Press Freedom index, DR 52nd, USA 53rd

[RHM]

Originally Posted by aegap

The press in the US has WAY more freedom than the press in DR may ever which to have.

(e.g.The Freedom of Information Act of 1966 may not be perfect, but does the DR have anything even remotely like it?)

..the restriction on the US press pale in comparison to those put on the UK press..

..reportes without border may have been influeneced by their bias

Aegap...this is not even worth arguing over.

Watch where this thread goes.

The bashers will be here any minute.

Scandall

[aegap]

Originally Posted by Scandall

Note: I used the words "free speech" when I referred to Moore.

DR press more free? That's your opinion. Personally, I think you are way off.

Scandall

Any restriction on free speech in the United States pales in comparison to the restriction on free speech in England and most of Europe. ..enough said.

edited to add:
..or the restrictions on free speech in the DR for that matter (e.g. El mono vs. the devil anyone?)

[RHM]

Originally Posted by aegap

Any restriction on free speech in the United States pales in comparison to the restriction on free speech in England and most of Europe. ..enough said.

Just do what I am about to do..."Unsubscribe".

This will turn to a critique of the US, Bush, and Iraq quicker than the DR government can arrest a journalist or DJ.



Scandall

[bienamor]

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.
NOT THE GOVERENMENT OF DENMARKS FAULT, THIS WAS DUE TO DEATH THREATS FROM OTHER GOVERENMENTS. SOME OF WHICH CAME UP IN THE RANKS, GUESS IF YOU THREATEN OTHER COUNTRIES REPORTERS AND NOT YOUR OWN ITS OK?

Three journalists were killed in each of Colombia (131st) and Mexico (132th). A Mexican reporter also disappeared along the US border, where drug-traffickers threaten the media.
AGAIN NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE GOVERENMENT. IF THE REPORTERS ARE AFRAID FOR THEIR LIVES AND DON'T GO TO PRINT? THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO MAKE THE CHOICE, THEIR OVERENMENT IS NOT STOPPING THEM!

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.
THIS WOULD BE GOVERENMENT SPONSORED IF TRUE. Not sure where they are coming from as the federal courts have to follow the constitution, those are not state laws,

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Amendment Text | Annotations
"""""""""""""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."""""""""""""

[Larry]

In regards to embedded reporters in Iraq in general, the ones who work for different news agencies tend to carry the slant of that particular agency. See the difference in the slants provided by Fox News and CNN. This however has nothing to do with "freedom of the press".

In regards to Geraldos case, that idiot drew a map in the sand in front of the cameras for the whole world to see announcing where that particular batallion (or whatever) was and where they planned on going, thereby putting them in danger. This was extremely stupid and because of the potential of things like this, the embedded reporters have to be monitored. Again, this has nothing to do with "freedom of the press".

A freelance reporter in the USA can say whatever he wants. The government can't do anything about it because he is protected by "freedom of the press". If he works for a specific news agency, however, they might not want to employ him because his opinion might contradict the opinion of their viewers. The difference is that he is being influenced by his employers and NOT by the government.

You might claim that the DR has "freedom of the press" but you cannot tell me that reporters, independent or otherwise, do not pick and choose their words or decide not to report on something out of fear of retaliation from government officials. THIS is the difference and the reason why freedom of the press is much stronger in the USA than in the DR and why the statistical rankings in this report are innacurate.

Many people love to jump on the anti-US bandwagon and ride it into the sunset regardless of what the topic is, however, in this case as in most, they do not know what they are talking about.

Larry

[bilijou]

Originally Posted by aegap

Any restriction on free speech in the United States pales in comparison to the restriction on free speech in England and most of Europe. ..enough said.

Originally Posted by Scandal

The fact that Michael Moore is still alive is proof that free speech and a free press are both alive and well. I don't buy this report.

Free speech and Free press aren’t the same thing. They don’t even run parallel to each other. If anything, the Michael Moore example, given how badly he was bashed, shows how this so-called “Free Press” many times questions Free Speech. Apples and Oranges…

No bashing or critique of Bush/Iraq, just the typical policy of an administration at war. I don’t see how we can say anything about freedom of press without mentioning the state of political affairs. If you want to cover your ears, unsubscribe.

[aegap]

well put Larry!

[aegap]

Originally Posted by bilijou

Free speech and Free press aren’t the same thing. They don’t even run parallel to each other. If anything, the Michael Moore example, given how badly he was bashed, shows how this so-called “Free Press” many times questions Free Speech. Apples and Oranges…

No bashing or critique of Bush/Iraq, just the typical policy of an administration at war. I don’t see how we can say anything about freedom of press without mentioning the state of political affairs. If you want to cover your ears, unsubscribe.

..read my comment on the freedom of the press.

[something_of_the_night]

A few years ago, I asked TonyC if he used Abu Garcia or Shimano gear, but it went over his head. Well, Scandall is obviously fishing here, but his gear is quite obvious.

CNN, FAUX-NEWS...freedom of the press? It's almost as if some folks here never heard of print.

A few books have been written regarding propaganda, any would-be borrowers?

Where is AZB when you need him?

[aegap]

somithing, there're maybe things about the press in the United States we may not like, but to siggest that the DR's freedom of the press is better than that of the United States is outragious and makes whatever person/organization making that claim loose lots of credibility in by view ...even England and most of Europe have less freedom of the press than the US.

..let me put it this way: there are thing about the US justice system you and I may not like, but we can both agree DR's justice system is no match for the US justice system.

I have nothing against reporters sans frontieres. ..I think its a good organization, and admire most of their work.