Freedom of the Press

[Mephisto]

In the U.S. we're proud of the freedoms that so many soldiers have died to protect. One of those freedoms is freedom of the press which keeps ordinary Americans aware of what is happening in the world and in our country. It's a right that our forefathers thought essential to the Democratic process and one that should keep officials in the public eye honest.

President Bush once said, "They hate us for our freedom," when talking about the terrorist threat. It seems to me that he's striking at the heart of those freedoms in a conscious effort to diminish them.

U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower
By Nora Boustany
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A15


Some poor countries, such as Mauritania and Haiti, improved their record in a global press freedom index this year, while France, the United States and Japan slipped further down the scale of 168 countries rated, the group Reporters Without Borders said yesterday.

The news media advocacy organization said the most repressive countries in terms of journalistic freedom -- such as North Korea, Cuba, Burma and China -- made no advances at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html?nav=hcmodule
________________

Where does the U.S. rank?

Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.

"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 group said.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In the U.S. we're proud of the freedoms that so many soldiers have died to protect. One of those freedoms is freedom of the press which keeps ordinary Americans aware of what is happening in the world and in our country. It's a right that our forefathers thought essential to the Democratic process and one that should keep officials in the public eye honest.

President Bush once said, "They hate us for our freedom," when talking about the terrorist threat. It seems to me that he's striking at the heart of those freedoms in a conscious effort to diminish them.

U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower
By Nora Boustany
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A15


Some poor countries, such as Mauritania and Haiti, improved their record in a global press freedom index this year, while France, the United States and Japan slipped further down the scale of 168 countries rated, the group Reporters Without Borders said yesterday.

The news media advocacy organization said the most repressive countries in terms of journalistic freedom -- such as North Korea, Cuba, Burma and China -- made no advances at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html?nav=hcmodule
________________

Where does the U.S. rank?

Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.

"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 group said.

One of the more curious developments of the past 4 years is the attempts to use the courts to browbeat journalists into revealing sources. One such is the pending fate of two reporters who broke quite of bit of the BALCO scandal (steroids in baseball) facing jail for having used (11 days before a gag order) information from a grand jury (a leak) to bolster their write up.

I am not sure how I feel about that, since I am extremely wary of those who deliberately attempt to corrupt the integrity of the legal system. Milking info out of a grand jury participant, or one of the legal teams working such a proceeding, for the purpose of getting a scoop troubles me. The tension is in the importance of transparency in our governmental system versus the need for a secure environment to get people to testify without fear of reprisal or the more common defamation that the 24/7 media system serves up with gravy, time and time again.

This is not an easy tension to resolve, but I don't like the direction it is heading in. Likewise the matter of Miller and the various leaks in Washington: the onus is on the persons handling information to not leak. Reporters are to find out what they can, that is their calling. I think that blaming the reporters is placing the blame incorrectly.

DR

 

[WildCat]

What a joke.

"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 group said.

So now "Bush said a mean thing to me" is evidence of diminishing freedom of the press?

"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said.

And what legal precedent occurred in the last year that made this years ranking different?

Like I said, what a joke.

 

[WildCat]

One of the more curious developments of the past 4 years is the attempts to use the courts to browbeat journalists into revealing sources. One such is the pending fate of two reporters who broke quite of bit of the BALCO scandal (steroids in baseball) facing jail for having used (11 days before a gag order) information from a grand jury (a leak) to bolster their write up.

Please, show your evidence of an uptick in such cases in the last 4 years.

 

[Mephisto]

What a joke.

So now "Bush said a mean thing to me" is evidence of diminishing freedom of the press?


And what legal precedent occurred in the last year that made this years ranking different?

Like I said, what a joke.

And that's another problem - seeing obvious problems as "a joke" won't allow a problem to be taken seriously. By those standards hurricane Katrina was a "joke," (hence the slow reponse by the government), the civil war we caused in Iraq is a joke (no one in the administration has taken that seriously), corporate scandals are a joke (otherwise there wouldn't have been so many congressmen jump on the bandwagon) and even the 9/11 attack on the WTC was a joke (otherwise Bush might have jumped into action at the news that the U.S. was under attack instead of waiting seven LONG minutes to hear the end of "My Pet Goat").

You may think it's a joke, but a LOT of people aren't laughing.

(edited to add) . . . unless you mean it's a joke like Anne Coulter means it's a joke?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Please, show your evidence of an uptick in such cases in the last 4 years.

I hadn't even heard of this approach previously. Since the war in Afghanistan started, and the war in Iraq (maybe I should have said in the past 2 years) I have heard of three cases. So, from my readings in the press, that goes from a non issue to an active issue.

That is an increase. Is it a trend, or am I being victimized by small numbers and political spin in my assessment? I don't know yet.

DR

 

[WildCat]

I hadn't even heard of this approach previously. Since the war in Afghanistan started, and the war in Iraq (maybe I should have said in the past 2 years) I have heard of three cases. So, from my readings in the press, that goes from a non issue to an active issue.

That is an increase. Is it a trend, or am I being victimized by small numbers and political spin in my assessment? I don't know yet.

DR

You haven't heard of journalists being compelled to reveal their sources prior to 2002?

I think you may want to research this some more...

 

[WildCat]

And that's another problem - seeing obvious problems as "a joke" won't allow a problem to be taken seriously.

No, it's the new weight given to those problems while lacking a reasonable rationale for doing so that makes it a joke.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You haven't heard of journalists being compelled to reveal their sources prior to 2002?

I think you may want to research this some more...

You are probably right, I don't have very much depth of knowledge on that.

DR

 

[Mephisto]

No, it's the new weight given to those problems while lacking a reasonable rationale for doing so that makes it a joke.

Okay . . .

Katrina = the largest natural disaster to happen in the U.S. thus far.

the civil war in Iraq = 2,800 American soldiers dead

corporate scandals = American politicians being imprisoned

9/11 = the most devastating terrorist attack on U.S. soil

freedom of the press = a disappearing "inalienable" right as outlined in the Constitution

Now, which of those problems would you say we gave too much "weight" to while lacking reasonable rationale?

 

[Beerina]

You haven't heard of journalists being compelled to reveal their sources prior to 2002?

I think you may want to research this some more...

Hehe, for Christ's sake, there's an old Mary Tyler Moore episode where she goes to jail for refusing to reveal her sources -- 1972 or so.

Katrina = the largest natural disaster to happen in the U.S. thus far.

Predicted decades in advance, and nobody did anything about it. My geology mini-course prof told us this was going to happen someday -- in 1987.

Like Nashville, site of the greatest earthquake in the continental US, it is (was) a city waiting to die. At some point, non-earthquaked Nashville will get a 7.5 or higher, and all the buildings will collapse.

the civil war in Iraq = 2,800 American soldiers dead

corporate scandals = American politicians being imprisoned

9/11 = the most devastating terrorist attack on U.S. soil

freedom of the press = a disappearing "inalienable" right as outlined in the Constitution

Actual statistics of a growing problem? Or is it like church burnings, where it toodles along for years before a politician decides to make a stink about it?

Where does the US gain points because the SC rules things like violent rape stories and every form of written erotica, no matter how perverse, are protected? And keeping the battleground on that grotesque landscape prevents it from sliding into areas that truly matter, which is the way it should be.

We don't throw people into jail for Nazi speech or pictures or swastikas. We don't throw people into jail for pointing out their political opponent is cheating on his wife.

So I want to see hard facts, real graphs with curves showing trends.

 

[UserGoogol]

I think porn and swastikas are usually classified as freedom of speech, not freedom of press, so it's kind of irrelevant to this listing.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The mighty defender of freedom is currently at position...what was it?...50-something in freedom of the press.

Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Tony]

The mighty defender of freedom is currently at position...what was it?...50-something in freedom of the press.

Can't say I'm surprised.

Nor it is surprising that right-wingers are shoveling more sand on their heads in the face of this development.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nor it is surprising that right-wingers are shoveling more sand on their heads in the face of this development.

Agreed.

Tony, I have to make a confession here. I sometimes don't differentiate between the country of the United States, the people of the United States and the government of the United States. I know that these are not by any means the same thing, but in the heat of the moment, arguing with right-wingers, these differences sometimes get lost.

Sorry. I'll try to do better.

 

[fuelair]

One of the more curious developments of the past 4 years is the attempts to use the courts to browbeat journalists into revealing sources. One such is the pending fate of two reporters who broke quite of bit of the BALCO scandal (steroids in baseball) facing jail for having used (11 days before a gag order) information from a grand jury (a leak) to bolster their write up.

I am not sure how I feel about that, since I am extremely wary of those who deliberately attempt to corrupt the integrity of the legal system. Milking info out of a grand jury participant, or one of the legal teams working such a proceeding, for the purpose of getting a scoop troubles me. The tension is in the importance of transparency in our governmental system versus the need for a secure environment to get people to testify without fear of reprisal or the more common defamation that the 24/7 media system serves up with gravy, time and time again.

This is not an easy tension to resolve, but I don't like the direction it is heading in. Likewise the matter of Miller and the various leaks in Washington: the onus is on the persons handling information to not leak. Reporters are to find out what they can, that is their calling. I think that blaming the reporters is placing the blame incorrectly.

DR

Given my tendencies, most people find it difficult to believe I have the opinion I do about the press but ...... I believe that the press should be free to report on news that people need to/should know. This does NOT include details of police investigations until the investigations are completed, details of security operations until completed, military operations in any kind of detail until completed, etc. I do not believe the press should have the right to protect sources - since the press argues the public right to know trumps the governments right to arrest and convict criminals, I argue that the right of citizens to expect criminals to be caught and convicted quickly and the innocent to see justice being swift precludes hiding the identities of sources that can provide information on criminal activities (there is no excuse for news services having more information than the justice system where crime is involved - for any longer than it takes to call or e-mail the police to properly inform them).

 

[fishbob]

Newspapers are downsizing reporting staff, TV news departments are doing the same. 'Infotainment' seems to be on the rise.
Can't blame the government for this pustulent development.

 

[luchog]

Newspapers are downsizing reporting staff, TV news departments are doing the same. 'Infotainment' seems to be on the rise.
Can't blame the government for this pustulent development.

Indeed. The press in this country has long ago ceased to be primarily interested in actual news, and become more and more about mere entertainment. What little news there is invariably spun hard to the left or right, depending on the particular network owner's personal politics (Rupert Murdoch vs. Ted Turner, for the most part); and supposed bastions of truth have been caught flat out manufacturing news, or at least uncritically accepting obvious hoaxes as fact. The press is doing a fine job of making itself irrelevant, without any help from the government.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And, if anyone is interested in the rest of the World, an analysis and the complete list is here:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388

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.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think porn and swastikas are usually classified as freedom of speech, not freedom of press, so it's kind of irrelevant to this listing.

The two aren't really separate things, though. Freedom of the press, in a constitutional sense, protects EVERY citizen's right to write and publish - it does not mean "the press" as in a class of people (the common current usage) who have any special rights.

And they damned well better NOT have any special rights that you and I don't have, because if they did, that would mean 1) I have less rights than journalists, for no reason, 2) whoever gets to decide who counts as a journalist would have undue and ungranted power, and 3) journalists themselves would have constitutional power granted to them with no method of accountability to accompany that power.