Press Freedom index, DR 52nd, USA 53rd

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by something_of_the_night

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

Like Bernard Goldberg's?

I'm still waiting for the documentation from Dan Rather's "moment".

[suarezn]

On the other hand Americans tend to be very brainwashed when it comes to these kinds of things. The motto here (which pretty much every American subscribes to) is that The US is the "Land of the Free" and the "best" country to live in the world (which may be true for some people, but not for others). pretty much all the news you get here is very filtered and one sided. Those of us who live close enough to the Canadian border can tell you that it is amazing the difference you see in the news reported by Canadian vs. US channels.

It all depends on everyone's definition of Freedom of Speech, Press Freedom, etc...and we could spend a whole week arguing on what these mean and never come to an agreement.

Personally I believe Press Freedom is probably here in The US than in The DR. In both countries the press is biased, slanted, whatever you wan to call it. I think the biggest difference is that in The DR very few reporters dare report the real juicy stuff (i.e. Drug trafficking) for fear of retribution, assassination, etc. Thus you see a lack of investigative reporting, with the notable exception of Nuria.

Having said that I think in general you have more freedom in The DR than The US. This place has so many laws and restrictions that basically your life is completely stifled and you have to conform or else (i.e. Can't paint your house any color you want, can't sit on your front porch and drink a beer, etc).

Bienamor Press Freedom is not just the one granted/taken away by the government, but by a number of variables, including how threatened does a reporter feel if he/she reports on a controversial topic (see my comment above about The DR).

Aegap: If I'm not mistaken a law akin the The Freedom of Information Act was passed a few years back in The DR. Not sure how well it is enforced.

[Larry]

Originally Posted by suarezn

Personally I believe Press Freedom is probably here in The US than in The DR. In both countries the press is biased, slanted, whatever you wan to call it. I think the biggest difference is that in The DR very few reporters dare report the real juicy stuff (i.e. Drug trafficking) for fear of retribution, assassination, etc. Thus you see a lack of investigative reporting, with the notable exception of Nuria.

This is what I was saying.

In regards to interpreting what "freeedom of the press" really means, I dont see the big debate. It has to do with the government putting restrictions on what you say and potential ramifications for speaking (in press) your mind. If a news agency reports the news in a biased way, that does not apply or fall under "freedom of the press".

Larry

[aegap]

..I concur.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Larry

This is what I was saying.

In regards to interpreting what "freeedom of the press" really means, I dont see the big debate. It has to do with the government putting restrictions on what you say and potential ramifications for speaking (in press) your mind. If a news agency reports the news in a biased way, that does not apply or fall under "freedom of the press".

Larry

See, this is what I really do not agree with, immaterial of the country. A free press is a press that is not shackled, shackled by who-ever and for whatever reason. Editorial policy of a specific publication is of course necessary. But if the editorial policy is in any way or form shaped by the wishes of the government of the day, this does not translate to a free press.

[Chris]

I was trying to add something to the post but the edit did not quite work for me. Here is what I wanted to add ..

If you read the report, this is what they say about the US: "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.
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."

It is a strange co-incidence that the US and the DR find themselves close together on this ranking.

[aegap]

Originally Posted by Chris

See, this is what I really do not agree with, immaterial of the country. A free press is a press that is not shackled, shackled by who-ever and for whatever reason. Editorial policy of a specific publication is of course necessary. But if the editorial policy is in any way or form shaped by the wishes of the government of the day, this does not translate to a free press.

umm, you're basically saying what Larry said, ...

Originally Posted by Larry

In regards to interpreting what "freeedom of the press" really means, I dont see the big debate. It has to do with the government putting restrictions on what you say and potential ramifications for speaking (in press) your mind. If a news agency reports the news in a biased way, that does not apply or fall under "freedom of the press".

[Larry]

Originally Posted by Chris

See, this is what I really do not agree with, immaterial of the country. A free press is a press that is not shackled, shackled by who-ever and for whatever reason.

Chris,

You do not appear able to grasp this concept.

Take the two biggest news sources in the USA, Fox News and CNN. One caters to a right wing audience and one caters to a left wing audience. They cater to those audiences and relay the news accordingly because they are making MONEY applying their respecting slants to the news. THEY ARE NOT SHACKLED BY ANYONE.

Now stop, reread that and think. If you do not get it, reread agin. If you still do not get it, I cannot help you.

The government does not put restrictions (shackles) on what they say. There are no ramifications from the goverment if they report a scandal, etc.
The only things those news sources care about is retaining their viewers and making money. THAT is why they slant the news.

Larry

[Chris]

But Larry I agree there is something that I probably am not grasping. It is this paragraph ... "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."

You may recall, I responded to Scandall, who put forward that there must be something wrong in the numbers as the US press is not censored by the Government. This report shows that they have slipped in the 'freedom' rankings because of government intervention.

And the fine distinction that I'm trying to make, has been made better by suarezn "Bienamor Press Freedom is not just the one granted/taken away by the government, but by a number of variables, including how threatened does a reporter feel if he/she reports on a controversial topic"

So, the point that I'm not grasping firstly, is what Scandall says. And secondly, I wanted to remake the point that suarezn made in response to your post. And rereading will not do it for me. I guess I'll just remain a little dumb and hopeful that one day we will see good press that we can count on, wherever we find ourselves.

[Larry]

Chris,

As far as what you quoted in your subsequent post, those reporters were not imprisioned for what they said in the press, they were imprisioned for withholding information they had that was detrimental to national security which they refused to hand over.

They have complete freedom of the press. They do not, however have the right to withhold crucial information.

Some of their freedoms may have been compromised here but that is for another thread on a different message bopard. Their FREEDOM OF THE PRESS however was NOT affected.

Larry