Wake up America! Your free press rating is not #1 or even #2, its #44!!!

All I hear about from some people is this nonsense about the liberal media, heck they are not liberal they are not even a real free press. ROTFLMAO
When are you people ever going to wake up? Your news is censored, they tell you what they want you to know, not what is going on. While the article below explains that we dropped over 20 places due to the Judith Miller lockup that still means we rated in the 20's before that and in 2003 we rated #31. Seriously with numbers like these how can we continue to use the term free press? Are you awake yet?
www.rsf.org...

Some Western democracies slipped down the Index. The United States (44th) fell more than 20 places, mainly because of the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and legal moves undermining the privacy of journalistic sources. Canada (21st) also dropped several places due to decisions that weakened the privacy of sources and sometimes turned journalists into “court auxiliaries.” France (30th) also slipped, largely because of searches of media offices, interrogations of journalists and introduction of new press offences.

Wow 44 I that’s a relief. I thought at lease 100 plus. So perhaps Canada ranks like 20 or so .

"Reporters Without Borders" definitely have an axe to grind.

America couldn't come in first if every american was provided with their own blog at government expense.

Funny how these one-worlders are horrified that Judith Miller was jailed for not providing testimony about the Plame leak, but these same one-worlders will gleefully use the fruits of that contempt-of-court proceedings to attack the White house.

They say this on thier website:
-----
Reporters Without Borders believes imprisoning or killing a journalist is like eliminating a key witness and threatens everyone’s right to be informed. It has been fighting such practices for more than 18 years.
-------

But they defend Miller for NOT telling what she knows about alleged government misconduct.

See, you CAN have it both ways, as long as you're attacking the right administrations.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

I became aware of how huge a paper curatin was over the USA back before home computers when I purchased my first shortwave set at a yard sale. Stringing a wire antenna to a tree out back brought in a wealth of information from foreign stations broadcasting in English. You learned quickly how much news and information did not get into this country.
Checking with a friend who worked the graveyard shift at the local newspaper...he told me that what did and didnt get put in the papers had alot to do with the editors and the politicial slant that the papers wanted on thier news and information told to the public. So many stories come in on the wires and by independent reporters filing stories ..most of them just get filed and never published for the above stated reasons.
Being a reporter is not to me a default to play through. It is not a free pass in the name of the Public. I have been around long enough to know in the name of the public often means in the bias and slant of the editors. You just have to be aware of this and adjust accordingly. This becomes more and more obvious to the public as time goes by and the loss of viewership by many major networks is proof of this. Same with newspapers and news magazine formats. Add this to the concept that so many people are getting their news on line and it considerably changes the mix.
Being a reporter is not "Holy Ground" So many reporters have shot themselves in the foot lately. They are not the virtuous protectors of the American public. Just as Hollywood does not automatically represent all of America by default ..so too is it with the news media. This concept and practice by default of these two perverters I find disgusting.
It is up to the public to educate themselves because you will not get this line of thinking in public education or from the media who is supposed to be "looking out for you". Beware!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

This is certainly a biased survey. I'm sure the UK's much stricter laws on libel have much more of a damping effect on the press than the rare cases in the U.S. where press members are subpoenaed to testify as witnesses in a criminal investigation.

You have voted goose for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

A point of interest is that NZ was the highest ranked nation outside of Europe. Freedom of the press dosnt = quality news if the 6 oclock news is anything to go by.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

"Reporters Without Borders" definitely have an axe to grind.

America couldn't come in first if every american was provided with their own blog at government expense.

Funny how these one-worlders are horrified that Judith Miller was jailed for not providing testimony about the Plame leak, but these same one-worlders will gleefully use the fruits of that contempt-of-court proceedings to attack the White house.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

There may have a bit of hypocracy laced in there, but that makes it no less of a strawman argument.

Nothing of what you said changes the fact that the United States press is based more around entertainment than it is news.

Nor should it even be related to possible government investigations due to the foot-in-mouth administration currently running.

This is made all the more stupid by the fact that Miller went to jail for nothing and was eventually fired from the NY Times for shoddy work. For some reason journalists think that they should be granted some uber-citizen status who can defy the courts to protect their sources. Talk about arrogance.

I agree it was stupid for Judith Miller to have to go to jail when she did not even write an article on it but the fact is she did so protecting her source since she had been told of the identity of a covert CIA agent by someone in the white house.
The truth is a lot of things gets told and talked about many times investigated because someone is willing to talk to a reporter and trust their identity will not be revealed if that is what is promised by the reporter. Many times this person's job or even their life might be endangered if their identity is revealed.
The arrogance you should be talking about is the arrogance of an administration who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent's identity, endangering her life and everyones she had worked with, and then these same bufoons tells us their looking out for national security, now thats arrogance, expecting someone to believe that when the idiots can't even keep top secret information secret.

That's a journalist's folly. To give the name of a source would be breaking the probable confidentiality she promised. So did Judith stick to her morals? And if she did give the name of her source away, what then? ASSASSINATION I TELL YA! I am interested though, that they still don't know who the reporter's source is, do you think she made it up? Probebly not, because the President's men all got in a huff and puff. Despite all the money spent on intellegence, they still cannot get this person. Does anyone think that the person could still be working in government affairs?

Ahh, refreshing paranoia. Is Karl Rove still in the cabinet?

Originally posted by goose
The arrogance you should be talking about is the arrogance of an administration who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent's identity, endangering her life and everyones she had worked with, and then these same bufoons tells us their looking out for national security, now thats arrogance, expecting someone to believe that when the idiots can't even keep top secret information secret.

Maybe we would be talking about this if this thread were about the Plame case. Since this thread is about free press ratings by Reporters without Borders, perhaps we should stick to talking about that topic. You didn't just start this topic as an avenue to bash the Bush administration, did you?

BTW, ever notice how (assuming you believe the MILLION or so conspiracy theories about the GOP) these so-called "idiots" in the administration managed to pull so many over on the Democrats, managed to win at the polls again and again? What does that say about the intellect of the Democrats? If a group is consistently beaten by idiots, is that an indication that the they are even bigger idiots? Just something those folks who like to call Bush and his cronies "idiots" should think about.

Originally posted by Hamburglar

Originally posted by goose
The arrogance you should be talking about is the arrogance of an administration who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent's identity, endangering her life and everyones she had worked with, and then these same bufoons tells us their looking out for national security, now thats arrogance, expecting someone to believe that when the idiots can't even keep top secret information secret.

Maybe we would be talking about this if this thread were about the Plame case. Since this thread is about free press ratings by Reporters without Borders, perhaps we should stick to talking about that topic. You didn't just start this topic as an avenue to bash the Bush administration, did you?

BTW, ever notice how (assuming you believe the MILLION or so conspiracy theories about the GOP) these so-called "idiots" in the administration managed to pull so many over on the Democrats, managed to win at the polls again and again? What does that say about the intellect of the Democrats? If a group is consistently beaten by idiots, is that an indication that the they are even bigger idiots? Just something those folks who like to call Bush and his cronies "idiots" should think about.

That means the GOP has a blind faith following from the bible belt and below.

I loved the Daily Show episode where Steven Colbert thanked the South for saving New York -- and all the surrounding areas that were actually effected by 9/11 -- from themselves by voting Republican. That it could only be because that area was hit by a terrorist attack and caught up in a wirlwind because of the attack that they were not able to make a logical decision about their own safety.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by white4life420]

Originally posted by MacDonagh
That's a journalist's folly. To give the name of a source would be breaking the probable confidentiality she promised. So did Judith stick to her morals? And if she did give the name of her source away, what then? ASSASSINATION I TELL YA! I am interested though, that they still don't know who the reporter's source is, do you think she made it up? Probebly not, because the President's men all got in a huff and puff. Despite all the money spent on intellegence, they still cannot get this person. Does anyone think that the person could still be working in government affairs?

Ahh, refreshing paranoia. Is Karl Rove still in the cabinet?

Scooter Libby was the source and actually released Judith Miller from her promise not to reveal her source from all accoutns that I have heard. He has been indicted and resigned. Karl Rove is still there.

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Maybe we would be talking about this if this thread were about the Plame case. Since this thread is about free press ratings by Reporters without Borders, perhaps we should stick to talking about that topic. You didn't just start this topic as an avenue to bash the Bush administration, did you?

Actually I only mentioned the Plame case in response to Grady when he brought up Judith Miller. Considering the fact that we are at a rating of #44 due to the Judith Miller being locked up for not revealing her source it is relavant to a certain degree.

As for starting this thread to beat up on the Bush Administration I did not do so. I wanted to point out how owned our media and so called free press is and how controlled it is and that what we see is controlled if not by the government then by the corporations that run this country and wants their needs met, not ours, as in we the people.