reporters sans frontiers

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Apparently, they dinged us for accidentally shooting two journalists.

Outside the U.S., few assume they were shot accidentally.

The raitings may also take into consideration that most non-US journalists consider American journalism to be an oxymoron.

[Dinner]

Che: That leads back to my point about the popularity contest.

[Kropotkin]

Obivously such a ranking is quite subjective and cannot be used as anything other than a rough indicator. The figures gives rankings a false glance of objectivity (for some reason people think numbers are true no matter how they came up with them.)


It would however, be very interesting to create an alternative universe where the US was number one and watch oerdins reactions.

[Dinner]

I'd still say it was a subjective popularity contest because that's what I do with each of these "reports" comes out.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Che: That leads back to my point about the popularity contest.

Why? If they seriousy consider American journalism to be a joke, what does that have to do with popularity? They may think we're great, just not serious jounalists.

[Snotty]

They may think we're great

I assure you, Americans are the only ones who think that

[Main_Brain]

Costa Rica better placed than the United States

The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.

From 2002 Ranking

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116

[Q Classic]

you gotta admire consistency. nkorea ranked last last year, too.

[Gangerolf]

Australia is #50. what's up with that?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

What's really disturbing to me is that the US is ranked below the UK. I like to think I'm an honorary Eurocom, but I'm also a media professor -- and the UK's libel laws, which massively favor plaintiffs bringing libel suits, are a far more significant restraint on freedom of speech than anything we have in the US.

[TCO]

I think we should take all the INdy media types and make them wait tables at that commie pklace uin Chincagol

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by TCO
I think we should take all the INdy media types and make them wait tables at that commie pklace uin Chincagol

What?!? Then your dad might lose his job to one of those indy media types!!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It still just boils down to a none scientific popularity contest which has little to no bearing upon reality.

Also I suspect they are taking one very isolated case (Gitmo) and are trying to pretend it is some sort of monsterous act of censorship. The fact that the Geneva and Hague conventions outlaw turning prisoners into public specticals or objects of public curiocity wasn't even taken into account by the writers of this report. That they would drop a country more then 100 places for abiding by international law is a total joke.

Actually, I didn't see any reference to Gitmo. More to things like regulating foreign journalists in occupied Iraq, and a little whinyness about the guys dumb enough to point video cams at tanks during the war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What's really disturbing to me is that the US is ranked below the UK. I like to think I'm an honorary Eurocom, but I'm also a media professor -- and the UK's libel laws, which massively favor plaintiffs bringing libel suits, are a far more significant restraint on freedom of speech than anything we have in the US.

US libel laws favor rich plaintiffs, and especially disfavor poor defendants, due to the ridiculous costs of litigation here. It doesn't matter if you're right - it matters if you can afford to go to trial.

[TCO]

Originally posted by st_swithin


What?!? Then your dad might lose his job to one of those indy media types!!

My dad died in 1985, b1tch.