| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale  Spores for European Microscopy  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 johnm214    Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Both of us are me. Props on vainglorious, had to look that one up, but as for the rest of this, it seems to amount to nothing more than an appeal to incredulity. Yes, I have a basis for what I've said. Yes I am familiar with some of the countries' rights of expression and so forth, and with some generalities regarding western european law. Why does it sound vainglorious? Please back up your incredulity with an argument or something of a specific objection. I find it a tad ironic that you accuse others of hubris and arrogance when you yourself are the only one thus far whos publically presumed ignorance of others. How's that work?
Please justify your claim that there is an "air of superiority" evinced by my post. Once more, you've made a sweeping claim in opposition to my statements and failed to state with particularity that which you ogject to and why. What does the nationality of the forum's posters have to do with anything?
Please back this up. This seems bizzare on its face, and I'd love to see how this conclusion is reached and if this is actually true.
How does your conclusion follow from your premise? You've simply stated one thing and thenn stated another, with no demonstration of the connection. That all news outlets and newscasters must by definition be selective on what they broadcast, and that some of the selection is made to affect social/political desires, does not denote any resultant lack of freedom of journalists. Please explain how what you're claiming follows from your premise.
Neat. Please back up this claim as well. I see no reason you need to be impartial to be free. Even if I knew how to tell if a newscaster was impartial, I certainly couldn't see how that fact would make them more or less free.
Yeah, that seems to be the calculus by which several posters have reached their unlikely conclusions. I really wonder what some of these guys have decided "free expression" and so forth actually mean.
What does the percentage of ownership of the "press" have to do with how free it is? This charge seems especially strange when the criteria is what proportion is owned in part by a particular entity- what could this have to do with anything?
Why? What could possibly be the justification for this? Can you think of any country where the activities of wikileaks would be more protected than in the US? Do they exist?
Timmit made conclusory statements with abosolutely no factual support. He may have said it, but there's no reason to believe it untill he can justify it.
What could your point be? How does this have anything to do with press freedom or free expression?
Source? Anyways, what is your justification for explaining the various incredulous posters' opinions this way? I figured they were just ignoramuses, given the frequent attempts to elucidate any argument and the complete lack thereof. For such a certain opinion, it doesn't seem like they can fanangle an argument to save their life. I call that buffoonery- scoffing at others while unable to make even a token argument for your position.
Why? Further, how are they attacking wikileaks and how does this reflect poorly on press freedom et cet? Again, I'm certainly unaware of any place more conducive to wikileaks than the US. Do they exist? The little I know of the Western European countries handling of state secrets and free expression seems to suggest your claims aren't at all obviously correct. What support do you have for them?
| |||||||
 ScavengerType  Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 12 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
yes but the hypocrisy of taking this honer while persecuting wikileaks on every possible level like i said shows a gross amount of the hypocrisy that makes nations bad.
I can not say that I don't wish that canada but I do think that not wanting to be better is a problem. Free press is not an issue of development and unlike Europe, Canada or Oceania the US actually has better constitutional laws to protect journalists. It almost seems like there is something in recent (bout 8-9 years) political development that has obscured this media freedom. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
Seuss Error: divide byzero    Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 1 year, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
> yes but the hypocrisy of taking this honer while persecuting wikileaks on every possible level like i said shows a gross amount of the hypocrisy that makes nations bad.
Does WikiLeaks add anything of value to what the release, or are they simply releasing stolen property? If they are not adding anything of value, then they are a far cry from journalistic media. That would make them more like the people that post here with a video, or copy and paste a story, and add nothing to discuss. Journalists create; they don't simply steal something, or taken something that is stolen, and post it. (I've not gone to WikiLeaks, so I don't know if they are, or are not, actually creating or if they are simply presenting stolen information.) > I assume the top nations are very close together and their difference are slight. Yes. The ones I listed together scored the same. You can find the raw data at reporters without borders, but wiki has a nice chart that is easier to read, and shows previous years numbers as well. A score of 0 is perfect, the bigger the number the "badder" the country. The first few countries scored between 0 and 3. The UK scored 6, the US scored 6.75, and Canada scored 7. China scored 84.67, Iran scored 94.56, and North Korea scored 104.75.
| |||||||
TimmiT  Registered: 03/23/10 Posts: 5,303 Loc: Victoria 
|
| ||||||
I think my presumption of ignorance is well justified. I reject your claim of knowing the level of press freedom in those 19 countries to an extent that would allow you to make an accurate comparison between them and the US. I wasn't making a claim, rather I stated a generalised opinion on posting trends in the political forum. That statement was not in reference to you nor any poster in particular, hence I wrote 'some American posters'. Perhaps it's an unfair generalisation but it is my own observation... so the point is moot. If you read that statement in context you would realise that it related to making vainglorious claims. Nothing. I never claimed it did.
Read Seuss' link, in particular the section on self-censorship (which I explicitly referred to in my post).
Perhaps if you read the entire paragraph, rather than dissecting in into individual sentences, you would understand my point as it relates to self-censorship. I never claimed that "all news outlets and newscasters must by definition be selective", however I did claim that biased media outlets reduce the freedom of their journalists. A journalist working for a biased organisation (with a social/political motive) is limited to content that supports that organisation's views/values. Are you trying to argue that self-censorship encourages press freedom? Again, read this sentence in context. This claim was in relation to self-censoring of media organisation... see above discussion. However, I may have worded it wrong. It was regarding the the impartiality of the journalist's organisation, not of the journalist. A biased journalist may produce worthless news, but is no less free. So he can't express his agreement with that statement? Do you disagree with my conclusion? If so, please elaborate. I simply used common sense and will not justify my statement any further. Although there is speculation around the world, I don't claim to know whether the US is attacking wikileads or not... but how do you not see the connection to press freedom? If the US were trying to suppress wikileaks it would obviously reflect poorly on press freedom, particularly with regard to censorship and freedom of information. Considering that some equate the actions of wikileaks to epsionage, I doubt that the US government would give them a warm welcome. Isn't journalism essentially the publication of information with the intention of informing an audience? -------------------- "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination" ~ John Lennon
| |||||||
|
Seuss Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 1 year, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
> Isn't journalism essentially the publication of information with the intention of informing an audience?
So the crazy guy standing on the street corner preaching about the coming of the end is a journalist? If I photocopy a newspaper article and post it for others to read does that make me a journalist? Here is a pretty good definition of what is journalism:
Sure, publication of information is part of journalism, but journalism is much more than that little part. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
TimmiT Registered: 03/23/10 Posts: 5,303 Loc: Victoria
|
| ||||||
|
I suppose that list goes to show that everyone has their own definition of what journalism really is.
But to quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition (also found in your link)...
-------------------- "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination" ~ John Lennon
| |||||||
|
Seuss Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 1 year, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
> b: writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
Key word, writing... not copying. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
TimmiT Registered: 03/23/10 Posts: 5,303 Loc: Victoria
|
| ||||||
|
I'm going to cry semantics on the definition of journalism... but I view wikileaks work as journalism, even if it's in a broad sense of the word.
You seem hostile toward wikileaks, why? I don't condone the leaking of diplomatic cables, but their work exposing corruption and cover-ups is commendable (Kenyan police killings, collateral murder, etc). -------------------- "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination" ~ John Lennon
| |||||||
|
Seuss Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 1 year, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
> but I view wikileaks work as journalism
I haven't looked at the information they release. If they are simply reprinting classified information, then I do not view what they are doing as journalism. If they are using their stolen material as references for articles that they create, then I would view what they are doing as journalism. Since I refuse to look at their material, mainly because I don't want to jeopardize my own clearance, I cannot say which they are. > You seem hostile toward wikileaks, why? I don't condone the leaking of diplomatic cables, but their work exposing corruption and cover-ups is commendable You answered your question for me. I had nothing against WikiLeaks when they were a whistleblower site. I have a huge gripe against WikiLeaks when they became a distribution center for stolen classified information. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
TimmiT Registered: 03/23/10 Posts: 5,303 Loc: Victoria
|
| ||||||
|
Here is how Wikileaks describe what they do:
and their justification for "Cablegate":
-------------------- "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination" ~ John Lennon
| |||||||
|
Seuss Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 1 year, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
> and their justification for "Cablegate":
So how does publishing a list of 'targets' that the US feels are important to national security, or the social security numbers of soldiers, or the names of confidential informants that provide information on terrorists, mesh with their justification? -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
zappaisgod horrid asshole  Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I was rather surprised to see Canada anywhere near the US, just as I was surprised to see the libel haven UK. Canada has these bogus Human Rights Commissions that persecute newspapers, and private citizens, for insulting, even factually, certain litigious groups. See MacLeans
It's bad enough in the UK with their ridiculous libel laws but Canuckistan (I would probably be forced to defend myself for writing that) has government agencies policing factually correct insults. Like calling the fat girl on the playground fat. Except for adults. -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
zappaisgod horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Do you doubt my TV numbers? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20 And that bit about decline is just more than a bit kookoo. For decades liberals have had a stranglehold on the media. There was no conservative TV news at all. The Wall Street Journal was strictly a trade publication for people in the financial industry, now it is getting more general readership. How does diversifying the opinions of the journalistic gatekeepers represent a decline in free expression? --------------------
| |||||||
|
Seuss Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 1 year, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
> I was rather surprised to see Canada anywhere near the US
I suspect there are two main forces at play... a lot of US journalists are reporting from war zones, thus they are restricted in what they can report. The survey should really isolate the location of the reporter rather than the 'home base' of the reporter. If a US reporter has to wear body armor in Afghanistan, then that should ding Afghanistan, not the US. The second force, I suspect, is the general anti-American sentiment currently playing out throughout the world. Since the survey is based upon "impressions", it is very easy for journalists to exaggerate as a way of venting against the US. I'm guessing if all of the journalists that ding the US spent a few years in Iran or North Korea, they would have a much greater appreciation of the freedom they have been taking for granted. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
lucydforme Lord Of The Socks   Registered: 01/22/09 Posts: 252 Loc: East Coast Last seen: 11 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Freedom to speak what we want you to speak, everything else shall be edited, freedom of our press to say what we want them to say.
-------------------- Funny story, this whole "world" that we know everything about, well, that's all good and well, but we know nothing about the rest of that vast everything we call the universe. 
Everything I say is heresay. All fiction for a fictional character. Rule yourself, let no one else rule you. Down with government, and up with responsibility.
| |||||||
|
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
I don't think you've understood my response. I denied your baseless, so far as has been demonstrated, claim and asked what it was based on and what the relevance of it was. You've responded by making another bare decleration. This is a fallacy and is not helpful. a) What relevance do your accusations have? What difference does it make if I'm ignorant or not? We are discussing a particular issue, and that issue has nothing to do with my level of learning o r compotence to render opinions. b) What do you base your claims of ignorance upon? c) As asked repeatedly and ignored completely, what do you base your incredulity at the US's hosting of the press freedom day or the claims that it is amongst the best country's in the world when it comes to such freedoms as the press and expression and other US-Const. first amendment rights?
Why is the point moot because it is your own observation? I've never understood this presumption that someone's opinion or belief is deserving of defrence. If your going to make claims about the nature of many of the posters on this board, you should back them up or recant them if you're unable to.
I do not know what your referring to. Please state with particularity what your argument is and what you rely upon. Asking me to fish out your argument for you when I disagree with it is unhelpful. If I could identify your position and be pursuaded by it I would not be challenging it.
What I may or may not do is irrelevant. The fact is you've made some claim, I've challenged it, and its your burden to defend what you've claimed to be the truth. My fitness in digesting information is irrelevant. I don't know to what end you've denied the claim that all media sources must self-select their content, as I did not allege your agreement with this.
Again, what does this have to do with your claims and how do you justify them? Further, you've not explained how employment by an entity that is biased entails a greater restriction on the range of acceptable discourse than employment by an entity that is not. Finally, you've not shown how the media outlet's enforced scope of coverage is a restriction on the right of the press and of expression- of the public or of the journalist. Your claims is unstated but appears to be that there is some right by a journalist to report what they want, yet you've not shown how this is limited- only claiming the media entity will not pay for what they do not want. In the end, it seems you are claiming a journalist has the right to employment or the right to report what they want despite their employer's wishes. You've failed to even claim this nor support it, however, so even this bizzare claim is unable to be discussed. Just what are you claiming and how do you conect that with your claims and the diminuation of press freedom?
No, if I was trying to argue that I would have stated it.
? So what is an impartial organization and how would you identify one? So far as I can see this is largely a worthless concept. Like Zappa, I am perplexed how you represent the production of an entitites favored content with a lack of freedom in the press. It seems percisely the opposite should be the conclusion- that they are able to produce what they wish is the very criteria on which a free press is judged. In any case, the question I've asked about how you identify this alleged impartial organization or media source seems particularly relevant. I doubt it exists or is at all useful as a concept, but for you to be making these particular claims it would seem you must be able to distinguish between that which is 'right' and 'wrong' when it comes to reporting- an idea which should be repugnant to the concept of a free press or expression. How do you determine whether the organization or media outlet which is restraining its coverage and methods to its whims is doing so in a biased or unbiased way? You've alleged these are mechanisms of the biased, but failed to demonstrate how any organization may exist which has an infinite scope of coverage- how any organization could not be self-limiting in its topics of coverage. Given this, just how do you differentiate the two? Just who is to do this task and to what end? I thought the whole notion of a free press and free speach is that we don't have such censors restricting what you might talk about or the acceptable opinions you might have.
No, I did not say he can't express his agreement, nor have you shown how this follows from my post. You seem intent on chategorizing those who disagree or find fault in your argument as those who disagree with you on the merits. If you don't wish to justify your statements then don't make them. Your shirking of your burden of proor renders questionable the merits of any of the things you've said. Anyone can allege their claims are correct and sensical, as you've done, yet that isn't what anyone has asked for and is completely insufficient to demonstrate your claims.
I asked why. Repeating your conclusions is not helpful. I allready know what you think, I don't understand the basis for it. Seems to me that the discriminating factor would have to be the legitimacy of the US's actions and the acceptability of Assange's- rather than the binary calculus you advance of determing repression simply as a function of whether any opposition to assange is exhibited. Does the US have no right to express its opinion?
What is the relevance of this? That the US might not warmly welcome anybody who does not have a right to be in the US seems completely besides the point- simply put, that isn't what we're discussing. Further, please back up your claims regarding espionage- this seems a red herring. I'm unaware of any compotent argument that has made an arguable claim that wikileaks is engaged in espionage.
| |||||||
|
flangenips Batshitinsanse  Registered: 01/20/08 Posts: 1,520 Loc: aotearoa 
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
There certainly are some historical reasons why NZ is not up with the scandanavian countries. But for 2010, at least, we would rank pretty high on that survey. I am surprised the U.S isn't higher on that list, however keep in mind that the list is compiled from a survey taken by people with bias, and the rankings for year to year can vary quite a lot as a result of experiences changing year to year. (and how sensitive large news was for that year for that country will definately have an effect on journalists experiences!) the survey: http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/quest -------------------- All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale Spores for European Microscopy Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Freedom of the Press for Muslims? (  1 2 all ) |
 SirTripAlot |
3,603 | 33 | 05/07/06 04:50 PM by Phred |
|
|
Jealousy of our freedoms and way of living? |  Evolving |
2,748 | 19 | 04/09/04 01:41 AM by Phred |
|
|
Anti-Freedom List ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 mntlfngrs |
4,759 | 51 | 08/14/03 09:54 AM by Innvertigo |
|
|
Iraq journalist deaths match Vietnam War killed |  Psilocybeingzz |
1,016 | 2 | 06/24/06 08:12 PM by Basilides |
|
|
Iranian journalists call for probe into unrest in France. |  lonestar2004 |
896 | 9 | 11/09/05 06:16 PM by Los_Pepes |
|
|
What is your opinion of Fox News? ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 RandalFlagg |
3,856 | 67 | 03/15/05 05:20 AM by CJay |
|
|
Yahoo helped jail (kill) Chinese journalist |  phreakyzen |
877 | 9 | 09/12/05 02:36 PM by Anisotropic |
|
|
ok, now I'll call them freedom fries... ( 1 2 all ) |
 afoaf |
1,830 | 34 | 10/07/04 07:24 PM by zappaisgod |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 2,364 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 44 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
