Is Press Freedom Fading Away Around the World?
"Regulating" the press has become a popular activity in many traditionally free-ish countries
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Blogger
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Google(Page 2 of 2)
Concern was also expressed by several politicians and others that certain of News Limited’s papers (The Australian and the Daily Telegraph) were biased in their reporting on particular issues. Climate change and the National Broadband Network were given as examples
Note that The Australian and the Daily Telegraph are both conservative-leaning newspapers, and a bit of a thorn in the side for the current Labor government of that country.
Leveson's team may have been more discreet than Finkelstein's. But parliamentary debate still rages hot and heavy in Britain. Meg Hillier, a Labour MP (yes, Australia and Britain spell "labor" differently), spilled the beans on the rush to censorship. Reports the Press Gazette:
Labour MP and former journalist Meg Hillier has warned that some politicians may back statutory regulation as revenge for the expenses scandal.
The former junior minister told Press Gazette she does not support the statutory underpinning being called for by her party. She also revealed the extent to which statute may be used as a form of vengeance by describing how one non-Labour MP recently told her that one “storm in a teacup” story had changed their view on regulation. ...
“That shows you that the psychology exists in the pack of (not all of the) 650 MPs… that there can be a desire to use the powers that are there to bad effect."
America's press may be a tad tame and cosy with power, and we may rank all of 32nd in press freedom rankings, but there's no serious push in this country to subject the press to direct government control. Fortunately, we still have some company in this regard. Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Costa Rica, and other countries continue to rank well, in RSF's estimation, and won't be subject to any of the proposed regulatory schemes. But honestly, it's starting to feel a bit lonely out here in the free speech wilderness.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
Considering that the so-called "free press", even allegedly counter-cultural publications such as Reason, are largely advocates of elite perspective, if not always specific policy, what difference does it make? They're already a satrop of the liberal/progressive estate.
If the press were actually in danger of taking a jackboot to the face, it'd be an applause-worthy event. It's not like it's doing us much good now.
-
So what you're saying is you don't like what other people say (even if I agree), so restricting their freedom is a good thing.
You're an idiot
-
No, I think his point is that most media already prints what the government's ruling classes want, so what's the difference?
-
That would be how I read it.
-
It'd be nice if it could be understood as-posted, wouldn't it?
-
No, I think his point is that most media already prints what the government's ruling classes want, so what's the difference?
Assuming this is true, does this justify suppressing the minority that do *not* print what the government's ruling classes want?
-
"does this justify suppressing the minority that do *not* print what the government's ruling classes want?"
That point was never made. The original comment was one of indifference.
-
Even if one accepts the position (which I think can be defended) that the Press as it exists is largely the lapdog of Vested Interests, granting the State more authority to censor is a lousy idea. As matters stand, if we don't like what is being put out by the Media, we can obtain our own venues and print what WE want to see. Let the State censor the existing press, and all hope of getting other messages out gets much more distant.
-
Of course not. They are equally free to support the same statist/collectivist narrative.
-
Come on now, the United States media is more controlled than anywhere else. 3 corporations own 90% of the media. Money is their only interest. The Internet is the only salvation of truth! I mean, there's a reason you see all these shootings in the news, anything that furthers the federal agenda is pushed through the media as hard as they can push it. I mean just look at the gun control debate. Anyone who actually puts up a legitimate, non biased argument is filtered out, anyone who supports the gun control or anything that might scare more people into thinking they should go with gun control is blasted on every channel. Than cases that would hurt them, like DEA raids gone wrong, the fact that Chicago has the highest murder rate in the nation and the most strict gun control laws... We live in an ever increasing police state that severely threatens each and every one of us down to our core existence. The media is not free, as the same people that own it own the banks, the most stock in the federal government, own the failed central banking system.. When a reporter wants to stand up and say enough is enough, they get thrown out like trash. Evidence of this can be seen by the reporters who did the story on Monsanto, who, guess what, ARE OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE! It's all about the investors in this corrupt broken system. NO ONE IS FREE ANYMORE.
-
Freedom of the press isn't like climbing a mountain. Once it's accomplished it's off to climb other mountains. It's an on-going struggle and always will be.
Besides, if the traditional media's gradually being brought under state control - a conclusion which I don't believe is warranted - recent events suggest newer information dissemination technologies are more then capable of taking their place.
Love it or hate it the "Arab Spring" has brought down several dictators and autocrats and that wasn't as a result of traditional media.
-
allen| 2.6.13 @ 6:11PM |#
..."Besides, if the traditional media's gradually being brought under state control - a conclusion which I don't believe is warranted - recent events suggest newer information dissemination technologies are more then capable of taking their place."...Disagreed with your first statement, as the Brit "press" and others are coming under some control or other for the first time.
But agreed with your second point; governments are regulating buggy whips at exactly the time when people are starting to push on the gas pedal.
I still read a dead-tree edition of the local paper with the morning coffee, but more for amusement than edification now. The web is where the news comes from, and even the Chicoms aren't capable of real control over that.
The Norks, certainly, but that's a result of a government thuggish enough to satisfy shithead. -
Obama has said that giving equal weight to both sides of an argument is wrong when one side is obviously wrong. I guess he means Fox News. I forget the actual quote. The liberal basis for shutting down FNC, talk radio is that it's like yelling fire in a crowded theater. That famous quote by Holmes arose out of a Supreme court decision restricting war protesting in which the court held that the government can restrict speech in a time of war -- so let no liberal ever use that quote again. But really, all these big government fools are bringing us closer to the promised land, the land of communism, the land of death and despair.
-
FNC is free to say whatever they want. The problem I personally have with FNC though is that they can go off the deep end in terms of crazy.
The only people I like on Fox these days is Stossel and O'Reilly on occasion.
-
"off the deep end in terms of crazy."
For example?
I regularly hear people say this without a single example. Hey, maybe I'm just dull-witted but beyond the normal pov bias I don't get them being "crazy". -
They appear off the deep end if you watch John Stewart, MSNBC which quotes the parts where they are off. Overall, they're more sane than MSNBC and in my opinion CNN, and they at least have people with opposing viewpoints on the shows, even if the host never agrees with them. Stossel is good, but so is Hannity (although I tend to agree with 100% of the former and 75% of the latter). The media bias sections are on the mark.
-
but so is Hannity
Son, I am disappoint.
-
You forgot this.
ಠ_ಠ
-
That famous quote by Holmes arose out of a Supreme court decision restricting war protesting in which the court held that the government can restrict speech in a time of war -
But we're perpetually at war. War on poverty, War on drugs, drone war...
-
Thanks to the NDAA the entirety of the United States is consider a "battle zone" so we are at we, a war with the government. One we have only one chance to win.
-
The only place true freedom of the press is practiced these days is on the Internet.
-
I'd amend that to:
The only place governments *can't* limit speech is the internet.
"The press" is, in each case, an editorial office and an printing plant; people work there and people can get fined, arrested or, finally, killed (that's how governments work). -
Can't limit? That's why more that 1,000,000 sites have been taken down that have different views, that contradict the federal agenda right? That's why Facebook stocks are primarily owned by the US government. That's why content is filtered every day. Can't limit? That's a joke.
-
There is a dude that clearly knows what time it is. WOw.
-
Specifically, the News of the World, an old and widely read newspaper and part of Rupert Murdoch's press empire, was caught "phone hacking"—breaking into private voicemail messages—with the assistance of friendly police officials.
And so Great Britain wants to put the news under the careful scrutiny of their co-conspirators.
-
If you think Eric`s story is impossible,, 3 weeks ago my uncle basically brought home $4448 putting in eighteen hours a week an their house and their best friend's half-sister`s neighbour has done this for 6 months and actually earned over $4448 parttime on line. apply the guidelines available here... http://www.FLY38.COM
-
They need to work on marketing this properly. Make it all about regulating
assaulthate speech. Or something. -
Not sure if this is apropos, but I get more out of blog/forum responses than anywhere else these days. Since most traditional media reporting has become completely point of view biased, blogs at least serve the purpose of supplying a multitude of views - while also pointing to other fact sources and underlaying theory. For example, if not for the Reason blogs I'd never have discovered Bastiat. And if it not for finding Bastiat, then I'd not be able to interpret most socialist economic spin - except through my old Republican ideals which were essentially exchanging one faulty train of logic for another.
So while I am unequivocally opposed to more regulation and the unabashed power grab the article pointed out, what I fear even more is further control of the internet by all governments, which will lead to the most important speech I'm hearing - from individuals free of any influence say their own good or bad ideas.
-
Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world
http://www.iraaqna.com -
The only media in the US that the gov wants to regulate is talk radio and internet, the mainstream media already is nothing more than the democrat party mouthpiece. Notice when they they talk about gun control they leave Switzerland out of reports, which proves guns are not the problem. Another example of non reporting is on so called "climate change" which was once called "global warming". They leave out that East Anglican University fudged the data or just ignored data that didn't conform to their ideology. The news in the USA is a joke, but not a funny one
-
You make my point more precisely. I find mainstream media of little value these days. When I relied on the mainstream media, I was left with what so many around here call false choices. What I personally find high value on the internet puts my newly calibrated ethics in opposition to most mainstream reporting POV. Maybe 1+1 does not equal 2 in this case, but it seems this third point of view I've discovered is what they wish to regulate? Paranoia.
-
my best friend's mother-in-law makes $61 every hour on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her payment was $17107 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.FLY38.COM
-
Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world