1289
1290

2015 World Press Freedom Index (index.rsf.org)

sgtfrankieboy が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]stormcrow212 12ポイント13ポイント  (35子コメント)

I seriously can't believe that they consistently rank America so low. Press can say literally whatever they want in the states, and they frequently do. The only censorship that occurs comes from within companies, like from the editors. Just because it's corrupt doesn't mean it is restricted. Honestly, to imply that the UK or Germany has less censorship than the states blows my mind. Reporters without borders is so damned biased.

[–]georgecarlinripp 93ポイント94ポイント  (5子コメント)

You have to read the methodology.

Mexico is ranked low because of private (cartel) threats and murders, and not because of governmental restrictions on free speech. Non-governmental sources can affect freedom.

[–]suchvery 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

and not because of governmental restrictions on free speech. Non-governmental sources can affect freedom.

Per the methodology page, these are the seven criteria used:

Pluralism: the degree to which opinions are represented in the media

Media independence: the degree to which the media are able to function independently of sources of political, governmental, business and religious power and influence

Self-censorship: the environment in which journalists and other news and information providers operate

Legislative framework: the impact of the legislative framework governing news and information activities

Transparency: the transparency of the institutions and procedures that affect the production of news and information

Infrastructure: the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information

Abuses: the level of violence and harassment during the period assessed

Looking at the criteria and the formula at the bottom of their page, a few observations:

  1. Pluralism is given the most weight, comprising 1/3rd of the score. This doesn't make sense to me. Take Reddit for example: People can more or less say whatever they want, but pluralism is low ("the hivemind"). That affects the content quality more than freedom.
  2. Media independence is given middle weight, comprising 1/6th of the score. This metric alone is what most people probably think about when they think about "press freedom" and should probably be given the most weight.
  3. Self-censorship is also given a weight of 1/6th of the score. This doesn't make sense to me. If people choose not to say what they want, despite having the power to, that's an issue separate from freedom.
  4. Legislative framework is also given a weight of 1/6th of the score. Similar to media independence, this is important.

An organization can make whatever ranking it wants based on whatever formula it wants. However, when the public reads a title like "World Press Freedom Index", the immediate assumption is that the index ranks media independence and the ability to publish without fear of retribution. Less than half of this index's weight reflects that, and in this way it is misleading.

[–]FirstTimePlayer 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

Self-censorship is also given a weight of 1/6th of the score. This doesn't make sense to me. If people choose not to say what they want, despite having the power to, that's an issue separate from freedom.

A truly free media reports without fear or favour, and the only censorship basically coming down to "Is this newsworthy?"

If a reporter waters down an article because of social etiquettes, or an editor pulls an article because an advertiser might not like it, that's self censorship at play.

[–]MrTumbleweeder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, but "is it noteworthy?" still affects the ranking in a way. Different countries have different tastes and interests and respond to certain topics of news differently. If your audience doesn't particularly care about certain topics where censorship is bigger and information sharing is scarce, journalists won't have to butt heads with these institutions and thus have a better appraisal of their job, and thus the country's ranking.

Military and secret service are obviously the big ones here. Some countries have large and very active militaries and secret services, which generate alot of news and which are sought after by the news (think US). Most countries in Europe have militaries so small they do next to nothing but exercises and a secret service you usually forget it exists, these generate no stories at all (save the odd exercise, which the military will outright invite the press to cover). You can understand why american journalists can rate their country worse because they had to butt heads with legislation and government officials protecting the secrecy of the military establishment, while non-brit euro journalists are very, very, very unlikely to relate, not so much because their countries are better in that regard, but because there's no story to cover.

It's obviously not a be all end all, but it definitely helps when every day is boring news days is what I'm saying.

[–]suchvery 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If a reporter waters down an article because of social etiquettes, or an editor pulls an article because an advertiser might not like it, that's self censorship at play.

The latter part of that should already be captured under the Media Independence criteria:

the degree to which the media are able to function independently of sources of political, governmental, business and religious power and influence

By not making sense to me, what I mean is that it doesn't make sense to me to include it as a major criteria and weigh it equally to Media Independence.

As another "Reddit example": Generally, commenting with an unpopular opinion will earn scorn while commenting with a popular opinion will earn praise. You can comment either way you'd like without fear of repercussion. If you choose to self-censor all of your unpopular opinions because receiving scorn hurts your feelings, should Reddit be considered to be restrictive towards publishing freedoms?

And even if it is a little bit restrictive, should this self-censorship metric really be weighed the same as the one that reflects the ability to function independently from official influence? Ultimately, all of these weightings are going to be subjective, but my opinion is that the current methodology produces a score that isn't meaningful in the way readers would expect from the name of the index.

[–]powerchicken 46ポイント47ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only censorship that occurs comes from within companies, like from the editors. Just because it's corrupt doesn't mean it is restricted.

I'm pretty sure they take corruption into account.

[–]hallobaba 33ポイント34ポイント  (8子コメント)

The US ranking, per the organization, is low primarily because of the government persecution of whistleblowers who leak information to the press (i.e. Snowden, Manning, etc.), and their pressure on journalists to reveal said sources for such information.

In some ways that seems more like 'government transparency' issues, but that's their justification.

[–]UncharminglyWitty -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

They ranked Nambia better that the US, even though they still have yet to decriminalize media offenses. That's all I really needed to see to know they were quite a bit harsher on the US than other countries.

[–]W_T_Jones 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a bit dumb to be honest. Just because something is technically still legal/illegal doesn't mean it's enforced. But it's the latter that's relevant.

[–]OwenOne 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

It isnt as ridiculous as you seem to think it is especially if you read their methodology. The logic makes sense, honestly.

In their opinion having a country with media restrictions which are rarely/never enforced is better than having a country with "free" press whose information is manipulated by other means (self censorship, corporate interests manipulating public opinion).

[–]tom_riddler -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Feels like they purposefully ignore this clause in the first amendment.

[–]W_T_Jones 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes they do. They're not looking at what some official paper says but how it really looks like. North Korea calls itself a democracy but that doesn't mean they are one.

[–]blorg 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who, the US government?

[–]You_Are_Blank -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

While I have no doubt that persecution of whistle blowers is a problem, I feel like even that's overblown.

I know of a few examples of truly incompetent people in the VA, for example, claiming they were fired for whistleblowing when they really fired for being horrible at their jobs.

[–]ProfessorSarcastic 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its relevance is mostly in the chilling effect it has, making people less likely to blow the whistle in future. That's impossible to measure accurately, but it's arguably much more important than a few individuals who are persecuted for being whistleblowers themselves.

[–]duuuh 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter

Read that and then tell me the press can say whatever they want.

[–]princepeanutbutter 30ポイント31ポイント  (1子コメント)

As a former journalist I find Reporters Wihout Borders tends to be too harsh on the U.S. while being good otherwise. They get caught up in high profile US cases, and since the USA is sort of a standard bearer for press freedom generally, the fight there is more important than, say, Finland. And Finland isn't dealing with the same national security issues the US is, which in some cases are legitimate concerns even if poorly handled.

I find it overblown. Many of the countries ranked higher than the US will give you more problems for saying certain things, whereas you can practically say whatever you want in US media with only fear of civil repercussions (e.g. Libel).

[–]gsfgf 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

with only fear of civil repercussions (e.g. Libel).

And if you're talking about a public figure, you have a ton of protections against defamation under Sullivan.

[–]originalpoopinbutt 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

US journalists get harassed actually. Some are even subpoenaed and forced to reveal their sources.

[–]Pontus_Pilates 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

One example of what's hurting America's standing is the Ferguson protests, where police detained reporters for merely doing their jobs. Not patricipating in the riots, just reporting on it.

[–]trecht 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you forget what happened in Ferguson? Journalists where literally arbitrarily arrested.

[–]gsfgf -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yea. This report is such bullshit. If anything, the "most free" countries have media regulations that fit an agenda that RWB supports. American media is raw, unadulterated free press with all the flaws that come with it. Hell, we're free to spend unlimited money to release a political ad under the guise of being a movie. One can argue that that's not good policy, but you can't argue that we censor our press.

[–]blorg 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

There's internal censorship, self-censorship, corporate interests shaping the news. It's not just about government restrictions, private restrictions on the press also count.

[–]PWL73316 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's internal censorship, self-censorship, corporate interests shaping the news.

This applies everywhere just as much if not more as in the U.S., but RSF makes a value judgment about what the news "should be" and then downgrades the U.S. for not doing exactly that.

[–]PooMan234 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

If they wanted to rank corporations they shouldn't be ranking it by country the united states government intent of freedom of press isn't the same as fox's republican bias.

[–]VoteForAnyonePlease -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, most major companies are multinational and they certainly aren't all owned by people from the US. It would be weird to give the US a harsher rating because of some British company or something.

[–]AtheismMasterRace -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Accept the fact that the murica is NOT the greatest and most free country in the world. Ignorant people like you infuriate me so much.

[–]ScrewJimBean -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And America has some of the lowest gun restrictions.