Printable View
But at least we're still ahead of El Salvador, unlike another country I won't mention...
~:eek:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/
What do you guys think about the validity of this report? I don't really know much about their methods, and it seems that a single event can have a dramatic impact on a country's ranking.
Well looking at the reason the US slipped shows this index to be just a bunch of BS so I wouldnt worry about it.
The press isn't "free". The press is a slave to the stockholders of the various media companies. Until the money/profit motive is removed from news reporting, nothing you see or read in the news can be trusted 100%.
Oh, you meant from government. ~;)
...Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands, where “robust press freedom is alive and well.”
Robust? What is there to report in these nordic countries? Except for Ireland and Netherlands, I guess the local newspaper in Oslo would have the following headlines:
"Suicide rate drops by 10% since the EB Open Beta was released, after Norwegians got their hands on the mod, they found a reason to live again."
There's nothing to hide, there's nothing to suppress, there's no reason these countries wouldn't have a free press...
No need to worry, indeed. Did you have a look at Reporters Without Borders' ranking? I suggest you do, really, so that you may notice how well ranked your immaculate country is for the coverage of the military operations in Iraq (you'll have to scroll down a lot though, 137th): http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
My post was off-topic in the thread where I posted it but now that's it on-topic I feel obliged to provide the link, just for you Gawain ~D :
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=102
The ordinals (ie rank orders) are basically meaningless. The cardinals (ie individual scores) are more interesting, if you buy into the whole idea that press freedoms can have numbers assigned to them at all that is.
Its just a bit of publicity for the idea that a free press is a good thing, no harm in that.
I'm with Gawain- this is nonsense. Judith Miller wasnt jailed for anything that she said or reported. She was jailed for refusing to testify in a criminal investigation- same thing that would happen to any one of us. The only sure way I know of to avoid testimony is to take the 5th and that didnt apply in this case.
Reporters in the US are still free to report anything they want to- thus, this report is a load. Personally, I strongly resent the notion that journalists are some priestly order that are entitled to special priveledges and legal protections just because they work for a newspaper. They are private citizens- same as you or I.
LOL - like we should be concerned what reporters think is free press and what isn't. Hell some of them have problems reporting accurately.
Exactly. And it sounds like countries take hits for deaths of reporters not necessarily linked to government action. ~:handball:
US press freedom down but paparazzi freedom up.~;)
I seriously question the validity of the measurement scale used for their index.
Australians... owning your Press near you! ~;)
I do the same when somebody tells me that my country is sinking (just kidding, different to the american actitude the pride is lost here). A bad actitude if you ask me, of course you can continue to deny statistics. Is a shame that the companies don't do the same with the "Corruption" table, so we can pass through... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
This is a joke, the journalist here attack judges and lawyers, I say that they exercise the real power here. Forth power and still crying.Quote:
Originally Posted by From the article
Well if they really want to make an index like this then I guess there can only be one nation at #1. The differences could be very small for a nation to drop down several spots so I dont think anyone should get hung up on what the exact spot their nation is in. If USA is #44 then I would say that at least from 44 and above there are not that big problems.
But of course such an index can bring out the inner teenager in some people as its a great thing for pissing contests.
Press freedom doesnt have to do with government action only. If a country has big problems with organised crime/terrorists/guerillas etc that goes after journalists, then that does effect freedom of press too. Journalists dont really care about who fires the bullets.Quote:
Exactly. And it sounds like countries take hits for deaths of reporters not necessarily linked to government action.
CBR
Pfft does El Salvador have super cool nukes and a death star?.....I didnt think so~:grouphug:
Then, the USA being ranked 137th for the coverage of the operations in Iraq means that the 136 countries above (out of 167) face no big problems with press freedom? For a country boasting about its liberty and democracy there's something amiss.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldvs
Not at all - this is a poll ranking based upon journalist wants and desires for the freedom of the press. Nothing amiss at all unless want wants to believe the ranking is 100% accurate. I doubt that its even very scientific in how its ran
Oh and by the way the USA is not ranked 137th according to the articleQuote:
Originally Posted by article
Again that shows the nature of the report. All one has to do is read why Judith Miller was sent to jail and the after story to realize that.Quote:
Originally Posted by article once again
Edit: to fix quote tag
Although it is definitely not good for freedom of the press to detain journalists, it is afterall happening in a semi warzone and are the actions of the US army. It is USA's responsibility but cannot be compared with USA itself as a nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldvs
I think we can discuss for ages about how to rate different events for such an index. From what I can read in the links they generally dont like journalist getting killed or imprisoned and one can hardly blame them for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
CBR
They definitely are for the coverage in Iraq, check the ranking. Does "embedded journalists" mean something to you? I don't think a better way of controling what journalists want to say or show exists, short of censoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Since when should it be considered a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
The pdf file on MiddleEast says about USA and Iraq:
So I doubt the low rating has anything to do with embedded journalists. Something that actually did give the press more freedom compared to the first Gulf war that didnt have any AFAIK.Quote:
The US army (United States in Iraq, 137th) also violated press freedom, as it did in 2003 and 2004. Six journalists were jailed in Abu Ghraib prison without explanation and not allowed to receive visits from their
lawyers, families or employers. Four journalists were killed by US army gunfire between September 2004 and September 2005.
CBR
The rankings have the US 44th . Where are you getting this stuff?Quote:
They definitely are for the coverage in Iraq, check the ranking
Its like asking prisoners their thoughts on their jailers. Its ridiculos as I stated from the start. Again just look at the excuse for our dropping in the index. The woman wanted to go to jail so ahe would get a book deal and look like a hero to these morons.Quote:
Since when should it be considered a bad thing?
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I begin to wonder whether you do it on purpose. Is it that hard to scroll down the ranking and check the 137th place?
I couldn't have thought of a better metaphor myself, really. Gawain, you're a poet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Compared to what is reported, systematically embedding journalists is less grave of course, but if it's an improvement compared to the first Gulf War, it's hardly satisfying, for it is rarely a guarantee of objectivity.Quote:
So I doubt the low rating has anything to do with embedded journalists. Something that actually did give the press more freedom compared to the first Gulf war that didnt have any AFAIK.
Oh and by the way the USA is not ranked 137th according to the article
The rankings have the US 44th . Where are you getting this stuff?
Red and Gawain , it is in the article just as Ldvs says it is :book:
As he says......In Iraq ..... you see America is classed as an occupier in that territory according to that report , so it gets its own little extra slot .
i´d say that the embedded journalists aren´t the main point....but they sure help....Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
the step to create the position of embedded journalists was clearly a way to try to control what those journalists would see and report.
LOL - the statement says the United States in Iraq is rated 137th not the United States itself. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldvs
Not necessarily a bad thing - but a thing that must be considered when review such reviews and polls. To take at face value is all that it is worth. It is what the journalists who partaked in the report believe.Quote:
Since when should it be considered a bad thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Oh but it seems you both fall into the same category - its a report based upon Iraq as you both noted - not about the United States itself. So yes indeed the United States is not ranked 137th it is ranked 44th - its actions in Iraq are rated 137th - which happens to be a war zone. So I wouldn't be surprised if a journalist thought his life was at risk there.
Tsk Tsk you should be smarter then that there Tribesman falling for the same trap of logic in wanting to find fault with the United States or a someone who posts from the United States.
Because the USA acting in Iraq shouldn't be considered responsible, perhaps? Whose troops are occupying Iraq, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I think however many times one could prove you that the USA are at fault you wouldn't acknowledge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Several nations in fact - The United States, and the United Kingdom. Again the report states in Iraq - you are attempting to make a correlation between the freedom of press in two different areas as being the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldvs
Tsk Tsk - to bad your logic is flawed - the correlation does not exist. The Freedom of Press index does not even try to draw that correlation. It states something very clearly that you seem not to understand.
Edit to add this quote from the articleQuote:
The situation in Iraq (157th) deteriorated further during the year as the safety of journalists became more precarious. At least 24 journalists and media assistants have been killed so far this year, making it the mostly deadly conflict for the media since World War II. A total of 72 media workers have been killed since the fighting began in March 2003.
Your attempt at a correlation is based upon false logic.Quote:
The United States (44th) fell more than 20 places, mainly because of the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and judicial action that is undermining the privacy of journalistic sources. Federal courts are getting increasingly bold about subpoenaing journalists and trying to force them to disclose their confidential sources
You might want to try some of our actions in South America - I find fault with a lot of those. Or how about our aid to Israel - I find fault with that because we don't use our influence to force Israel to do some of the right things. It seems your making generalizations based upon false assumptions and logic once again.Quote:
I think however many times one could prove you that the USA are at fault you wouldn't acknowledge it.
Tsk Tsk you should be smarter then that there Tribesman falling for the same trap of logic in wanting to find fault with the United States or a someone who posts from the United States.
Rubbish Red , I stated quite clearly IN IRAQ .
As you clearly read , as you state...its a report based upon Iraq as you both noted ....but you wish to play the "you hate America and Americans" card , Tsk Tsk .
Though obviously you must also have noted that it is the United States in Iraq , not Iraq , as Iraq also has its own listing . In the same way as the report has had seperate listings for Israel , Israel in Palestine and Palestine .
So yes indeed the United States is not ranked 137th it is ranked 44th - its actions in Iraq are rated 137th -
Ah so you agree that what was stated was correct , yet wish to try and find fault with statements that are correct ....interesting eh ?
Try again~D ~D ~D
Obviously, I'm not the only one who suffers from flawed logic here, because according to yours, in zones where war is going on, violations to press freedom shouldn't be considered as important. Journalists voluntarily go there, and I assume they know the risks. This argument is therefore not valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I apologise for this hasty generalisation, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Not even close there Tribesman - now should we actually look where you tried to find fault with what was stated and agreed completely with Ldvs attempt to draw a correlation that does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Here let me refresh your limited memory from a post that is still visible.
Yes indeed attempting to draw the same correlation - for one that does not exist. ~:eek:Quote:
Red and Gawain , it is in the article just as Ldvs says it is
Smart ass answers not withstanding you had fallen for the same trap. The drawing of a correlation between Freedom of Press in the United States - verus the Freedom of Press in a war zone is a logical fallacy.
Nice attempt to place words in my mouth - poor Tribesman attempting a poor strawman and stupid comment when the language used was find fault - finding fault has nothing to do with hate. However I see that you have identified yourself as one that hates the United States by assuming that is what I meet. Good show - you have fallen for a trap of your own making once again. Sometimes it better to sit back and think about what is stated before jumping to conclusions. You like to attempt to play word games with those who have different opinions then yourself and twist words to suit your attempts at sacrasm - but your the one that now claims I stated you hate americans - when all I pointed out, and correctly by the way as many of your past posts have shown in other threads, is that you like to find fault with the United States or a someone who posts from the United States.Quote:
As you clearly read , as you state...its a report based upon Iraq as you both noted ....but you wish to play the "you hate America and Americans" card , Tsk Tsk .
The correlation that you tried to make is that both areas are one and the same - that is not correct. There is no correlation between the two. One is occupied by a military force - and the other is not. Occupation often means a restriction of freedom of press - because of the nature of the business of war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldvs
accepted:bow:Quote:
I apologise for this hasty generalisation, then.
Here let me refresh your limited memory from a post that is still visible.
Its quite plain Red , the USA in Iraq is listed as 137 is it not
as many of your past posts have shown in other threads, is that you like to find fault with the United States or a someone who posts from the United States.
I like to find faults with posts regardless of where they come from .
to draw a correlation that does not exist.
What correlation ? I clearly stated two listings , as did Ldvs .
As he says......In Iraq ..... you see America is classed as an occupier in that territory according to that report , so it gets its own little extra slot .
Now what is interesting is that there isn't a further slot for Afghanistan or Cuba .
There are some security issues that make total journalistic freedom in war zones unwise. A journalist could unintentionally give up troop movement, location, size, etc. by just reporting. I definitely think there should be less “freedom of Press” in a war zone and this index reflects that my thoughts are in practice.~:)
But I still question the validity of the measurement scale used for their index.
And the correlation that its for the whole United States is false - which is exactly what was pointed out. However don't let that distrub you to much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Oh so I didn't say your anti-american then. :dizzy2: ~:eek:Quote:
as many of your past posts have shown in other threads, is that you like to find fault with the United States or a someone who posts from the United States.
I like to find faults with posts regardless of where they come from .
Actually you did not clearly state that - and you and Ldvs attempted to draw this conclusion - using Ldvs own words.Quote:
to draw a correlation that does not exist.
What correlation ? I clearly stated two listings , as did Ldvs .
As he says......In Iraq ..... you see America is classed as an occupier in that territory according to that report , so it gets its own little extra slot .
Now what is interesting is that there isn't a further slot for Afghanistan or Cuba .
Now if he said government he would be correct - however as stated in his quote he stated country which you attempted to defend as being correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldvs
The United States of America as a Country is ranked 44th. THe United States of America in Iraq is ranked 137th. According to some nebolous poll of journalists. Which I take with a healthy dose of salt because of stated reasons for the placements.
Word games all and all
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Ouch, it seems to me that you've made exactly my mistake ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
As for the correlation thingy (that you insist Tribesman and I are drawing), I assume the American troops in Iraq haven't actually declared themselves independent of the US's government, have they?
I understand your point better now and think our respective logics aren't to be blamed. We just disagree on what should be allowed or not in war zones. If I'm not mistaken, yesdachi has summed up your views quite accurately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
But neither are they everyone in the country either now are they.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldvs
Having fought in a war - I can safely state I don't want a journalist near me reporting on my position. Visual intelligence is what the enemy gathers from reporters covering stories from within troop locations.Quote:
I understand your point better now and think our respective logics aren't to be blamed. We just disagree on what should be allowed or not in war zones. If I'm not mistaken, yesdachi has summed up your views quite accurately.
OPSEC is important to the security of the operation and the safety of the soldiers on the ground. A little restriction placed on journalists is worth the cost of the reduction in some journalists eyes on his ability to report the news.
And the correlation that its for the whole United States is false - which is exactly what was pointed out. However don't let that distrub you to much.
That corelation has not been made by me , so how can I be making a false corelation if I have not made it ?????
seperate listings , own little extra slot , two listings , in Iraq .
Oh I see , if you ignore all of those little words then I am saying that the listing for the USA is the same as the listing for the USA in Iraq .~:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Kind of like your assuming I said your anti-american now isn't. ~:eek:
Kind of like your assuming I said your anti-american now isn't
Well since you have said it so often in the past it isn't really an assumption is it ?
So ....That corelation has not been made by me , so how can I be making a false corelation if I have not made it ?????
........ ?????????
Nice try - but no cigar. Since that was over 18 monthes ago - and old history when you got abusive toward me first. Find one thread that I have called you that since then.. Oh wait there isn't one is there. There you go making assumptions again.. Poor Tribesman can't handle being wrong on something now can you?.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
you might want to learn to read what is written by another before you jump on the same bandwagon as that individual.Quote:
So ....That corelation has not been made by me , so how can I be making a false corelation if I have not made it ?????
........ ?????????
Oh wait you just like to find fault with other people's opinions not your own....~;p
Nice try - but no cigar.
Would you like to try and deny it ???
edit to add ,after you had edited your postSince that was over 18 monthes ago ???????
Poor redleg is your memory faulty ??
Well would like to find the thread and discover what was actually stated - I am sure its back in the Dec 2004 time frame. Oh and here is the only time I know I said anything close to Anti-American directed at you specifically. And that term was not actually stated but something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=40662&page=2
Nope - Tracking of time is a little though howerver - but obvious that your memory from constant achocal abuse or as you claim drinking heavily on a constant basis - might be since you seem to assume that I have claimed your always anti-american. Find a post other then the one linked above that is within a year of todays date where I claim you are anti-american and I just might go eat some crow.Quote:
edit to add ,after you had edited your postSince that was over 18 monthes ago ???????
Poor redleg is your memory faulty ??
So what have we discovered today.
It seems that Tribesman likes to find fault with everyone's posts. But seems to be only directed at those who posts opinions opposite to his own views. And does not appreciate others finding fault with his comments.
That Tribesman might have a prosecution complex because he believes and assumes that when someone says fault they really mean Anti-American.
Edit: to fix a quote tag and to add one sentence
but obvious that your memory from constant achocal abuse or as you claim drinking heavily on a constant basis
My memory is fine Red , it appears to be YOU~;) who has a faulty memory and an inability to read and understand what is written .
Freedom of the Press is over rated.......
O-ver Ray-ted :clap: :clap: :clapclapclap:
"Keith, go to bed."
:hide:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Back at you there Tribesman your the one that assumed that when I said finding fault meet I was calling you anti-american.
So I guess the persecution syndrom is alive and well with you then.
:hide:
My memory is fine Red , it appears to be YOU who has a faulty memory and an inability to read and understand what is written .
So , what corelation ? and what 18 months ?
Would you like a clue on the latter ?
It was at a time when a certain Mod made some rather nice comments about your posting style ~D If my drink addled faulty mind serves me correctly~:cheers: you were in the habit of throwing that anti-american phase around very loosely , your postig style and content has improved greatly since then .
Perhaps we can work on your sense of humour next .
It seems that Tribesman likes to find fault with everyone's posts. But seems to be only directed at those who posts opinions opposite to his own views. And does not appreciate others finding fault with his comments.
.........False on several counts , though I suppose the use of the word "seems" would imply that that is only an opinion piece .....and everyone is entitled to their opinion .
That Tribesman might have a prosecution complex because he believes and assumes that when someone says fault they really mean Anti-American.
........Hmmmmm...."might".....so pure conjecture there......So....So what have we discovered today.
.......
Not a lot by the looks of it , but nice try Red .
LOL - Tribesman it was a slow day at work and I have found the whole conservation rather amusing myself - but it seems that you are still unable to ackownledge that you misread and jumped to conclusions when you decided that finding fault meant anti-american. Oh there are other exambles throughout the board - just like there are exambles of my mistakes - but that is the most obvious one today. And goes to show that while your good at being a little sarcastic nickpicker your often guilty of doing what your trying to berate others for.
But its now off to bed for a little sleep before spending the day with the family and the long lost neice who has moved to where I now live. Someone much more important then an Irishman who has a persecution complex. ~:eek:
:hide: ~:joker:
Wow, blatantly you like taunting each other but let's get back on topic and stop playing on words solely to avoid discussing the real matters at hand.
I fully comprehend that an army will be more than reluctant to let journalists run freely and report on its position. Nevertheless, we're talking about a period and zone of heavy and regular engagements there and the war is now supposedly over for quite a long time, which is not the case for violations of press freedom. For example, showing the coffins of the dead soldiers being brought back to the USA was prohibited (still is, perhaps?), because it was deemed "anti-patriotic" by the White House and would undoubtedly both anger and discourage the American population. So, in the name of the general contentment (and electoral purposes), one must prevent people from knowing the truth, or worse, manipulate images to make them believe the war is going very well (not showing any dead or injured American soldiers in the process)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
:argue: ~:joker:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
These worthless posts belong in the Frontroom Zorba (I'm not even sure they would fit there). If you have an opinion, try to express it in words, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
For example, showing the coffins of the dead soldiers being brought back to the USA was prohibited
Hmmm..... Now what category does that fall into , 44th or 137th ?~D ~D ~D
Besides which I don't think it was prohibited as such . Discouraged certainly but not prohibited .
Though of course the arrival of the coffins would be at a military facility which has the usual restrictions of access on reporters .
Hence the "problems" that arose when the pictures from inside a military plane carrying coffins made its way into the public domain .
Funerals of casualties are shown at a local or regional level all the time , and on a national level as well when it is a "big enough story" for example ,when there are a large number at one time in one place (as in Ohio) , or when a bunch of "religeous" nuts decide to use the funerals for a completely different agenda (like sodomy) .
Well, Nova Scotia did outlaw a slew of "negative" words from the media. What a pile of turd that was. I guess it makes sense.
Do I hear whining? Do I hear treason? Nope!Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Azi