In the interest of avoiding a page long post, I've shortened the above quotation. Please reference post #24 for the original quote. I'll reference which paragraph I'm responding to via #s.
1. It's not insulting to Lichtenstein, it's probably the truth. How many domestic journalists can exist in a country of not even 40,000 people. Understand that your point is more about the institution of a free press rather than journalists themselves. Don't you think the number of domestic news outlets present in a country is direct indicator of that country's freedom of press? More of a quantitative measure, than subjective questionnaire...no?
You are dismissing the study because it is a questionnaire, but it is more than just that.. there are quantitative measures also, like laws, ownership and more.. all that is quantitative.
Plus the amount of people in a country and possible news outlets is irrelevant as long as there are no barriers to starting and running a news outlet and being a journalist. There are no such rules in Lichtenstein. And I would suspect there are more than 5 people employed at the newspapers and tv news, plus lets not forget part of the quantitative issue is if the country has access to international news organisations and how they are treated both by the government and population at large.. which they have, and that is unrestricted.
2. So you don't believe that companies should be able to own news outlets? Maybe government should own the news? I don't understand why you think corporate news ownership is so bad.
No I dont.. I believe that corporate news ownership by mostly 5 corporations is bad. Consolidating news outlets in fewer and fewer ownerships is bad and especially bad when those owners actively go in and influence what can and can not be on the news and how it is portrayed. ... yes that is Newscorp.
3. The purpose of those questionnaires is to retrieve REAL DATA for REAL indicators. This questionnaire is SUBJECTIVE. Not useless, but again, more symbolic.
It is still a questionnaire asking the opinions of those being asked. Who says they are telling the truth.. hence the "real data" can be massively flawed because it is based on highly subjective answers. A good example.. in Saudi Arabia the census is a guy going around asking how many live in your home.. much like in the US. However women are not always counted as people so the actual population in Saudi Arabia is actually higher than what the census says it is.
Another good example of quantitative information is how media are treated. Remember this?
Nasdaq Joins in Ban of Al Jazeera - Los Angeles Times
or this?
Al Jazeera sues AT&T for dropping its American cable news network from U-verse 'in bad faith' | The Verge
or this?
Time Warner Cable Drops Current TV Upon Sale To Al Jazeera
Yes it is all about Al Jazerra but it shows that even in the private sector there is is defacto attempts on censorship.
Not to mention in the US military... blocking access to several news organisations, not only Al Jazzera.
4. So you think that police and military in those situations intentionally targets journalists? So, if a journalist embeds him or herself in or around an enemy location, and that location is "hit", that is violence against journalists?
Yes, US military forces intentionally targeted journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is plenty of evidence of this. Of course they only targeted journalists that were not embedded.. and usually those news sources that were on the banned list... like Al Jazerra.
5. You assume that journalists can't be linked to terrorist organizations. In fact, they can. In this persons particular case, it sounds like he was detained based on legitimate circumstances to begin with. However, I do agree with your general point that these people need to be tried in some way to really determine guilt or innocence based on evidence available. That is beyond the scope of this thread though.
No I dont assume anything of the sort. Let me point out that he was grabbed in a non war zone, well knowing he was a journalist and he was held for 8 years with no trial and then released without being charged. How on earth can any of that be justified?
7. And I conceded that point. I think that's more of a question about the transparency and legality of this administration than an indicator of the freedom of our press. It has had no effect on it's freedom...if anything, once uncovered BY THE PRESS, it only benefited the freedom of press by reaffirming its freedom.
And when it is not? Lead up to the Iraq war.. massive amount of self censorship and chest thumbing by most US media. The US media were cheerleaders for the Bush administration and hounded those that disagreed with the Bush administration. I remember when some music stars stood up and were opposed to the war, they were hammered in most of the media as anti-American and worse.
8. Comparing us to Russia? Not even close. Most of Russia's big media outlets are state-owned or subsidized by the state. If they don't report positively, they get shutdown...simple as that. It's not administrative posturing...it's government control. I'm not saying our media is perfect, that is a straw man counterargument of course, but it is far freer than you suggest and those subjective rankings report. I'm also not arguing that European media sucks, so try not to be so sensitive.
It is not a comparison per say.. might be a language issue... I am trying to point out .. one or two abuses is one or two too many and hence the US is in the same boat as the mass abusers like Russia.
And to be fair.. Russian media is not fully government owned, far from it.. but it is owned by loyalists.. and how is that different from 5 companies owning most of the big media in the US? Most of the owners of big media in the US are allied with the right wing in one way or another. Some use their media empires to promote the right wing ideology, where as others dont.. for now.
