U.S. Press Freedom in Steep Decline.

[Flutterguy]

Fails to list any of the criteria for how it ranks nations. It appears to be an arbitrary ranking published by a special interest group in Paris, France. Whoopty shit.

According to the article they cite the whole Snowden affair as why the ranking dropped, but Edward Snowden was not and never has been a journalist. In fact, the press has been pretty much all over the whole thing.

Many materials and information has come to light due to the "Freedom of Information Act" yet this group makes no mention of that. Now, I could see it maybe if the inappropriate investigations of various journalists that the Obama Administration has authorized was mentioned, but they seem hung up basing their reasoning on the US government's dislike for a traitor.

[Charge me Doctor]

I wonder how you measure freedom

[Skroe]

I wonder how you measure freedom

By laying Bald Eagle feathers tip-to-tip.

[oxymoronic]

good... press is annoying anyways

[ringpriest]

Fails to list any of the criteria for how it ranks nations. It appears to be an arbitrary ranking published by a special interest group in Paris, France. Whoopty shit.

You failed to do any independent reading, research, or even try googling. I suppose you could blame the OP for linking yahoo instead of the English copy of the actual report.
Actual Report (instead of yahoo news article): http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
Methodology (linked too from actual report): http://rsf.org/index2014/data/2014_wpfi_methodology.pdf (pdf link).

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how you measure freedom

From RSF Methodology linked above:

Quantitative questions about the number of violations of different kinds are handled by our staff. They include the number of journalists, media assistants and netizens who were jailed or killed in the connection with their activities, the number of journalists abducted, the number that fled into exile, the number of physical attacks and arrests, and the number of media censored. In the event of a military occupation of one or more territories, any violations by representatives of the occupying force are treated as violations of the right to information in foreign territory and are incorporated into the score of the occupying force’s country.

The rest of the questionnaire, which is sent to outside experts and members of the RWB network, concentrates on issues that are hard to quantify such as the degree to which news providers censor themselves, government interference in editorial content, or the transparency of government decision-making. Legislation and its effectiveness are the subject of more detailed questions. Questions have been added or expanded, for example, questions about concentration of media ownership and favouritism in the allocation of subsidies or state advertising. Similarly, discrimination in access to journalism and journalism training is also included.

[Cyberowl]

Obviously that's not how it works. That was my point. Wildtree claimed the British government wasn't violating press freedom because it's not a violation according to their laws.

The UK was perfectly within it's rights. But it's a glaring example of a restriction on the press.


Ridiculous.
The government trying to plug leaks is not an attack on the press.

Then excuse my comment... the ranking is much more about the laws...it's about the human rights, the divercity of the (print media), the quality, the amount of news agencys, how helpful the officials are when they are asked for information, and much more.

- - - Updated - - -

Fails to list any of the criteria for how it ranks nations. It appears to be an arbitrary ranking published by a special interest group in Paris, France. Whoopty shit.

According to the article they cite the whole Snowden affair as why the ranking dropped, but Edward Snowden was not and never has been a journalist. In fact, the press has been pretty much all over the whole thing.

Many materials and information has come to light due to the "Freedom of Information Act" yet this group makes no mention of that. Now, I could see it maybe if the inappropriate investigations of various journalists that the Obama Administration has authorized was mentioned, but they seem hung up basing their reasoning on the US government's dislike for a traitor.

I wonder how you measure freedom

http://rsf.org/index/qEN.html
http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/2013_wpfi_methodology.pdf
http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/how_the_2011-2012_index_was_compiled.pdf
http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/bare_me_2011-2012_gb-2.pdf

Google is a mighy tool!

[Mayhem]

can´t believe we´re ranked 12th, i wasn´t expecting this at all

[Pozz]

Oh i know. But let's be real. It's absolutely fucking retarded.

The NSA's job - it's purpose for being - is to spy on other countries, the citizens of other countries, and the government of other countries.

With respect to foreigners, what did Snowden "blow the whistle" on? The fact that the NSA was doing EXACTLY what it was created to do, and apparently at a level of competency that is so astronomical it's hard not to be impressed by things like the fact they can access computers across air gaps and track phones that are turned off?

Like it's fucking ridiculous, lol. Sure... let's have the discussiona bout electronic spying on Americans. Perfectly fair debate. But Non-Americans? As Obama chuckled in his big speech 3 days ago "we're not going to unilaterally disarm ourselves". The NSA exists to do exactly what it was and is doing towards non-Americans.

Foreigners are entitled to no protection from the NSA. Period.

- - - Updated - - -



What are you talking about? Basically nothing you said here applies to me at all.

I agree with this, it's an intelligence department, and it does what it is meant to do. And have no right to demand protection, no. But getting caught spying has always been part of political repurcussions (spelling).

USA lost huge points with its allies, and have created more annoyance and demand for backing off from them looking towards other countries for trading etc.

But when the 'news' came out, I myself was thinking "really, people are surprised?"

No we do not have any rights in terms of protection, but we do have the rights to be skeptical towards the source, and move to other trade partners who haven't been caught with their paws as deep in the cookie jar.