country?Wiretaps to oveseas locations?

24. Foreign journalists deported?

25. Problems getting journalist visas (undue delay, demand to know names of people to be interviewed etc)?

26. Censorship or seizure of foreign newspapers?

27. Jamming of foreign broadcasts or regulating who can have satellite dishes?

28. Independent or opposition news media?

29. An official prior censorship body systematically checking all media content?

30. Routine self-censorship in the privately-owned media?

31. Subjects that are taboo (the armed forces, government corruption, religion, the opposition, demands of separatists, human rights etc)?

32. A state monopoly of TV?

33. A state monopoly of radio?

34. A state monopoly of printing or distribution facilities?

35. Government control of state-owned media’s editorial line?

36. Improper sackings of journalists in the state-owned media?

37. Journalists forced to stop working through harassment or threats?

38. Opposition access to state-owned media?

39. Strictly-controlled access to journalistic profession (compulsory certificate or training, membership of journalists’ institute etc.)?

40. Use of withdrawal of advertising (government stops buying space in some papers or pressures private firms to boycott media outlets)?

41. Undue restriction of foreign investment in the media?

42. Licence needed to start up a newspaper or magazine?does this apply?

43. Cases of violating privacy of journalistic sources?

44. Serious threats to news diversity, including narrow ownership of media outlets?

45. A state monopoly of Internet service providers (ISPs)?

46. ISPs forced to filter access to websites?deos this happen?

47. Websites shut down over the period?

48. ISPs legally responsible for the content of websites they host?

49. Cyber-dissidents or bloggers imprisoned (how many?)

50. Cyber-dissidents or bloggers harassed or physically attacked (how many?)

The most important statistic in my book is, "In what order of rank is the line the longest to get into said country." People vote with thier feet. The line of people waiting to get into the US both legally and illegally is longer than the combined populations of several small countries.

If deteriorating relations between the press and the Administration are the sole reason for the ranking, I guess these guys aren't old enough to remember the Nixon enemies list, nor the McCarthy era Red scare. Journalism survived those episodes and they will continue to flourish under the current conditions, as benign as they might be.

That doesn't matter in the least. The study was ranking nations the USA was compared to other nations not the past, I'm sure they've been to places in which they have fewer/more rights believe it or not but some places might be better then the USA in this respect. Maybe you are right and this was bullshit, but that has nothing to do with this.

where is this sorce from? i want to see the site.

where is this sorce from? i want to see the site.

Did you read the OP?

Did you see the link there?

Did you bother clicking on it and reading it?

The most important statistic in my book is, "In what order of rank is the line the longest to get into said country." People vote with thier feet. The line of people waiting to get into the US both legally and illegally is longer than the combined populations of several small countries.

And thats the truth that cant be disputed.

The only one trying so desperately to get out of the tyranical United States but cant seem to is Alec Baldwin.

I call bullshit. If this were the case, then most of the members of the leftist media would be in Gitmo.

Because you're 53rd? Don't be absurd. There are still over a hundred countries below you. Being ranked 53rd doesn't mean you toss journalists in jail (well, except one). It simply means that you're not the greatest bastion of freedom some Americans claim the US is, and that 52 countries do better than the US in terms of freedom of the press.


Well... they got one journalist in there.

Indeed.


If that is what this ranking is based on, then it is basically saying the only free media is one where the population is not allowed to question the reports.

It isn't. There's a post a few spots above your own explaining what it's based on. Read it.

And thats the truth that cant be disputed.

The only one trying so desperately to get out of the tyranical United States but cant seem to is Alec Baldwin.

You do know that a lot of people emigrate from the US, don't you? There are American expatriates in most Western countries, including a lot in Australia. (The US is the n°1 country in terms of illegal immigrants settling in Australia, according to a report I read a few years back when I was in Oz.)

ireland is joint number one!!!!!
brilliant!
i assume it will start to go down soon, i have noticed the government is start to take advantage of its control of the media. they have started to limit the coverage over gang violence. probably cause they want to keep our safe cuddly image. or fiana fail has conection to the gansters! conspiracy! i'm on to you bertie. minister for fiance not having a bank account, thats dodge.

ireland is joint number one!!!!!
brilliant!
i assume it will start to go down soon, i have noticed the government is start to take advantage of its control of the media. they have started to limit the coverage over gang violence. probably cause they want to keep our safe cuddly image. or fiana fail has conection to the gansters! conspiracy! i'm on to you bertie. minister for fiance not having a bank account, thats dodge.

That and spending €200 a day on cosmetics.:rolleyes:

well,it is a bit like the never ending story,because people only believe what they want too.

I'll propose that ,we now all have to go on with people who can not talk,i insure you you will learn a lot...
like reading between words.

It is not freedom of press, it is communicating,not using bold words of so.

yep...right ...sure...ummm huh...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301088.html


I can see how the press has been REALLY restricted...they are actually showing terrorist propaganda without calling it that . They call it " news " .

Restricted ?

HOW ?

Basically this kind of thing is impossible to believe for many Americans, because many of us are trained (not to say, indoctrinated) to believe that America is the Freedomest Place on Earth (tm).

yep...right ...sure...ummm huh...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301088.html


I can see how the press has been REALLY restricted...they are actually showing terrorist propaganda without calling it that . They call it " news " .

Restricted ?

HOW ?

Pressure from the government not to publish this particular story before it was published?

yep...right ...sure...ummm huh...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301088.html


I can see how the press has been REALLY restricted...they are actually showing terrorist propaganda without calling it that . They call it " news " .

Restricted ?

HOW ?

Hate to tell you this, but the war is news, even the ugly parts that show how fucking incompetent the people in charge have been, and Republican lawmakers calling it terrorist propaganda doesn't change that--those lawmakers are just douchebags who are scared they'll lose their personal power if the Democrats take over the House. Fuck them, and fuck anyone who buys into that bullshit.

Hate to tell you this, but the war is news, even the ugly parts that show how fucking incompetent the people in charge have been, and Republican lawmakers calling it terrorist propaganda doesn't change that--those lawmakers are just douchebags who are scared they'll lose their personal power if the Democrats take over the House. Fuck them, and fuck anyone who buys into that bullshit.


Hey Nazz I think they did us a great service by showing us what we are fighting against and bringing the reality into the living rooms of the people who think we are not in a war .

The point you missed is ..." what restrictions " ?

It was on TV ...what pressure ??? It was on TV !!

What are you talking about restrictions ??? What restrictions ???:D

You do know that a lot of people emigrate from the US, don't you? There are American expatriates in most Western countries, including a lot in Australia. (The US is the n°1 country in terms of illegal immigrants settling in Australia, according to a report I read a few years back when I was in Oz.)

Of course, but the number is vastly smaller than people emigrating form anywhere else, plus, I would go out on a limb to speculate that the reasons for those leaving the US are more centered around moving because of a job relocation/opporotunity, rather than because of oppression or sub-standard living conditions.

300,000,000 reasons you are wrong , plus the 12 million plus illegals and all the rest waiting in line to get in....its good a few want to leave we need the room .




Again what restrictions ????

http://www.airamericaplace.com/archive.php



By Nora Boustany
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A15

Some poor countries, such as Mauritania and Haiti, improved their record in a global press freedom index this year, while France, the United States and Japan slipped further down the scale of 168 countries rated, the group Reporters Without Borders said yesterday.

The news media advocacy organization said the most repressive countries in terms of journalistic freedom -- such as North Korea, Cuba, Burma and China -- made no advances at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html


Wow intersting article....:D

300,000,000 reasons you are wrong , plus the 12 million plus illegals and all the rest waiting in line to get in....its good a few want to leave we need the room .

So quantity is a sign of freedom now? Tell that to China!

Of course, but the number is vastly smaller than people emigrating form anywhere else, plus, I would go out on a limb to speculate that the reasons for those leaving the US are more centered around moving because of a job relocation/opporotunity, rather than because of oppression or sub-standard living conditions.

well that could be true,they can not escape.

Hey Nazz I think they did us a great service by showing us what we are fighting against and bringing the reality into the living rooms of the people who think we are not in a war .

The point you missed is ..." what restrictions " ?

It was on TV ...what pressure ??? It was on TV !!

What are you talking about restrictions ??? What restrictions ???:D

Did you even read your link?

IT starts with:


A Republican lawmaker has asked the Pentagon to bar CNN reporters from traveling with U.S. military units in Iraq because the network showed insurgent snipers shooting at U.S. troops.


The footage, aired last week on CNN, does not show the death or wounding of any service member. In one instance, the tape shows a service member milling around a public area. A shot is fired, and the tape fades to black.


Clearly indicating a willingness by legislators to penalize access to information, personel, and/or locations as retribution for publishing a story they didn't like.

You don't think that holding this sword above a network's head - even if not implemented this time - doesn't affect the media's willingness to pursue this sort of story in general?

So quantity is a sign of freedom now? Tell that to China!

How many people are on waiting list for years to emmigrate to China ? :D

And do you Know what the proportion of the 300,000,000 represnt immigrants and family of immigrants ?:D

Get realistic PLEASE .

Hey Nazz I think they did us a great service by showing us what we are fighting against and bringing the reality into the living rooms of the people who think we are not in a war .

The point you missed is ..." what restrictions " ?

It was on TV ...what pressure ??? It was on TV !!

What are you talking about restrictions ??? What restrictions ???:D

You think that when Congresscritters are screeching about how a news service is the equivalent of a terrorist organization's propaganda arm that that doesn't have a chilling effect on the newsroom? That maybe they'll think twice before showing the next story because they're afraid the Congress might censor them if they don't? You claim to be a smart guy--surely you can see how this sort of thing is threatening.

Hate to tell you this, but the war is news, even the ugly parts that show how fucking incompetent the people in charge have been, and Republican lawmakers calling it terrorist propaganda doesn't change that--those lawmakers are just douchebags who are scared they'll lose their personal power if the Democrats take over the House. Fuck them, and fuck anyone who buys into that bullshit.

In all fairness- we cant exactly accuse anyone who has been in charge to have been competent.
Its a never ending battle of self serving scum-if there is no war to bicker over, we have a sexual scandal of some sort. If we dont have that, we have to find out how they all write themselves illegal loans by bouncing checks to their very own private bank (when they dont have to pay for much they do anyway).
The more pressure there is, the more we learn how badly who behaves.

Many are disgraceful-on both sides.

In all fairness- we cant exactly accuse anyone who has been in charge to have been competent.
Its a never ending battle of self serving scum-if there is no war to bicker over, we have a sexual scandal of some sort. If we dont have that, we have to find out how they all write themselves illegal loans by bouncing checks to their very own private bank (when they dont have to pay for much they do anyway).
The more pressure there is, the more we learn how badly who behaves.

Many are disgraceful-on both sides.

You're describing the reason why having one party rule is a bad thing--no one to police the rest. A Democratic House would have the power to investigate wrongdoing by the executive branch, since the Republicans have been loathe to do it themselves.

You think that when Congresscritters are screeching about how a news service is the equivalent of a terrorist organization's propaganda arm that that doesn't have a chilling effect on the newsroom? That maybe they'll think twice before showing the next story because they're afraid the Congress might censor them if they don't? You claim to be a smart guy--surely you can see how this sort of thing is threatening.

those congress criters are assholes pandering to a group of zelots that make up their base of support..I just see it as a political screeching or it could actually be genuine outrage by those that see it as helping the enemy by showing their propaganda...I think they are idiots.

how can a Democracy fight a war if it doesnt know what it is ?

I grew up watching Vietnam remember ? I have seen more bodies ..real ones ..than I care to count or even try.

Its a shame they have to make deals with the terrorist to get footage ...because they will be kidnapped and beheaded if they try to venture out on their own like the press in Vietnam.


But hey it does the country a service to actually see what we are fighting against...despite what the old cranky dudes in congress think.

But I see NO restrictions on the press ...just turn on the TV.


"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 group said.

so the press responded by destroying him every chance he gives them ...thats a restriction ?

Get real !:D

Bush caused global warming ...Katrina ...is a dictator...is a monster ...a genocidal maniac...blah blah blah...:D

Sure the press is restricted...:D

But I see NO restrictions on the press ...just turn on the TV.

Really? None?


So..... how many news-clips of flag-draped coffins being loaded onto aircraft have you seen in the past four years?

You're describing the reason why having one party rule is a bad thing--no one to police the rest. A Democratic House would have the power to investigate wrongdoing by the executive branch, since the Republicans have been loathe to do it themselves.

the supposed "checks & balances" is good in theory, but not when everyone is playing cover their ass while trying to finger point to divert attention.

I'm so sick of mud-slinging, name calling, etc...

Are any of them actually doing their jobs, or are they just spending all their time telling us about others that arent doing theirs?

And for the record- I personally despise Hillary Clinton, however, wether or not she had plastic surgery or how she looks has nothing at all to do with her abilities. I am shocked that was made an issue. An issue that I feel that has allowed her to improve her standing-Even though it isnt really an issue.
She looks better-her opponent looks worse-OVER A NON-ISSUE.
People will actually vote for her now because she handled this particular incident well. It makes my head hurt.

You're describing the reason why having one party rule is a bad thing--no one to police the rest. A Democratic House would have the power to investigate wrongdoing by the executive branch, since the Republicans have been loathe to do it themselves.


I believe when we had a genuine two party rule more was accomplished .

And I believe thats a proven fact...I think they even pointed that out to old Bush dude today at his press conference.;)

Two party rule forces compromise and doesn't let fruitcakes who feel entitled because they helped " win " controll the agenda and force stupidity like intelligent design and jerkoffs passing laws against people trying to die in dignity...Terry Shiavo anyone ?....When the " base " is formed of liberal nuts and religiouse fanatics ..you get a strange form of congress like we have now..since the guys in office dont want to be out of office they give the nuts more slop to keep them happy...we need less nuts and more centrist.
And we need a much less partisan atmosphere if we are ever going to get anything done right .

Really? None?


So..... how many news-clips of flag-draped coffins being loaded onto aircraft have you seen in the past four years?



Why do you need to see them ? They deserve privacy as much as you do at YOUR funeral ..would you want press coverage of then loading you into a hearse...a solemn occasion where honors are presented ?

Its called balance..

The body count is presented every day ...the names and the age and the personal story .

Google Fred Phelps.

This isn't a game ...no points awarded one way or another..so be realistic...if you want to show actual restrictions on the press use something that shouldnt be restricted or doesn't have a valid reason or is unlawfull.

Of course, but the number is vastly smaller than people emigrating form anywhere else, plus, I would go out on a limb to speculate that the reasons for those leaving the US are more centered around moving because of a job relocation/opporotunity, rather than because of oppression or sub-standard living conditions.

I'm not at all sure about anywhere else, but obviously people usually have more reason to flee a dictatorship than to leave the USA, yes.

Just wanted to point out, for the sake of balance, that people do emigrate from the US in significant numbers.

How many people are on waiting list for years to emmigrate to China ? :D Thousands of North Koreans. They risk a lot harsher conditions than illegals coming to the US too. ;)

the supposed "checks & balances" is good in theory, but not when everyone is playing cover their ass while trying to finger point to divert attention.

I'm so sick of mud-slinging, name calling, etc...

Are any of them actually doing their jobs, or are they just spending all their time telling us about others that arent doing theirs?

And for the record- I personally despise Hillary Clinton, however, wether or not she had plastic surgery or how she looks has nothing at all to do with her abilities. I am shocked that was made an issue. An issue that I feel that has allowed her to improve her standing-Even though it isnt really an issue.
She looks better-her opponent looks worse-OVER A NON-ISSUE.
People will actually vote for her now because she handled this particular incident well. It makes my head hurt.
Well, in Hillary's case, she was cruising to victory anyway--it's not like her Republican opponent has a shot in hell--so that was an act of desperation in hopes of getting some attention.

As far as the question of people doing their jobs is concerned, Rep. Waxman has been doing some good work in the Government Reform Committee despite the fact that he's been handcuffed by the inability to issue subpoenas. You want to see some investigation into how money has been disappearing into that money pit called the Iraq War? Get Democrats in charge of the House and Waxman in charge of that committee instead of just being ranking member and you'll see change. Just as the press needs to be antagonistic to the government, the various branches need to be antagonistic to each other in order for our system to work even reasonably well.

Why do you need to see them ? They deserve privacy as much as you do at YOUR funeral ..would you want press coverage of then loading you into a hearse...a solemn occasion where honors are presented ?

Its called balance..

The body count is presented every day ...the names and the age and the personal story .

Google Fred Phelps.

This isn't a game ...no points awarded one way or another..so be realistic...if you want to show actual restrictions on the press use something that shouldnt be restricted or doesn't have a valid reason or is unlawfull.

So, the count is acceptable news but the picture of their coffin isn't?

And how does a non-identifying shot of a bunch of coffins violate personal privacy?

And your notion would be valid if the ban was universal, but Muslim's carrying coffins is frequently covered in IRaq, as are pictures of the bodies of muslims.

Allowing only one-sided coverage of the damage is not balance.


Your notion of "Balance" when enforced by a legislation, is not "balance".

It is censorship.

And the news media is not supposed to be part of your "game". If they are a part of it, and so under government edict, then you have tossed your notion that the press is free (and, coincidentally, you whole position in this thread) in the crapper.

So which is it?

Are they free?

Or part of the government's "game?"


Edit: And as to your personally directed comment, my views on how public I want my funeral to be are my own. As are yours.

I don't need the government to make it for me.

yep...right ...sure...ummm huh...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301088.html


I can see how the press has been REALLY restricted...they are actually showing terrorist propaganda without calling it that . They call it " news " .

Restricted ?

HOW ?
How is footage of insurgents shooting at soliders "terrorist propaganda"? Does that mean footage of Japanese soilders shooting at US troops back in WWII was Japanese propaganda?

Myrmidonisia I've bolded the question in the survey the US might fall foul of.
It's a nice parlor game to try and fill in the blanks, but the effort is hardly enough to give the study any more than cursory interest.

you even have the freedom of speech in russia. you can say what you want.. but you may die soon... :D

Canada is tied 16th. w00t! w00t!

*lol

Ok, I read this thread up to page 3, then I had to take a break as I was in stiches.

So you're number 53, so what?
Are you really not able to cope with the fact that for once, you're not the biggest, bestest, freest, and everything else-est country on this planet? Is a single independent survey really enough to shake your self-confidence enough to take serious offense?
And is the only argument you can list against it the fact that people still want to get into your country to excape poverty? They will go on trying, even if you should hit number 100 or below, so no need to worry there.
They're trying to get into every developed country, and they'll continue to do so.

Seriously... *lol... sorry... what is it that bothers you so much about being number 53?

Interesting study, interesting thread.

The US is less 'free' than it was 5 years ago. Who is shocked?

Nice try talking about how the amount of emigrants (half the EU's total by the way) has anything to do with outside influence on the press. Typical US right, when in doubt call them commies and bullshit.

Interesting Ireland is top, especially in light of the common consensus that our press is too 'free', our libel laws are anachronistic (you have to prove in a court of law that the press were wrong and even if they were you were damaged) and you can say what you like about the dead with no sanction. There is no body you can complain about the print media to.

New laws in place soon.

I'd settle for a few places further down the list for some constraint on the tabloid press. Lots of murderers have walked because the press called them murderers and made a fair trial impossible.

Interesting study, interesting thread.

The US is less 'free' than it was 5 years ago. Who is shocked?

Nice try talking about how the amount of emigrants (half the EU's total by the way) has anything to do with outside influence on the press. Typical US right, when in doubt call them commies and bullshit.

Interesting Ireland is top, especially in light of the common consensus that our press is too 'free', our libel laws are anachronistic (you have to prove in a court of law that the press were wrong and even if they were you were damaged) and you can say what you like about the dead with no sanction. There is no body you can complain about the print media to.

New laws in place soon.

I'd settle for a few places further down the list for some constraint on the tabloid press. Lots of murderers have walked because the press called them murderers and made a fair trial impossible.


That's the thing with freedom... it should end when another person's freedom begins.
I'd certainly be in favour of at least some laws regarding what the press can say about a person, and of course a point for complaints and grievances.

It's a nice parlor game to try and fill in the blanks, but the effort is hardly enough to give the study any more than cursory interest.

I think it's the journalists in jail and under various prosecutions - some for non terror related issues and the prospect of wiretaps that has bumped the US to 53.

I wonder how many of the countries above the US have currently got jailed journalists and can legally do unwarrented wiretaps on journalists and are holding a journalist without charge?

53 is not that bad - the US score is still quite low, go down another few places and the score really starts to jump. All this survey shows is that the US does not have the freest press in the world. Which might be hard to swallow if you are brought up your whole life that there is nowhere where the people are more free - which is a failing (or success - if you view propagander as a good thing) of the media and education system.

53 is not THAT bad. There is not much between the top countries and a single point on their scale will bump someoone down half a dozen places. The US score is not the worst by a long stretch, it just is not the best.

It's failings appear to be largely due to a very small number of incidents - many of whitch qualify as fufilling several of the questions, however the countries above America have not had these incidents (or have had fewer or less serious ones), and the countries below have had more and worse incidents.



p.s What is this about flags on coffins? Did the US Govt ban the media from showing coffins coming home from Iraq?

I think it's the journalists in jail and under various prosecutions - some for non terror related issues and the prospect of wiretaps that has bumped the US to 53.

I wonder how many of the countries above the US have currently got jailed journalists and can legally do unwarrented wiretaps on journalists and are holding a journalist without charge?

53 is not that bad - the US score is still quite low, go down another few places and the score really starts to jump. All this survey shows is that the US does not have the freest press in the world. Which might be hard to swallow if you are brought up your whole life that there is nowhere where the people are more free - which is a failing (or success - if you view propagander as a good thing) of the media and education system.

53 is not THAT bad. There is not much between the top countries and a single point on their scale will bump someoone down half a dozen places. The US score is not the worst by a long stretch, it just is not the best.

It's failings appear to be largely due to a very small number of incidents - many of whitch qualify as fufilling several of the questions, however the countries above America have not had these incidents (or have had fewer or less serious ones), and the countries below have had more and worse incidents.



p.s What is this about flags on coffins? Did the US Govt ban the media from showing coffins coming home from Iraq?
You still miss my point. I want to know how number 53 was achieved without speculation. That's a serious flaw in the way the study was reported. It means we can never check their results in an independent manner. Flawed data, flawed conclusions. That simple. But we'll never know any different.

You still miss my point. I want to know how number 53 was achieved without speculation. That's a serious flaw in the way the study was reported. It means we can never check their results in an independent manner. Flawed data, flawed conclusions. That simple. But we'll never know any different.

Didn't somebody list all the criteria the study is based on earlier in the thread? It seemed rather comprehensive to me.

You still miss my point. I want to know how number 53 was achieved without speculation. That's a serious flaw in the way the study was reported. It means we can never check their results in an independent manner. Flawed data, flawed conclusions. That simple. But we'll never know any different.

Then write to them and ask for the raw data and then compare to their criteria.

I have never seen a survey where they print all the raw data though.

Also - some of the things are subjective, like rating the value of one journalist imprisoned against the value of 12.

I've highlighted a bunch of areas where the US does not do as well as it could, and making an assumption that the places scoring better than the US did not have quite so many failings.

Do you doubt the 53? Do you think it should be Number 1?

That's the thing with freedom... it should end when another person's freedom begins.
I'd certainly be in favour of at least some laws regarding what the press can say about a person, and of course a point for complaints and grievances.

interesting you say that but off topic what i'm thinking.

here about youth defense?
they are being sued by a ucd paper and that labour chick who's name i dont think i can spell, ivana backic?
they made i fake university observer, making fun of the real university observer an ivana.i personally thought it was funny. but i see how they over did it. people actually thought it was the real one.

Personally I find it no suprise that a nation who's president is quoted as saying "there should be limits on freedom" in regard to an internet article about him has slipped to 53.

Since when could a chinese politician run for US office?

I know I haven't provided a link, I saw this some 4 or 5 years ago.

interesting you say that but off topic what i'm thinking.

here about youth defense?
they are being sued by a ucd paper and that labour chick who's name i dont think i can spell, ivana backic?
they made i fake university observer, making fun of the real university observer an ivana.i personally thought it was funny. but i see how they over did it. people actually thought it was the real one.

A bunch of inbred yokel political extremists faking a newspaper is a breach of copyright, not a restriction on press freedom. on the grounds that she has been threatened by these nazi linked goons, of course she will sue.

A bunch of inbred yokel political extremists faking a newspaper is a breach of copyright, not a restriction on press freedom. on the grounds that she has been threatened by these nazi linked goons, of course she will sue.

yeah true.
i'm not or i am a supporter of youth defense. i havent met any yet. the things i hear from them are from afa. and i dont regard them very highly.

Australia tied with France, but I think Australia is going to drop further down to USA level.

yeah true.
i'm not or i am a supporter of youth defense. i havent met any yet. the things i hear from them are from afa. and i dont regard them very highly.

they utter waste. well funded slime though.

I got a few slaps into them in my student days when they were using intimidation tactics in dublin (attacking left wing paper sales, picketting politicians houses etc). they stopped that tactic fairley quickly when people stood up to them.

p.s What is this about flags on coffins? Did the US Govt ban the media from showing coffins coming home from Iraq?

Yep. That was implemented prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. You will see no footage of the return of deceased servicemen (and women). Indeed, the media is barred from any access at all to the air base where these soldiers are returned to.

It is, aparently, bad for the public morale to see their children returned in boxes....

Yep. That was implemented prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. You will see no footage of the return of deceased servicemen (and women). Indeed, the media is barred from any access at all to the air base where these soldiers are returned to.

It is, aparently, bad for the public morale to see their children returned in boxes....

A lesson from Vietnam. People saw those coffins and didn't like what the war was doing.

Well... adding no-go zones to the press and banning them from showing images which are very much a part of current events and banning pictures of coffins... another mark against the US freedom of press.

Why are people so surprised the US did not come number 1?

ireland is joint number one!!!!!
brilliant!
Huzzah Ireland! We, among others, are number 1!
i assume it will start to go down soon, i have noticed the government is start to take advantage of its control of the media. they have started to limit the coverage over gang violence.
Is that really the government limiting it, or gangland killings not being as big a story as they used to be?
probably cause they want to keep our safe cuddly image. or fiana fail has conection to the gansters! conspiracy! i'm on to you bertie. minister for fiance not having a bank account, thats dodge.
Either good old Bertie was lying, or he was the most incomprehensibly stupid Minister for Finance in the history of existence.
That and spending €200 a day on cosmetics.:rolleyes:
Well, a Taoiseach must look his best :rolleyes:

Well, a Taoiseach must look his best :rolleyes:

*lol
He'd be a good example for the general ineffectiveness of cosmetics. Especially the expensive stuff. :D

Great, all I have to do is drive 50 miles down the road and I go from 27= (UK) to 1=(RoI) if I want to do an investigative artivle.

From Rick Reilly, sports illustrated journalist about the BALCO Steroid reporters:
Breathe easy, America. Two of the central players in the BALCO steroids scandal look like they're headed for the clink.

One weighs 170 pounds, including glasses, and couldn't bench-press the phone book. The other hasn't lifted a weight since high school.

The criminals? Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters who broke open the story -- Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams.

Then:
It's the best sports reporting in our lifetime, so impressive that in April 2005, when Fainaru-Wada and Williams met President Bush at a correspondents-dinner reception, he shook their hands and said, "You've done a service." And why wouldn't he? He said in his 2004 State of the Union address that this country must clean up steroids in pro sports, and Fainaru-Wada and Williams started scrubbing. But then Bush allowed his Attorney General to subpoena them to give up the source of grand jury testimony they'd reported or face jail time.

Hold on, hold on. I hear you yelping: Somebody violated a judge's gag order and leaked secret grand jury testimony, and the government is trying to find out who. Fainaru-Wada and Williams obviously know who it is but refuse to say. They must go directly to jail, not pass Go, etc.

No, they uncovered information that had been part of grand jury testimony, but it was then released to the BALCO defense team and the prosecution in the pretrial process, and it wasn't until 11 days later that the gag order was imposed.

Some more:
You want justice? If they are jailed all 18 months they will serve more than four times the sentence of anybody else in the scandal, including Conte [matermind of the BALCO steroid organization], who did only four months.

Yay, the US government throws good, hard-hitting journalists in jail while the people that broke the law (the BALCO guys and the athletes) barely get a slap on the wrist.