Freedom of the Press

[Kinich Ahau]

Interestingly the article makes no mention about the diversity of media ownership. A major issue in Australia were the vast majority of the media is owned by Murdoch and another couple of players. Surely this is really one of the major impediments to the freedom and integrity of the press. And one where the politicians or state don't need to clamp down on freedoms but colludes with or has tacit support from the majority of the media owners.

[Victus]

psychodiva wrote

Reporters Without Borders has its annual report out about Press Freedom- I'm ashamed to note that the UK came 28th and I'm not surprised to see the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands up at the top as usual

There have been some interesting shifts due to the 'Arab Spring' and other such stuff- any thoughts?

required wrote

USA is number 47... hasn´t Obama or anyone have anything to say about that? Pathetic. And Assange or Manning don´t get even mentioned in the article.

Irreligious wrote

Reporters getting beat up by overzealous police is nothing new in the United States. It happens on occasion in far less high profile cases than the Occupy movement.

ubs wrote

Actually, it is new. Hence the 27 level drop in the US score.

Although I agree without the general point of decreasing civil (and economic) liberties, I don't think the dramatic drop in ranking by the US is all that, well, dramatic. Navigating to the main site of the group that created the index, I see...

Reporters Without Borders wrote

In order to have a bigger spread in the scores and increase the differentiation between countries, this year’s questionnaire had more answers assigning negative points. That is why countries at the top of the index have negative scores this year. Although the point system has produced a broader distribution of scores than in 2010, each country’s evolution over the years can still be plotted by comparing its position in the index rather than its score. This is what the arrows in the table refer to – a country’s change in position in the index compared with the preceding year.

Or in short, they changed the index. The last bit is, of course, incorrect. Changing the contents of the index changes the scores, which changes ranks, which makes cross-year comparisons problematic at best and completely meaningless at worst, depending on the degree of change.

Probably a better way of comparing the US (or any country) across the 2010 and 2011 indices would be to look at the z-score distributions for countries across each year...



On the left is the distribution for 2010 with a normal distribution imprinted over. On the right is the same graph with the same parameters using the new 2011 index. Negative scores represent greater press freedom on the index. On both graphs I plotted the US's position on the standardized scores. Notice the lack of an obvious difference.

Or look at a scatter plot of the standardized z-scores for the two years...



The US is the red square. Deviation from the trend line can be thought of as deviation between the distribution on the indices across the two years. The US is more or less on the trend line.

Of course, all this only shows the relative position of the US in the indices over time. It doesn't tell us if there was an absolute change over the years (since the indices changed, we cant know that one way or the other). But based on the distribution of scores, and assuming the world has degenerated into a authoritarian hell-scape in the last 12 months, the US hasn't experience a significant decline in press freedom recently.

[Kinich Ahau]

Thanks R2D2!

[ubs]

Thank you Victus. That was great. One question though...

Victus wrote

But based on the distribution of scores, and assuming the world has degenerated into a authoritarian hell-scape in the last 12 months,

What do you call an authoritarian hell-scape? Does it have to be NK? Was the cold war USSR an authoritarian hell-scape? Is China an authoritarian hell-scape?

I take issue with the idea that "unless the population is dying by means of starvation, you're all just a bunch of whiners." Fundamental to being human is creative contribution that makes full use of the contributions of the past.

We don't have huge awesome canines or an impressive horn or capacity for amazing strength. We know from the animal behavior thread that we are not the best at math, nor logic, nor compassion.

What we do is occupy a curious middle ground between hive mind and lone wolf that enables us to enjoy independent expression. Our evolutionary trick is that we can make use of all the inventive contributions of our species. We are happiest when we are fully mentally engaged in work and use of force to deny people access to any environment where they can live up to their potential is stealing their life - even if it lacks the horrifying drama of exposed ribs.

Does a deer in the woods lead a better life than the bovine in the cafos. Certainly the cows are better fed?

I just felt that your comment contributes to the idea that the US military killing reporters or the police beating up reporters - that the threats to the freedom of the internet - that the unspoken horror of Bradly Manning and Julian Assange's detainment are not big deal because we can still all shop on Amazon and eat KFC.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

Thank you Victus. That was great. One question though...

That should read, "hasn't degenerated into an authoritarian hell-scape..." my bad - although it's not related to you post I felt the need to correct.

ubs wrote

What do you call an authoritarian hell-scape? Does it have to be NK? Was the cold war USSR an authoritarian hell-scape? Is China an authoritarian hell-scape?

Yes on all accounts. I would say, just eye-balling current distribution of nations, somewhere at 0.0 standard deviations there are countries that from memory have sketchy press systems. It just gets worse after that. Probably no nation meets my ideal.

ubs wrote

I take issue with the idea that "unless the population is dying by means of starvation, you're all just a bunch of whiners."

Me too, but that's not what I was saying. Rather, I was addressing the only remaining way that the US could have experience some kind of massive/substantial decrease in the effective freedom of the press in the last year while assuming the data is accurate - the whole world (including the US) would have had to shifted towards less press freedom all by the same amount and all at the same time.

Since that doesn't seem to be the case, I just quickly ruled it out. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

ubs wrote

I just felt that your comment contributes to the idea that the US military killing reporters or the police beating up reporters - that the threats to the freedom of the internet - that the unspoken horror of Bradly Manning and Julian Assange's detainment are not big deal because we can still all shop on Amazon and eat KFC.

No they're terrible, and definitely real threats to individual liberty, even beyond just 'freedom of the press' narrowly defined. But as far as policies on the books and being implemented right now, the US 1) is one of the better countries and 2) hasn't seen a noticeable decrease recently, as was the claim.

[ubs]

Victus wrote

No they're terrible, and definitely real threats to individual liberty, even beyond just 'freedom of the press' narrowly defined. But as far as policies on the books and being implemented right now, the US 1) is one of the better countries

I tend to think that, just as Assange and Manning weren't mentioned in the report, the US score reflects, to some extent, the real danger of pissing off the US administration. Didn't Obama target and kill via Drone another innocent man last weekend (per Greenwald).

Victus wrote

2) hasn't seen a noticeable decrease recently, as was the claim.

I thought you said it was impossible to tell.

[Irreligious]

ubs wrote

Didn't Obama target and kill via Drone another innocent man last weekend (per Greenwald).

I'm very conflicted over Obama's policy of secret drone attacks in Pakistan, but your phrasing of this statement (or question without a question mark?) is curious. What evidence does Robert Greenwald present that shows the Obama administration intentionally targeted an innocent man for death?

[Victus]

ubs wrote

I tend to think that, just as Assange and Manning weren't mentioned in the report, the US score reflects, to some extent, the real danger of pissing off the US administration. Didn't Obama target and kill via Drone another innocent man last weekend (per Greenwald).

Unless that guy is a member of the press, it presumably wouldn't reflect the score.

ubs wrote

I thought you said it was impossible to tell.

Impossible to tell from the scores, but I haven't noticed the whole world become substantially more authoritarian than usual.

[ubs]

Victus wrote

Unless that guy is a member of the press, it presumably wouldn't reflect the score.

I would argue that by virtue of publishing, one is the press. It's at least as strict as the loosey goosey PR executive definition that the big six uses.

Victus wrote

Impossible to tell from the scores, but I haven't noticed the whole world become substantially more authoritarian than usual.

I don't know about that. Copying a Micheal Jackson song carries a heavier penalty than killing him. President's execute people with unmanned drones and no congressional oversight. No due process for US citizens. Last weekend we killed the cloud for the sake of a cartoon mouse....

[Victus]

ubs wrote

I would argue that by virtue of publishing, one is the press. It's at least as strict as the loosey goosey PR executive definition that the big six uses.

Sure (I would even say that the distinction between individual free speech and freedom of the press is on some level arbitrary), but for the purposes of the index it doesn't matter what your opinion of freedom of the press is so much as what the makers of the index think it is. I can't find the 2011 version of their survey, but that wouldn't certainly narrow down why the scores are what they are.

ubs wrote

I don't know about that. Copying a Micheal Jackson song carries a heavier penalty than killing him. President's execute people with unmanned drones and no congressional oversight. No due process for US citizens. Last weekend we killed the cloud for the sake of a cartoon mouse....

Sure, but none of those abuses/powers/laws are either really new or the worst that the world produces in terms of abuses.

[ubs]

Victus wrote

Sure, but none of those abuses/powers/laws are either really new or the worst that the world produces in terms of abuses.

New since the first man, no, but the absence of due process is new to my world. What would you consider a significant change?

[Victus]

ubs wrote

New since the first man, no, but the absence of due process is new to my world. What would you consider a significant change?

Part of it has to do with my mental model of how democracies work. I expect them to enact some pretty terrible policies when they are either nominally popular or where the electorate as a whole is apathetic on the topic. As you can see here from the back and forth with forum-goers who are probably well-informed compared to the average, most of them aren't even aware of things like drone attacks on innocent people.

So my sense for significant change would be somewhere along the lines of anti-free speech laws (in the US) that runs strongly counter to public opinion. Terrible though the laws and abuses occurring are, I'm not sure they meet that definition.

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

So my sense for significant change would be somewhere along the lines of anti-free speech laws (in the US) that runs strongly counter to public opinion. Terrible though the laws and abuses occurring are, I'm not sure they meet that definition.

I think the First Amendment of the Constitution also has something to say about free speech......

Also, free speech is pretty much seen as a necessity for democracy according to this excerpt from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

The article wrote

Democracy



The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
The notion of freedom of expression is intimately linked to political debate and the concept of democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.[8] One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.[34]
Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".[35] Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus." Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay."[36]
Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.[37]

What speech would you curtail?

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

I think the First Amendment of the Constitution also has something to say about free speech......

Also, free speech is pretty much seen as a necessity for democracy according to this excerpt from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Free speech is also democratically unpopular once you get past the abstract nicities.

Star wrote

What speech would you curtail?

Little if any. Definitely less than now.

[Irreligious]

Legally, what aren't Americans allowed to say?

Other than words that could be construed as perjury, defamation/libel or a direct threat to someone else's safety, what kinds of speech are U.S. citizens not allowed to utter under threat of arrest and imprisonment?