Freedom of Press?

[Smersh]

No Flame or Insulting Comments, Keep this Thread Civil!

One common argument made specifically against Russia is the following:
...the main difference between western democracies and Russian "democracy" is freedom of the press... Do western democracies really have freedom of press? For instance 90% of American media is owned by a handful of giant corporate conglomerates. Whose imperative is not necessarily reporting news but making profits. Will they reveal information which is critical or negative to-wards their advertisers, stockholder, and web of daughter companies? The answer is no and they have been known to spin, censor and suppress certain news. I don't think 'freedom of press' exists in Western democracies, so the above argument has no merit.

reactions?

[Switek]

No flame or insulting comment!


if you know the answer:


For instance 90% of American media is owned by a handful of giant corporate conglomerates. Whose imperative is not necessarily reporting news but making profits. Will they reveal information which is critical or negative to-wards their advertisers, stockholder, and web of daughter companies? The answer is no and they have been known to spin, censor and suppress certain news. I don't think 'freedom of press' exists in Western democracies, so the above argument has no merit.


Why do you ask?

[PPSH41]

Pretty much agree. The mainstream media here is a sellout. News organisations have turned into entertainment companies and $$$. I turn to the internet and talk radio for all the information that the big news organizations curiously omit from their stories. So there is a selective freedom of the press. Unfortunately anyone that speaks out against them is constantly attacked and portrayed as crazy by them. You're free to speak out, if you're willing to take some big hits by the thought police.

[Smersh]

No Flame or Insulting Comment!

if you know the answer...
Why do you ask?

reactions?
Of course I have my own opinion, and don't like the hear the argument I quoted used over and over again. I think its silly for Americans and other people to beleive in the myth that they have a 'freedom of press' and to use this myth as a basis of argument against other nations.

[Switek]

Of course I have my own opinion, and don't like the hear the argument I quoted used over and over again

My opinion is:

News is a product for sale, it's your responsibility to choose the right one. The freedom of speech means the same like free market where you "buy" ideas...

[AZRON]

About 6 months ago the FOX conglomerate principly under the control of Rupert Murdock was going to run an interveiw with a controversial person who was found innocent of murder in a state trial but guilty in a civil trial.
The person was O.J. Simpson.

This interveiw would run on the general programming network.
Employees of the news division of this network raised hell over the idea repeatedly saying it wrong to do it.

Ruppert Murdock stepped in and cancelled the interveiw. So employees and the general public cancelled the proposed scheduled program.

The handfull you talk about compete with each other therefore dirt or adverse news will generally find it's way out.

[seraosha]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/apr06/010406resources_mainstream_media.jpg

:roll:

[AZRON]

With organizations such as Drudge showing up on the internet there is more news out there than ever before.
The biggies know that and not much is purposely ignored unless one decides it's not important. Which can and does happen.
Don Imus was complaining about Walter Reed 18 months ago.

[Lov3ll]

I'd say considering the amount of secrets the NY times (??) has released yes, and what does being biased have to do with freedom of press? p-)

[Kilgor]

No Flame or Insulting Comments, Keep this Thread Civil!

One common argument made specifically against Russia is the following: Do western democracies really have freedom of press? For instance 90% of American media is owned by a handful of giant corporate conglomerates. Whose imperative is not necessarily reporting news but making profits. Will they reveal information which is critical or negative to-wards their advertisers, stockholder, and web of daughter companies? The answer is no and they have been known to spin, censor and suppress certain news. I don't think 'freedom of press' exists in Western democracies, so the above argument has no merit.

reactions?

Whilst the sensationalism and media giants are definitely not a ideal situation, its certainly better than most of the TV stations being owned by Kremlin supporters.

Besides, the internet has changed all that now, and what has always been true.. that there is mostly sh!t on tv anyway.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It's true enough that money does drive major media - but the fact remains that any American who wanted to start a newspaper or blog tomorrow could do so with complete freedom. Therefore yes, freedom of the press does exist. There are, and always have been limits, but these limits are in place as the result of our democratic process (i.e. national security etc.) - but there is an appeals process in place to even remove those limits (as was done with the Pentagon Papers). Plus nobody is gunning down our reporters, which helps a bit.

[LKSXXX]

No Flame or Insulting Comments, Keep this Thread Civil!

One common argument made specifically against Russia is the following: Do western democracies really have freedom of press? For instance 90% of American media is owned by a handful of giant corporate conglomerates. Whose imperative is not necessarily reporting news but making profits. Will they reveal information which is critical or negative to-wards their advertisers, stockholder, and web of daughter companies? The answer is no and they have been known to spin, censor and suppress certain news. I don't think 'freedom of press' exists in Western democracies, so the above argument has no merit.

reactions?

'Freedom of press' is different than spinning/supressing certain news. I might even consider the latter to be a consequence of the former, but that's another subject.
Having Freedom of press enables any person or news agency to actually say what they want (provided they can prove it). Wether they censor news or not is a matter of "internal affairs" of news agencies.
But if, say, a free-lance reporter wants to have his story told but is "prevented" to do so by the goverment, that's clearly violating 'freedom of press'. The same goes for someone who is persecuted/killed for having said something in the news (like in Cuba or N. Korea).
I don't know how is the Russian News environment for Jornalists nowadays, but, unless events like the above happen there, then I agree that argument against Russia is unfounded.

LKS.

[Calanen]

While there is freedom of the press, it takes gutsy reporters to test that theory. If you upset the Whitehouse too much, you can lose your press credentials and are not able to go to Whitehouse press conferences.

The other thing is both law enforcemet and the government have a cosy working relationship with the press. The press needs this relationship to get the best stories from insiders. So, if the press is asked to go easy on a topic, or not to report a topic at all, or hold it a few days, they usually will.

The other impediment to the freedom of the press is anything embarassing to the government as far as possible is covered up on 'national security' grounds. It is very hard to test whether something really is held in the interests of national security, or whether it was just an embarassing fubar that needs to be buried far into the archives of the Pentagon. Nobody ever gets to test whether something has been legitimately withheld for this reason - because most of the time, nobody even knows. We just have to trust the government. Let's say you were in government - wouldn't you bury embarassing things under the guise of national security, if you could, and no one would ever be able to find out....

[Hollis]

Smersh. It is interest. What is a person interest, where does their interest lie. Maybe it was Lenin who said people will do what is in their interests to do. That does not mean it will be in their actual best interest, but their perceived best interests.

The big difference is when there are more than one media source you can get a set of different interest for each source. The more the betters. With out "competing sources" a person can define what is best for them from a view on what only helps them.

A dictator will say, the media will always make me look good.

In a competitive media environment other issues come into play. Making money, means there must be advertisers, meaning they must have circulations, meaning they have to be "somewhat" responsive to the readership.

Bloggers have forced the big three medias to become more responsive to the audience and to be more transparent.

A passive audience will only weaken and allow the media to corrupt itself by allowing it to become self absorb as to defining what is in their best interest.

A active audience will cause the media to be more on it's toes and more responsive to the audience.

Repressing the population also allows the dictator to control the media.

The freedoms of a society is not guaranteed by the government, nor by the media, it is by the citizens alone who guarantees their own freedoms.

[jetsetter]

News agencies are businesses. Only when the government dictates what and what should not be printed is when we have a problem.

[Smersh]

News agencies are businesses. Only when the government dictates what and what should not be printed is when we have a problem.What do you call 'press releases' that news agencies don't check. Interesting and civil dicussion so far.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Freedom of the press,whether it be in Russia, or in the United States, is often controlled by those who wish to push their own agandas.(although, in the US, it is for different reasons.)

In the United States, news coverage is dictated by what sells. And the more sensational, the more it sells. The information that is needed to be put out for public is often not put out there due to the ratings the television stations recieve. This is really a bad system because it leads to wide spread abuse by enities who want to push their own agandas. The best examples of this is the extremely successful anti smoking campaign of the 1990s. Another would be the issue of gun control, which was and now will be in the media forfront.

As I see it, the mission of the media is to inform and educate. But unfortunately, it is often used to change and manipulate.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

As I mentioned in my above post, the news media is often regulated by the ratings they recieve, and this in itself is a very dangerous situation, that frequently leads to abuse by those who wish to push their own agndas. When you turn on the television in Utah for example, and the media is showing a story about a child being run over by a car in Ohio, while the local state legislature in Utah is passing some bill about raising the fees for outdoor sports licenses without public input.

This is a classic example of how the news media is often abused by those with other things on their minds.

The scary thing is, because of the television ratings for corporate broadcast networks, they pretty much control what is shown or told to the public. And, for this to change, the public needs to become ever more involved in what is shown on their television stations and other news outlets.

[Hollis]

News agencies are businesses. Only when the government dictates what and what should not be printed is when we have a problem.


OK, lets use that logic for all business'......... say mining business, Nuclear energy business, etc

I sort of agree with you, but there are limits to every business, no business is above all.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

As I mentioned in my above post, the news media is often regulated by the ratings they recieve, and this in itself is a very dangerous situation, that frequently leads to abuse by those who wish to push their own agndas. When you turn on the television in Utah for example, and the media is showing a story about a child being run over by a car in Ohio, while the local state legislature in Utah is passing some bill about raising the fees for outdoor sports licenses without public input.

This is a classic example of how the news media is often abused by those with other things on their minds.

The scary thing is, because of the television ratings for corporate broadcast networks, they pretty much control what is shown or told to the public. And, for this to change, the public needs to become ever more involved in what is shown on their television stations and other news outlets.

That happens here quite alot. Especially under Howard. The scheming prick usually announces some ****ed up law when an event is on. Last year he called the premiers for a conference about the water crisis. The premiers gave him a ****ing hammering. But it was the same day as the Melbourne Cup.

[Smersh]

OK, lets use that logic for all business'......... say mining business, Nuclear energy business, etc

I sort of agree with you, but there are limits to every business, no business is above all.One crucial difference. Unlike those other business media ,particulary news media, actually affects people preceptions, influences politics, and other areas.

[PPSH41]

One crucial difference. Unlike those other business media ,particulary news media, actually affects people preceptions, influences politics, and other areas.

Exactly. Most people don't go searching for all the facts on any given story, repeating ad nausium what the biggest media organizations feed them in a 5 second clip.

[Hollis]

One crucial difference. Unlike those other business media ,particulary news media, actually affects people preceptions, influences politics, and other areas.


One might say the Media is/can be more distructive to the environment than a strip mining outfit.

[Digimon]

No Flame or Insulting Comments, Keep this Thread Civil!

One common argument made specifically against Russia is the following: Do western democracies really have freedom of press? For instance 90% of American media is owned by a handful of giant corporate conglomerates. Whose imperative is not necessarily reporting news but making profits. Will they reveal information which is critical or negative to-wards their advertisers, stockholder, and web of daughter companies? The answer is no and they have been known to spin, censor and suppress certain news. I don't think 'freedom of press' exists in Western democracies, so the above argument has no merit.

reactions?

When we are discussing freedom of the press in general, that is as freedom of the press from commercial interests or interests of the stockholders, then we can probably admit that such freedom is fairly limited in US and probably in the rest of the world. However, when we are discussing freedom of the press in the narrower context of the democratic organization of the state, then US press is free.

Why? Because in the political context, what is meant by freedom of the press is different from what is meant by freedom of the press in the general sense. In the political context freedom of the press is freedom from political censorship – press is always subject to editorial guideline, but it is free in so far as these editorial guidelines are not imposed by the state. In practical terms this freedom is guaranteed in virtue of the constitution, private ownership, and competitive environment.

Why is this sufficient to call press free in political sense? Because separation of the press from the state, and competitive economic environment place the press in a position to scrutinize and constantly evaluate state policies. Competing political forces will channel their criticisms of each other through the press. If one outlet hides the truth, another will benefit by revealing it, and thus gain a competitive advantage; this makes self-censorship highly unprofitable. Furthermore, if one outlet suppresses a story detrimental to its stockholders, another will have no hesitation in exposing it.

While printing press in Russia is free, most of the broadcasting media outlets are under the influence of the state or corporations closely affiliated with the state. State ownership also removes the economic incentive in providing news, different perspectives, or cutting edge investigative journalism. These networks do not compete in news or political analysis, they compete mostly in entertainment. There seem to be a state monopoly on editorial guidelines, i.e. a mild form of censorship, which undermines the role of press as check on political power, making it, in political sense, unfree.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Exactly. Most people don't go searching for all the facts on any given story, repeating ad nausium what the biggest media organizations feed them in a 5 second clip.

There is an old saying...people only hear what they want to hear, and this is so sad. Especially in westren democracies.

As I stated before, the mission of the media is to inform and educate. But unfortunatly it is being used also to change and manipulate.

[MajorTom]

Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388

Free world leader's position in here is a little bit worrying.

[Hollis]

There is an old saying...people only hear what they want to hear, and this is so sad. Especially in westren democracies.

.


8th, our freedoms are secured by the people, "we are the people stuff". It is people where the problem lies or can be fixed. Like a team we don't have people pulling their weight, we have people incapable of pulling their weight, and we have people going against the team.

It is not a perfect system, but it allows the greatest amount of freedom for most of the people. A efficient system would be more easily corrupted and taken over by some kind of despot.

So maybe if the evolution model is true, one day we will get a better quality of individuals as a whole and the world will be so much better. Until then we have to live and work with what we got.

[dimasorokine]

News agencies are businesses. Only when the government dictates what and what should not be printed is when we have a problem.

The government and the giant multi national corporations you call "businesses" are pretty much the same thing - so we do have a problem.

-Dima

[AZRON]

The government and the giant multi national corporations you call "businesses" are pretty much the same thing - so we do have a problem.

-Dima

Not so in the context of Freedom of the Press , it was so in the late 19th century with Hearst running a nearly monopolizing newspaper conglomerate but not today as we have too many major players with more gaining status every year.

Drudge is a prime example and the power of You Tube which is nothing more than individuals posting events on the web with powers to do so down to the individual person.

Drudge and You Tube level the playing field which cuts down the clout of the big players. Competition is what matters and we have it as never before.

A powerfull senator with presidential ambitions was caught using a racial slur, then it was posted on You Tube and he is nearly forgotten and no longer a senator. Plus the poster didn't get murdered.

[seraosha]

Not so in the context of Freedom of the Press , it was so in the late 19th century with Hearst running a nearly monopolizing newspaper conglomerate but not today as we have too many major players with more gaining status every year.

Drudge is a prime example and the power of You Tube which is nothing more than individuals posting events on the web with powers to do so down to the individual person.

Drudge and You Tube level the playing field which cuts down the clout of the big players. Competition is what matters and we have it as never before.

A powerfull senator with presidential ambitions was caught using a racial slur, then it was posted on You Tube and he is nearly forgotten and no longer a senator. Plus the poster didn't get murdered.

Excellent post, kudos!

[Smersh]

Drudge is a prime example and the power of You Tube which is nothing more than individuals posting events on the web with powers to do so down to the individual person.
I want to point out tube is owned by Google a giant corporation worth an estimated 57 billion dollars. and also that many blog sites are being bought up by other media corporations.


Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388

Free world leader's position in here is a little bit worrying.

I haven't looked at their method, but according to that site the USA ranks number 53 in press freedom, in between Botswana and Uruguay.


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.

[akd]

I'm pretty sure the First Amendment doesn't say anything about a business model for media or instruct on the delivery methods of information. It is there to ensure a right that is needed in a society that will never be ideal, not to socially engineer an ideal society. I also agree with RWB's assessment of worrisome infringements in the US, but their index is somewhat arbitrary.

[AZRON]

I want to point out tube is owned by Google a giant corporation worth an estimated 57 billion dollars. and also that many blog sites are being bought up by other media corporations.
That's the way a competitive system works. It isn't a tangable resource so if they screw it up people will stop using it and it will be nearly worthless . Then new ones pop up. That's competition .
What is dangerous is a lack of competiton , whether it's state controlled as in the old SU or single person control of a Rockerfeller or a Hearst. Both are bad. You seem to only see 1/2 of that.



I haven't looked at their method, but according to that site the USA ranks number 53 in press freedom, in between Botswana and Uruguay.
I saw that also , by the criteria they used so be it.
This was based on a reporter knowing about a source of a possible under cover CIA employee's name be published and refusing to say who told her the name.
She claimed freedom of the press and the gov't claimed endangering a Fed. employee so she spent 90 days in jail. She also hasn't been murdered.



x1111122223333

[Smersh]

A handful of large corporations is competition or oligopoly? "screw it up people will stop using it and it will be nearly worthless". What?
"What is dangerous is a lack of competiton" Exactly!!

Oligopoly: A situation in which a particular market is controlled by a small group of firms.

An oligopoly is much like a monopoly, in which only one company exerts control over most of a market. In an oligopoly, there are at least two firms controlling the market.

How exactly did Americans come to beleive Iraq was related to 9/11?

[Kilgor]

I haven't looked at their method, but according to that site the USA ranks number 53 in press freedom, in between Botswana and Uruguay.

and Russia comes in at 147.

At least press freedom is classified "free" in American in the above site.

[Smersh]

and Russia comes in at 147.

At least press freedom is classified "free" in American in the above site.So what? How does that affect anything I've said. and the USA fell from 17 to 53 in a few years.


their index is somewhat arbitrary.

[Kilgor]

So what? How does that affect anything I've said. and the USA fell from 17 to 53 in a few years.

So what ?
Read your first post in your thread. You wanted to bring up the whole Russia vs US press, well.. you got it.

Russian press is in a far far worse state than the US.

[Smersh]

Congratulations Kilgor, you have media 3x times more "free" (according to the "arbitrary" index) then Russia.

I want to remind you past the first page this thread has largely been a discussion about the American media. and not Russia vs America.