NationStates Jolt Archive

LATEST FREEDOM OF THE PRESS RANKINGS

Reporters Without Borders has issued the latest rankings (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025) for 169 countries.

In joint first place are Iceland and Norway.

Then come Estonia, Slovakia (joint 3rd), Belgium, Finland, Sweden (joint 5th), Denmark, Ireland and Portugal (joint 8th).

The Netherlands have dropped from first to twelth, "because it kept two Telegraaf journalists in custody for two days for refusing to reveal their sources to the judicial authorities".

New Zealand is 15th. Canada is 18th. Germany is 20th. The United Kingdom is 24th. Australia is 28th. France is 31st. Spain is 33rd. Italy is 35th. Japan is 37th. Israel is 44th (and is ranked 103rd "extra-territorially"). The USA is 48th (and is ranked 111th "extra-territorially"). India is 120th. Russia is 144th. China is 163rd.

Eritrea comes last.

The top 14 countries are all in Europe. The highest-ranked non-European country is New Zealand (15th). The highest-ranked in the Americas is Canada (18th). The highest-ranking non-Western country is Trinidad & Tobago (19th). The highest-ranking African countries are Mauritius and Namibia (joint 25th, just behind the UK). The highest-ranking Asian country is Taiwan (32nd).

Very small countries (such as the European microstates and most Pacific Island nations) are not ranked.

As an amusing sidenote, towards the bottom of its homepage (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20), Reporters Without Borders invites people to visit its office in Second Life... (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=23214).

They misspelled "Bahrain" (#118)

Go Ireland!

Hard to believe that Howard's Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law) should score so highly.

Hard to believe that Howard's Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law) should score so highly.

This is the report on Australia:


The John Howard government has continued to beef up its arsenal of anti-terror laws, some of which represent a threat to journalists’ capacity to protect their sources of information and to freedom of expression.

The adoption by the Senate, in March 2006, of the law on interception of communications increased the risks of anti-terror legislation being used abusively against the press. The law allows phone tapping without any real judicial control of journalists investigating terrorism or organised crime cases. The 2005 anti-terror law has already been used to force journalists to give information to police or the courts.

Two reporters on the Herald Sun are still facing prison sentences for refusing to reveal their sources for a report on a controversial decision by the conservative government. In August, a court rejected their appeal, after refusing to recognise their right to protect their sources. Another setback in 2006 was the High Court’s refusal in September to allow a journalist access to documents on the Australian government’s tax policy. The Australian Press Council condemned the decision which it said would give the authorities a “fresh impetus to suppress information that is embarrassing or politically inconvenient”. In February, the government also banned the press from freely covering the arrival in the country of Papuan refugees. Generally speaking, numerous restrictions are imposed on journalists wanting to cover the plight of people in Australia’s camps for asylum-seekers.


Despite that, Australia has actually moved up since 2006, from 35th to 28th.

Whee, all 5 Nordic countries are in the top 10. :D

I find very little surprising about the assessment on Canada (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20530&Valider=OK)'s press freedom. RSB is stating what most of us have always suspected, that the Harper government will do anything and everything in the limited scope of its power to prevent the media from airing its dirty, dirty laundry.

We fell two places since last year. No surprise that the anti-press sentiments of the administration had a role to play in it.

Yet back in 2003 when we had the Liberals with Jean Chretien in power we were ranked at 10 with a score of 1,83.

We see Cuba got honorable mention at 165 out of 169, what an honor.

Deplorable as Eritrea's press freedom is, I for one am a bit stunned that it ranked lower than North Korea.

Deplorable as Eritrea's press freedom is, I for one am a bit stunned that it ranked lower than North Korea.

Maybe they just don't have a press...

Iraq 157 ...

Wasn't the place supposed to be more democratic? :p

Iraq 157 ...

Wasn't the place supposed to be more democratic? :p

Well does Iraq actually have it's own press yet? Or is it just war correspondents from other countries?

Mint, New Zealand doing pretty well there.

Vatican City isn't on the list.

Why?

Vatican City isn't on the list.

Why?

I doubt they'd have much freedom of press anyway.

I doubt they'd have much freedom of press anyway.

Big Pope Smurf?
Yes?

I want to write an article about gays…
Nope, not possible

Condoms?
Nope

The lack of priests in the West?
Are you nuts?

The lack of equality between men and women inside the church
Sorry, no.
…

Poland the only EU country out of the first 51, what a fucking shame. Did you know that the law governing press is THE SAME LAW THAT HAS BEEN PASSED DURING THE MARTIAL LAW OF 1981? :headbang: Just the harshest parts are not used. I hope the new government changes it. Unfortunately I doubt it - they hve good press and politicians love having a big stick to wave at the press.

Big Pope Smurf?
Yes?

I want to write an article about gays…
Nope, not possible

Condoms?
Nope

The lack of priests in the West?
Are you nuts?

The lack of equality between men and women inside the church
Sorry, no.
…

I think the difference is that no one really cares about human rights in the Vatican City given that if you have a problem with the way things are run, you're free to tender your resignation and return to the country you came from - its not as though there are any permanent residents except one and I would be very surprised if he disagreed with the Vatican's policies.

I think the difference is that no one really cares about human rights in the Vatican City given that if you have a problem with the way things are run, you're free to tender your resignation and return to the country you came from - its not as though there are any permanent residents except one and I would be very surprised if he disagreed with the Vatican's policies.

I'm sure a few of the cardinals live there full time. And the Pope's staff. And the Swiss Guard.

Vatican City isn't on the list.

Why?They didn't include microstates.
Liechtenstein and Luxembourg also aren't on it, as well as some 20-30 other states.

They didn't include microstates.
Liechtenstein and Luxembourg also aren't on it, as well as some 20-30 other states.

I bet Sealand isn't on it.

I'm sure a few of the cardinals live there full time. And the Pope's staff. And the Swiss Guard.

Yeah, but they are only there because of their employment contracts. They can resign their posts at any time, but I don't hink the Pope has that luxury. Doesn't he have to wait until he's dead?

Yeah, but they are only there because of their employment contracts. They can resign their posts at any time, but I don't hink the Pope has that luxury. Doesn't he have to wait until he's dead?

I think he can, when the previous pope was getting so old they needed someone to wipe his chin because of his constant drooling a lot of people were saying that it became time that he resigned iirc.

also: WOOHOO! 5th! :D

Deplorable as Eritrea's press freedom is, I for one am a bit stunned that it ranked lower than North Korea.

Me too. North Korea is the MOST dictatorial country on the planet. Personally, I'm surprised Eritrea has the resources to top (bottom?) that.

Vatican City isn't on the list.

Why?

The microstates weren't included.

You can read the Vatican press here, btw:
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/index.html

It includes a page entitled "The most beautiful photos of the Pope (http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/ph_index_eng.html)"! :eek:

Yeah, but they are only there because of their employment contracts. They can resign their posts at any time, but I don't hink the Pope has that luxury. Doesn't he have to wait until he's dead?

True. Though they might go to hell for quitting.

While I question the quantifiability of Press Freedom, I thought I might provide us with a six year record of their actions: linky, linky, linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_press_freedom_index)

I'd certainly be interested to know what, exactly, caused the 2004-2005 disjunction in the US.

Reporters Without Borders invites people to visit its office in Second Life... (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=23214).Haha, no way in hell, bro.

New Zealand is 15th. Canada is 18th. Germany is 20th. The United Kingdom is 24th. Australia is 28th. France is 31st. Spain is 33rd. Italy is 35th. Japan is 37th. Israel is 44th (and is ranked 103rd "extra-territorially"). The USA is 48th (and is ranked 111th "extra-territorially"). India is 120th. Russia is 144th. China is 163rd.

Whoo-hoo!!! Iirc the report of 2004, we've gained 30 places, more or less, in 3 years!

Might it be because Berlusconi isn't PM anymore? I wonder... since the poor guy's only got 3 nationwide analog tv networks (Italia 1, Canale 5, Rete 4), about 12 (iirc) nationwide digital tv channels, controls more or less directly 2 nationwide daily newspapers (Il Giornale and Libero), a nationwide weekly (Panorama), lots lof local tv and radio channels, one of the largest publishing companies of the country (Mondadori), and a general 60% share of the national advertising market (Publitalia)... Poor Silvio!;)

The highest-ranked in the Americas is Canada (18th).
Blame Canada! Blame Canadaaa!
:fluffle: to all Canucks!

Did you know that the law governing press is THE SAME LAW THAT HAS BEEN PASSED DURING THE MARTIAL LAW OF 1981? :headbang:

WTF! I thought no one in the EU could do worse than us italians.

WTF! I thought no one in the EU could do worse than us italians.
Well, until 2003 the press freedom index in Poland was quite decent, about 6-7 (now it's 18,5). The point is that this law was largely ignored until the decline and corruption of the post communist government caused widespread media outrage and the commies tried to silence the criticism. Then the nutty ducky conservative nationalist rigt wing government tried to use this commie law to whack its "enemies", the irony!
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_without_borders#Worldwide_press_freedom_index

The United States is 48th???!!!

FORTY - FUCKING - GODDAMNED - EIGTH!!!!???

And they say that's an IMPROVEMENT!!!???

WTF!!!

We're supposed to be the frigging kings of press freedom. It's in our goddamned Constitution, for crying out loud. *pokes finger at personal copy of the Bill of Rights* It's the First Amendment, right there, in black and white! Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick!

Actually, I'm not surprised. I check the Reporters Without Borders rankings every couple of years. I'm not surprised, just angry and disgusted.

Disgusted with my fellow Americans and their fat, stupid, self-indulgent, whining childishness that lets them mindlessly pay others to run their lives for them, while they pick their asses in front of their over-priced tvs in blissful, self-destructive ignorance.

*Marks calendar with new weekly regimen of going out into the street and randomly smacking people across their stupid faces with a copy of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, while shouting, "WAKE UP!"*

And also in freedom of press we’re superior to most countries.

Oh, we are so good in just everything. We, Belgians, are just super humans.

Did you know that Henin is #1 in female tennis?

And oh yes, she’s Belgian.

The United States is 48th???!!!

FORTY - FUCKING - GODDAMNED - EIGTH!!!!???

And they say that's an IMPROVEMENT!!!???

WTF!!!

We're supposed to be the frigging kings of press freedom. It's in our goddamned Constitution, for crying out loud. *pokes finger at personal copy of the Bill of Rights* It's the First Amendment, right there, in black and white! Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick!

Actually, I'm not surprised. I check the Reporters Without Borders rankings every couple of years. I'm not surprised, just angry and disgusted.

Disgusted with my fellow Americans and their fat, stupid, self-indulgent, whining childishness that lets them mindlessly pay others to run their lives for them, while they pick their asses in front of their over-priced tvs in blissful, self-destructive ignorance.

*Marks calendar with new weekly regimen of going out into the street and randomly smacking people across their stupid faces with a copy of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, while shouting, "WAKE UP!"*

My dear? I think you first need to take a deep cleansing breath. Have you done it yet? Ok, now wipe the spit off the monitor so you can see it? Good.

Now, once more deep one, and there, now we can rant further because we got our breath back. Do tell us more about your lethargic fellow Americans and how they need to defend their first amendment rights? We know they're VERY good at defending the second one... :)

But, I do agree with you. They seem to have grown quite complacent with they 24/7 news cast that surrounds them, bombarding them with irrelevant news while censoring important news to satisfy political allies.

But, I do agree with you. They seem to have grown quite complacent with they 24/7 news cast that surrounds them, bombarding them with irrelevant news while censoring important news to satisfy political allies.

And it is the last point that I no longer watch cable news but get my news from the papers both at the store and online.

My dear? I think you first need to take a deep cleansing breath. Have you done it yet? Ok, now wipe the spit off the monitor so you can see it? Good.

Now, once more deep one, and there, now we can rant further because we got our breath back. Do tell us more about your lethargic fellow Americans and how they need to defend their first amendment rights? We know they're VERY good at defending the second one... :)
Welcome to my hell. :)

Also, you now know what every family dinner I've ever enjoyed sounded like -- imagine from 4 to 12 (depending on the occasion) Muravyetsians around the table, all banging our fists and waving our knives and forks. :) Ah, happy times.

But, I do agree with you. They seem to have grown quite complacent with they 24/7 news cast that surrounds them, bombarding them with irrelevant news while censoring important news to satisfy political allies.
Worse than satisfying political allies -- try manipulating information to advance and cement private corporate interests. The consolidation of the US news and opinon media is a prime example of the evils of corporatism, in how it came about, how it operates, and the effect it is having on our society. Beware, Canada -- we really are too close to you for comfort.

The bitter irony of this hits me hard because I live in Boston, self-proclaimed birth place of the Revolution (yeah, whatever), chock-a-block with Revolutionary landmarks and all.

There's a Benjamin Franklin impersonator who roams the Boston streets. I love the guy because (a) he really looks like Franklin and (b) Franklin is one of my all-time favorite human beings so I enjoy being reminded of him.

But Ben was too diplomatic by half. I'm starting to think we need some Tom Paine impersonators running around, dammit, to rouse the rabble.

Might it be because Berlusconi isn't PM anymore? I wonder... since the poor guy's only got 3 nationwide analog tv networks (Italia 1, Canale 5, Rete 4), about 12 (iirc) nationwide digital tv channels, controls more or less directly 2 nationwide daily newspapers (Il Giornale and Libero), a nationwide weekly (Panorama), lots lof local tv and radio channels, one of the largest publishing companies of the country (Mondadori), and a general 60% share of the national advertising market (Publitalia)... Poor Silvio!;)


It's actually very re-assuring to know that he was able to lose despite his strong grip on the media.

Well done, Italians!

As patriotic as I am, I really do hate almost all of the media in America. C-span kicks ass though.

Most of the press in Italy is controlled by Silvio,how the hell did they got in this place?!?!The same is now happening in Sarcozy's France.Never mind,in Greece we have 3 large edit groups which own the parties.

US is not a free country.They don't even have different parties,they have the Democrats and the Republicans.At least in Europe we have many parties taking part in elections.In US they have marked as "wanted" professor McLaren because he is a Marxist...That's why everyone hates US...

Once again, the world demonstrates that corruption is something the US is good at indeed.

Canada is 18th.

Holy fuck we suck. We used to be in the top 5 or something. Congratufuckinglations Mr Martin.

Maybe they just don't have a press...

An independent one, no. All independent radio stations, newspapers, etc. were shut down. Those who don't fully toe the government line often end up in jail. Many are never seen again.

While I question the quantifiability of Press Freedom, I thought I might provide us with a six year record of their actions: linky, linky, linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_press_freedom_index)

I'd certainly be interested to know what, exactly, caused the 2004-2005 disjunction in the US.

Judith Miller, prettymuch. The Valerie Plame affair. US took a huge hit, which seems a bit out of proportion to the size of the media sector.

Diversity of ownership and US libel laws mean US will never be near the top.

Well, until 2003 the press freedom index in Poland was quite decent, about 6-7 (now it's 18,5). The point is that this law was largely ignored until the decline and corruption of the post communist government caused widespread media outrage and the commies tried to silence the criticism. Then the nutty ducky conservative nationalist rigt wing government tried to use this commie law to whack its "enemies", the irony!


No, wait. You're saying that press was actually freer in Jaruzelski's time?

Anyway, :fluffle: to Poland for getting rid of one of the ducks.

And it is the last point that I no longer watch cable news but get my news from the papers both at the store and online.

The point is: are we sure that the newspapers aren't under the same heavy influence of the media corporations who run the tv channels? I know that some US newspapers are usually quite good (Boston Globe, NY Times come to my mind, from what I hear and read on italian media, so I might be wrong or missing some others), but I think that the real problem with information in capitalistic societies is that most newspapers and tv news are seen by their proprietors as a mere opportunity to place advertise, further their own political lobbying, and generally influencing the public opinion to suit their own agenda. (note, I'm not defending the soviet-times Pravda: it was about the same, with less money)
Journalism should be something different: information on well-checked facts, commentary, intellectual honesty (there's nothing wrong if a journalist has a political bias, but I think he should declare it when writing a commentary), and generally some ethical and professional standards. Money should come last - I'd even like to pay some taxes more to support a better journalism, as a serious and competent newspaper is a fundamental instrument of democracy.

Money should come last - I'd even like to pay some taxes more to support a better journalism, as a serious and competent newspaper is a fundamental instrument of democracy
A serious and competent newspaper, or at least some form of objective media to report on events, is fundamental to democracy (or at least it is in my worldview) but regular taxation is not the way to go, in my opinion. It is only by separating the media from the government that accusations of bias can be reduced or avoided, so funding a media body solely via tax revenues allocated by the government of the day is not the answer.

Further, media corporations whose funding comes from advertising can never be free of accusations of bias. If your business exists to make a profit, and those profits come directly from other corporations who pay you for advertising time, you cannot expect to be perceived as remaining objective if reportable events would show some of your contributors in a less-than-savoury light.

At this point I'd love to be able to hold up the BBC as a shining example of the way it should be done, but I can't quite bring myself to do it. I love the idea - a media body who do not allow advertising and hold themselves to be above and outside political posturing, and who simply report events as they happen - but they too fall into the trap of constantly putting forward opinion rather than sticking to the facts and trusting the population to make up their own minds.

A serious and competent newspaper, or at least some form of objective media to report on events, is fundamental to democracy (or at least it is in my worldview) but regular taxation is not the way to go, in my opinion. It is only by separating the media from the government that accusations of bias can be reduced or avoided, so funding a media body solely via tax revenues allocated by the government of the day is not the answer.

First to reduce bias, you need to separate the information media from the economy also. I don't think, however, that bias will ever go away: anyway, the bias is acceptable if it's openly declared. Example: Italy's "Il Manifesto" daily has "quotidiano comunista" (communist newspaper) written clearly just below the title - so you can tell what its bias is, and then knowingly buy and read, or no.
About governmental funding (I didn't talk of total gov funding), why not? You know, there are different layers in a government. Some of them are politically driven and one-sided (like the executive, usually), some of them are politically driven but multilateral (like the parliament), some of them are - or should be - politically neutral, like the statal administration, the judiciary, the police, the revenue agencies etc. So, if the neutral layer of the government gives funding to serious and independent newspapers (independent from political parties, religious organisations, economy tycoons etc - the powers that be), I can't see why it wouldn't be a good idea. In this case, if a journalist were politically biased, at least he would be biased like any reader can be: because of his own honest political ideas, and not because of his own profit or political agenda.

At this point I'd love to be able to hold up the BBC as a shining example of the way it should be done, but I can't quite bring myself to do it. I love the idea...

Ok. And it's totally state-funded iirc.

About governmental funding (I didn't talk of total gov funding), why not?
Because I do not accept that political control of funding will allow a properly unbiased media.

At this point I'd love to be able to hold up the BBC as a shining example of the way it should be done, but I can't quite bring myself to do it. I love the idea...Ok. And it's totally state-funded iirc.
Well, yes and no. It's funded by a state-mandated license fee, the proceeds of which go to the BBC, not to the government. Like I said though, it's not a perfect system, hence the "I'd love to... but I can't quite bring myself to do it" part of my comment.

WTF! I thought no one in the EU could do worse than us italians.

The new EU nations of Bulgaria, Romania and Poland are friggin' 3rd world countries compared even to Italy and Imperium of Berlusconi.

Because I do not accept that political control of funding will allow a properly unbiased media.

Control is different from funding.

See eg. BBC, which manages to be surprisingly neutral in most cases.

No, wait. You're saying that press was actually freer in Jaruzelski's time?

No, it was freer duging the reign of _post_comunists - the "democratic socialists" as they are now called. And only until the media despite their lefish bias reported on the cases of bribery and corruption in the government.
It has to be noted however, that the efforts to influence the press were largely unsuccesful. The TV, especially the state TV, is more susceptible.

Anyway, :fluffle: to Poland for getting rid of one of the ducks.

Thanks! I hope some people [points above] start to notice this soon :rolleyes:

Because I do not accept that political control of funding will allow a properly unbiased media.
There is a difference between "governmental funding of the media" and "political control of the media", as I think I've made clear in my previous post. Anyway, my point is that it is (almost) impossible to get unbiased information, because every one of us, hence the journalists too, is entitled to his own political opinion. At least, let this bias be an open, personal and free choice.


Well, yes and no. It's funded by a state-mandated license fee, the proceeds of which go to the BBC, not to the government. Like I said though, it's not a perfect system, hence the "I'd love to... but I can't quite bring myself to do it" part of my comment.

Yea, just like the italian RAI. State-mandated license fee going directly to RAI; but we get a lot of advertising on RAI channels, too. I hate advertisement.

Because I do not accept that political control of funding will allow a properly unbiased media.Control is different from funding.
Yes, control is different from funding. I'm simply saying that, in my (perhaps unjustifiably paranoid) opinion, control of funding inevitably leads to other control over that which is being funded.
See eg. BBC, which manages to be surprisingly neutral in most cases.
It does, and I like the BBC. I'm just not prepared to hold it up as some kind of paragon of media virtue.

No, it was freer duging the reign of _post_comunists - the "democratic socialists" as they are now called. And only until the media despite their lefish bias reported on the cases of bribery and corruption in the government.
Ah, I see.
It has to be noted however, that the efforts to influence the press were largely unsuccesful. The TV, especially the state TV, is more susceptible.
Eh... Berluskonski?:D