How Does Your Country Rate for Press Freedom?

Lilou

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
With the recent events in France and the call for freedom of speech, while at the same time, restricting speech and arresting people for their views – I wanted to see how my country ranked. The following web-site gives an excellent analysis of press freedom and democracy for every country.

Check it out. You may be surprised! http://www.worldaudit.org/presstable.html
 
Here in Malaysia it's not free. Banned books, films are common here. You get lawsuit if not jail if you insult the PTB.
 
I read about Spain that considers a free press. But this is a relative point of vue. When reporters meet each year for a convention of their work in the field, they always said that there is no free press in Spain. Ok. you can say that the government is stealing money, you can say this and that, but try to say something against Israel? Or something against anything that the power doesn't like? You loose your job. We are better than other countries but even if the press is free that doesn't mean we don't live under a dictatorship. In this contradiction we live. The real news are not in our "free" press.
 
Finland ranks among the "most free" with a score of 9. I don't know how they arrived to this number, and I don't have inside knowledge on how the press here works. But it does not directly translate into accurate reporting.

A brief glimpse through the major daily newspapers shows a number of "Russia bashing" news or articles, with the assumption that everything Russia says is a lie, no further proof needed. The Ukrainian perspective is again taken as truth at face value. On the whole I haven't noticed much difference compared to most western press, on what's being published and what is not, and the spin they put on it. Things like the Israel-Palestine conflict is being presented in a "balanced" way, somewhat equally blaming both sides. Which of course is quite far from reality. Media ownership is also quite concentrated. Some minor media outlets might occasionally publish some factual columns, but that's about it.

At least one paper has been sued and convicted to fines for publishing "antisemitic" material. The charge was "incitement to ethnic or racial hatred". One of the offending articles was called "USA is a zionist puppet", and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" had been referred to. Not really quality journalism though, although I mostly agree with what they wrote.
 
loreta said:
I read about Spain that considers a free press. But this is a relative point of vue. When reporters meet each year for a convention of their work in the field, they always said that there is no free press in Spain. Ok. you can say that the government is stealing money, you can say this and that, but try to say something against Israel? Or something against anything that the power doesn't like? You loose your job. We are better than other countries but even if the press is free that doesn't mean we don't live under a dictatorship. In this contradiction we live. The real news are not in our "free" press.

Yeah, exactly.
I browsed through and all the EU members are free, or partially free, the countries of the formal Soviet Union are not free, let's take a look at Russia:

Russia Not Free


Media freedom was further curtailed in 2006 as President Vladimir Putin's government passed legislation restricting news reporting and journalists were subjected to physical violence and intimidation. Although the Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, authorities are able to use the legislative and judicial systems to harass and prosecute independent journalists. In January, Putin signed into law new regulations that required stricter registration and reporting for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), thus asserting greater government control over civil society and potentially hindering journalists from obtaining news from NGOs. Despite public objections, Russia's parliament also passed amendments to the Law on Fighting Extremist Activity, which Putin then signed in July. The measure expanded the definition of extremism to include media criticism of public officials, and authorized up to three years' imprisonment for journalists as well as the suspension or closure of their publications if they were convicted.
During 2006, journalists continued to face criminal libel charges for printing and broadcasting statements that were unfavorable to public officials. Criminal courts also sentenced several journalists on charges of "inciting racial hatred" for publicizing controversial events in Chechnya. Stanislav Dmitriyevsky, head of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, was convicted of the offense in February after publishing statements by leading Chechen separatists like the late Aslan Maskhadov. He received a suspended prison sentence and probation, but his conviction allowed the government to shutter his organization in October under a provision of the new NGO law. It remained open, with appeals pending, at year's end. Boris Stomakhin of the monthly Radikalnaya Politika, who has written various critical articles on Russia's actions in Chechnya, was sentenced in November to five years in prison.
The international media community expressed its shock at the October murder of Novaya Gazeta journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was renowned for her independent reporting about abuses committed in the war in Chechnya. Other journalists who were killed in 2006-likely for reasons tied to their work, according to media watchdogs-included Ilya Zimin, a correspondent for the national television station NTV; Vagif Kochetkov, a correspondent for the Moscow daily Trud and columnist for the Tula paper Tulskii Molodoi Kommunar; Yevgeny Gerasimenko, a correspondent for the Saratov independent weekly Saratovksy Rasklad; and Anatoly Voronin, deputy director of the Russian news agency Itar-Tass. The freelance journalist Elina Ersenoyeva and her mother Margarita were both abducted in Chechnya amid rumors that Elina had been married to the infamous Chechen separatist fighter Shamil Basayev. She had recently reported on prison conditions in the republic. In the case of the 2004 murder of Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov, two ethnic Chechen suspects, Kazbek Dukuzov and Musa Vakhayev, were acquitted in May after a trial that was closed to the public to protect classified evidence. However, the Klebnikov family appealed and Russia's Supreme Court overturned the acquittal in November, ordering a retrial. Journalists remained unable to cover the news freely, particularly with regard to contentious topics like Chechnya or the environment, and were subject to physical attacks, arrests, detentions, random searches, threats, and self-censorship. While Russia assumed the presidency of the Group of Eight in 2006 and hosted the international club's summit in St. Petersburg in July, the authorities used police violence and detentions to bar foreign journalists from covering civic protests that took place.
Authorities continued to exert influence on media outlets and determine news content in 2006. The state owns or controls significant stakes in the country's three main national television networks: Channel One, Rossiya, and NTV. Some diversity of perspective exists in print media at the national level, which are privately owned. Ownership of regional print media is less diverse and often concentrated in the hands of local authorities. Private owners of media outlets are generally billionaire business magnates or large companies like the state-controlled energy conglomerate Gazprom, which holds majority stakes in the newspaper Izvestia and radio station Ekho Moskvy. However, the law requires little transparency in media ownership, and media watchdogs expressed concern in 2006 that companies like Gazprom would purchase additional newspapers, such as Komsomolskaya Pravda, and tighten the establishment's grip on the media ahead of the 2008 presidential election. The government continued to disadvantage private media by allocating subsidies to state-controlled outlets and controlling the means of production and distribution. With online media developing and 16 percent of the population now online, the government also harassed some of Russia's leading news websites. For example, officials accused Pravda.ru, Bankfax.ru, and Gazeta.ru of spreading extremist ideas, and fined the editor of the internet publication Kursiv for publishing an "offensive" article about Putin.

Russia's press is"not free", because Putin trying to halt the effort of 5th columns to influence, control people's thinking, and possibly turn it against the current administration.


Lilou said:
With the recent events in France and the call for freedom of speech, while at the same time, restricting speech and arresting people for their views – I wanted to see how my country ranked. The following web-site gives an excellent analysis of press freedom and democracy for every country.

Check it out. You may be surprised! http://www.worldaudit.org/presstable.html

Dunno, how trustworthy is this web-site, let's take a look the USA:

United States Free

The press remains aggressive in covering scandals involving government figures, including high-ranking members of the Bush administration, and in its coverage of the Iraq war. At the same time, the United States continued to face a controversy over growing demands by prosecutors that journalists reveal confidential sources or provide access to research material in the course of criminal investigations.
Press freedom in the United States enjoys a strong foundation of legal protection in the federal Constitution, in state and federal laws, and in court decisions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly issued decisions that take an expansive view of freedom of expression and the press. In particular, court decisions have given broad protection to the press from libel or defamation suits that involve commentary on public figures. An exception to judicial support for press freedom involves demands by prosecutors for information gathered by journalists in the course of their journalistic investigations, including material from confidential sources. In the most high profile recent case, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days in 2005 for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury in a case involving the leaking of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency employee, Valerie Plame. In 2006, it was revealed that the special prosecutor for the Plame case knew early on that the source for the leak was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. In the end, no one was charged with leaking the information; the only person charged in the case was Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was indicted on allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result of the high-profile nature of the Plame case and the actual imprisonment of Miller, many within the media are concerned that this has put a chill on investigative reporting by making potential sources more reluctant to come forward and confide in journalists who may no longer be able to ensure their anonymity. In 2005, the Miller case provoked members of Congress to propose legislation that would shield reporters from being compelled to reveal confidential sources. Although there was considerable bipartisan support for the legislation at the time and more than 30 states already have such "shield laws," no legislative progress had been made at the federal level by the end of the year.
Judges continued to take an aggressive stance against journalists who refused to cooperate with the prosecution. In two unrelated cases in California, journalists faced contempt charges during 2006. In September, a judge ordered two journalists for the San Francisco Chronicle to jail in a criminal case relating to allegations of steroid use by professional athletes after they published a story based on leaked grand jury testimony. Their appeal was still pending at the end of the year and neither reporter has yet served time in jail. In a separate incident, blogger and freelance journalist Josh Wolf was imprisoned in August after refusing to hand over a video tape documenting clashes between police and demonstrators during a rally protesting a G8 economic conference held in San Francisco in 2005. After spending a month in prison, Wolf was released only to return there in September upon losing his appeal. He remained in prison at year's end. Sami Al-Haj, a Somali-born Al-Jazeera journalist, continued to be held without charge by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay. He was originally arrested in Pakistan in 2001 in the initial push for results in the war on terror. However, Al-Haj's lawyer contends that his detention is based on the U.S. government's belief that a link exists between Al-Jazeera and Al-Qaeda, and that no evidence has been produced against his client.
In recent years reporters from several prominent newspapers, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, have published a series of investigative articles that have called into question various aspects of the Bush administration's war on terror and its conduct of the Iraq War. In June, several newspapers published articles that revealed that the administration had gained access to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications in search of material that might involve money transfers by terrorists. Publication of the articles drew sharp criticism from President Bush and members of Congress, and a threat by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez that the New York Times could face criminal prosecutions and potentially charges of treason. In 2005, the Bush administration was criticized for having paid several political commentators who supported certain domestic policy initiatives through grants from agencies of the federal government; a report by federal auditors concluded that the administration's efforts amounted to "covert propaganda." However, there were no further reports of such incidents in 2006.
Media coverage of political affairs is aggressive and often polarized. The press itself is frequently a source of controversy, with conservatives and supporters of the Bush administration accusing the media of antiadministration bias and liberals accusing the press of timidity in coverage of administration misdeeds. The appearance of enhanced polarization is driven to some degree by the growing influence of blog sites, many of which are aggressively partisan. Nonetheless, most American newspapers make a serious effort to keep a wall of separation between news reporting, commentary, and editorials. Ironically, the trend towards fewer family owned newspapers and more newspapers under corporate control has contributed to a less partisan, if blander, editorial tone.
The media in the United States are overwhelmingly under private ownership. Nevertheless, National Public Radio, an entity partly funded by the government and partly funded by private contributions, enjoys a substantial audience. In 2005, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) stepped down amid charges that he had attempted to politicize the agency. A report by the CPB's inspector general charged that former chairman Kenneth Tomlinson had violated the agency's code of nonpartisanship through personnel and program decisions. Tomlinson remains chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the agency that administers America's foreign broadcasting services. In August, the inspector general for the State Department criticized Tomlinson for having improperly hired a friend on the public BBG payroll. Under U.S. law, radio and television airwaves are considered public property and are leased to private stations, which determine content. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with administering licenses and reviewing content to ensure that it complies with federal limits on indecent or offensive materials. On several occasions, the FCC has issued fines against radio and television outlets for what the agency deemed acts of indecency.
The United States is home to more than 1,500 daily newspapers geared primarily toward local readerships. Many of the country's largest and most prestigious newspapers have encountered financial difficulties in recent years, due mainly to competition from the internet. Newspapers have instituted staff reductions and, in some cases, have cut back on their coverage of national and international news (and on maintaining foreign news bureaux) in favor of a more local focus. Many predict a major transformation of the newspaper business in coming years, with some newspapers closing and others increasingly focused on bolstering their electronic editions. However, the primary form of news dissemination in the country is through television news networks both cable and satellite, like CNN, Fox News, and CBS. Media concentration is an ongoing concern in the United States. This controversy has intensified in recent years following the purchase of media entities, especially television networks, by large corporations with no previous experience in journalism. At the same time, diversity of the U.S. media has somewhat expanded with the mushrooming of cable television and, especially, the internet. The number and influence of internet sites and blogs have expanded greatly in recent years, and blogs have proven to be an important source of information in certain political controversies. Blogs devoted to public policy questions often lean to the highly partisan, and while their proliferation adds to the richness of press diversity, it also contributes to ideological polarization. On two occasions, the U.S. Congress has tried to impose censorship legislation on internet content, but both attempts were ruled unconstitutional by the courts. In a positive test of internet independence in November, a California state supreme court ruled in a defamation case that Internet Service Providers could not be held responsible for the content of their customers' posts. In 2006, the internet was used by more than 210 million Americans, roughly 70 percent of the nation's population.

Is that a "free press?" :evil:
Says who?
What about James Risen, Chris Hedges or Glenn Greenwald and others?
 
Inmates are free to roam their prison cells, just as journalists are free to report on certain truths and free to make up certain lies. I sometimes read news in the Australian "free" press and it just feels like propoganda - fear based and toxic hidden in "sources" and wrapped in sugary bun, much like a Big Mac. Countless times I've read reports that rest on a "reliable source", "an expert", "an official", "a police officer on the scene"...etc. etc. I would never get away with that in highschool English classes, and yet it passes on mainstream press and many actually believe in its credibility. Why not just say that a little birdy whispered in my ear and told me that...
 
Looking at who is for this website:

Domain Name:WORLDAUDIT.ORG
Domain ID: D2226514-LROR
Creation Date: 1998-10-19T04:00:00Z
Updated Date: 2014-10-06T10:38:03Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2016-10-18T04:00:00Z
Sponsoring Registrar:PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (R27-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 303
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registrant ID:DI_37094608
Registrant Name:Clive Lindley
Registrant Organization:N/A
Registrant Street: Sellarsbrooke Park
Registrant City:Monmouth
Registrant State/Province:Monmouthshire
Registrant Postal Code:NP25 3SS
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+44.01600890274
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email:leiscomm@aol.com
Admin ID:DI_37094608
Admin Name:Clive Lindley
...

Clive Lindley has ties to Freedom House, which is a US non-profit, which has ties to some of the "usual suspects". So while the site does supply verifiable information, it is also likely to be reported with a bias - leaning to the benefit of the "great empire". OSIT. Never the less, I still found it interesting. :D
 
For comparison, I looked at India's rating and I do think what they wrote is reasonably accurate, but India has a rating of 35(30-60 is 'partially
Free'). Interestingly, all the Western nations including US and Israel fall under 'Free' (0-30) and Russia, Iran are'Not Free' rating.

When situation becomes volatile, Indian government tend to censor inciting pictures temporarily. For example, during Hindu-Muslim riots during Ayodhya
Masjid destruction and during student Self-Immolations to protest the reservations(for low cast people) increases in higher education college admissions, which stemmed from 'Vote Bank' Politics. That drastically reduced damage that could have happened which ultimately could have been branded as minorities human rights issue. Similar situations exist in Russia, Gaddafi's Libya and other countries.

Interestingly, Western media showed 911 destruction for weeks to point of collective trauma. Any contradictions to this, branded as conspiracy, so those are not part of the consideration for these calculations.

Is it possible to generalize Western values across all the nations and all situations?. I think not.
 
Lilou said:
Looking at who is for this website:

Domain Name:WORLDAUDIT.ORG
Domain ID: D2226514-LROR
Creation Date: 1998-10-19T04:00:00Z
Updated Date: 2014-10-06T10:38:03Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2016-10-18T04:00:00Z
Sponsoring Registrar:PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (R27-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 303
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registrant ID:DI_37094608
Registrant Name:Clive Lindley
Registrant Organization:N/A
Registrant Street: Sellarsbrooke Park
Registrant City:Monmouth
Registrant State/Province:Monmouthshire
Registrant Postal Code:NP25 3SS
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+44.01600890274
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email:leiscomm@aol.com
Admin ID:DI_37094608
Admin Name:Clive Lindley
...

Clive Lindley has ties to Freedom House, which is a US non-profit, which has ties to some of the "usual suspects". So while the site does supply verifiable information, it is also likely to be reported with a bias - leaning to the benefit of the "great empire". OSIT. Never the less, I still found it interesting. :D

I think it is super interesting! Maybe here we are again in front of a double language? Free to tell lies? ;)
 
Lilou said:
With the recent events in France and the call for freedom of speech, while at the same time, restricting speech and arresting people for their views – I wanted to see how my country ranked. The following web-site gives an excellent analysis of press freedom and democracy for every country.

Check it out. You may be surprised! http://www.worldaudit.org/presstable.html

USA is free with a score of 17. :huh:
Russia is not free with a score of 75. :huh:

So as far as I understand the results, we have to change/to inverse the scale. :evil:
 
Mexico Partly Free
LE: 12
PE: 23
EE: 13
Total Score: 48

I really don't know what this score really means :huh: , but I'm from Mexico and I don't recall ever being really free, there is always some type of corruption everywhere you look.

these were my two none existent cents :)
 
In Canada (which is given a "free" ranking) the media is owned by two or three conglomerates along with a public broadcaster that always becomes heavily influenced by whatever party is in power. These conglomerates tend to share the same worldview and it tends to fall in line with the government of the day. In current events the subjective nature of this small cadre of controllers is evident.
For example:
Russia is an evil expansionist empire controlled by a mad dictator hell bent on subverting "democracy" and "freedom". None of the Canadian media groups comes close to challenging this narrative.
Israel (and Judaic people) are history's perpetual victims and they only commit violent actions "in response" to the savagery of the Muslim Arab hordes on their doorstep whose sole purpose in life is to "wipe Israel off of the map". None of the Canadian media groups comes close to challenging this narrative.
With the "War on Terror" it is exactly as presented by Western governments. The idea that false flag terror or proxy terror groups are utilized by the West is a conspiracy theory. None of the Canadian media groups comes close to challenging this narrative.
There are subjects and perspectives that are quietly agreed as "no go topics" in the Canadian media.
It is really difficult to determine how "free" our media really is because our media never strays from the Western military industrial script.
Our "hate speech" laws are pretty much applied the way they are now in Neo-France. The perceived "enemy" du jour is fair game while the sacred cows remain the same.
 
Gandalf said:
Lilou said:
With the recent events in France and the call for freedom of speech, while at the same time, restricting speech and arresting people for their views – I wanted to see how my country ranked. The following web-site gives an excellent analysis of press freedom and democracy for every country.

Check it out. You may be surprised! http://www.worldaudit.org/presstable.html

USA is free with a score of 17. :huh:
Russia is not free with a score of 75. :huh:

So as far as I understand the results, we have to change/to inverse the scale. :evil:

Yes Gandalf, that is basically how I try to approach things these days. It has become painfully obvious that one way to get a pulse on direction is to check out the empire of chaos's position on the issue at hand. There is no objective analysis or fact based reporting in any of the countries whose score is under 30, it seems. People are directed into holding pens of belief by scripted reports.

It is a good rule of thumb to move forward with.
 
Macedonia Partly Free
LE: 11
PE: 28
EE: 16
Total: 45

Most media are controlled by the opposition.
 
Back
Top Bottom