Topic: Is the US press really that free? - page 2. (Read 3305 times)

Ditto for every other press in the world. People think their press is free, no.

You are only as free as the sword allows you to be.

Where's your fucking pen now?

They're free to fuck off...

The US press is "free" in the sense they can print and say mostly what they want.  The issue is that they are supported by advertising.  So they are basically as free as a whore, they can say whatever their pimp lets them and the pimp wants them to entertain the largest audience. 

The NYTimes, like most of the media, exalts their vision of freedom of the press, but they fail to critically examine whether press freedom can (and should) be more restricted than they would like. Consider Canada, where press freedom is less than in the USA. They seem to be doing fine.

Doesn't help having scumbags like Rupert Murdoch's monopoly over the media:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/01/rupert-murdochs-interest-in-time-warner-fuels-industry-speculation/

Somehow I grew up knowing that a free press is what keeps us free. Some obvious exceptions, not publishing names that might put people in danger. (Valerie Plame for example) But reporters need to be out there searching for all those little secrets we would never know on our own. If they are discouraged, how does the country change? I don't want to find out.

Somehow I grew up knowing that a free press is what keeps us free.
Some obvious exceptions, not publishing names that might put people in danger. (Valerie Plame for example) But reporters need to be out there searching for all those little secrets we would never know on our own. If they are discouraged, how does the country change? I don't want to find out.

I find it interesting that the Press is upset about this supposed trampling of Free Speech and the protection of the Press by the Constitution. They have no problem in writing about the evil NRA, GOAL, or any other group that supports the rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment and how laws should be passed to modify it. I am not saying the Court is right in forcing the reporter to name the source, but it is amusing how when it is their area under attack they get really upset.

I think it's pretty obvious with the treatment of whistleblowers like Manning, Snowden, Drake and many others, what happens to the sources of information the government wants to keep secret: they get harassed, their character assassinated, jailed or exiled, and some of them tortured. And as much as one would hope the justice department would do its job and act on the released information (that often reveals abuse, corruption, and even war crimes), the truth is that they do the establishment's bidding instead.

So, to argue that journalists should be able to always present their sources is nice, but quite unrealistic if you look at how things work in the real world.

EDIT: and you need Freedom of Press for much more than just better communication between people; you need it to have a functioning democracy.

Freedom of Press is a must for better communication but that does not justify illegal means or stolen means. This is why all press members must be able to provide source as the purpose is to serve public interest and the public interest should never jeopardize state interest or national security. If the source provided was in both public and State Interest, then the justice department should seen it as service rendered to humanity but not to business .

It depends on what you write about. We have seen the attacks on various journalists or journalistic sources: Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden etc. Anything too revealing in the eyes of the US gets censored and the journalists hunted down. The same applies to the UK, where recently information got destroyed by force (MI6 went in). The US is no longer "land of the free". Sure, it's more free than the North Korean press - but not that much more free than Russian or Chinese press. It may well be, that the US is going in that direction though.

The freedom of speech and expression is inclusive of the right to keep silent. In this case, Mr. Risen is protecting a right that is undervalued or utterly ignored in so many countries.

Is it more important to protect press and speech freedom so the public can obtain any information it needs, or is it more important to "secure" an evidence? When a country no longer has a free press, that country is under the threat of extensive corruption.

Mr. Risen is a perfect role model for all of us who have gone through many years of journalism education. Selling a source is a clear indicator of poor journalism.

I mostly agree with newflesh here. I wouldn't personally trust news from Al Jazeera that concern Qatar or their immediate interests; but other than that I think they are probably the best of its kind, far better than the nonsense that is Fox News to be certain. Can you give us some examples of this supposed "thinly veiled racism" on their part?

Hmmm not really sure what you mean by thinly veiled racism, always considiered Al Jazeera to be a fairly decent news organization.

Fox News however is the epitome of racism and xenophobia.

People now have access to internet. Biased news will always be there regardless of medium.

The press, while free of the overt and covert trappings of authoritarian political system of government, is like many organizations - its own people have conflicting interests.

Including financial and political.

Individual inclinations and personal biases drive the press. Just look at al jahzeera and its constantly thinly veiled racism against many around the world who is non muslim or non pro arab, despite its overt and laughably obvious attempts to pretend it's being objective or fair.

Compared to that bitch fest, I would consider even FOX or CNN (two sides of the same coin) to be fair.

It's true that they have very little exposure compared to mainstream news agencies, so they need not only our financial support, but also our support in spreading the word.

Then, a few of them have other interesting projects they are trying to carry out and which could help with that. Using the examples I gave: The Young Turks are attempting to call for a convention to get money out of politics with Wolf-Pac (www.wolf-pac.com); and the Real News Network is initiating debates in the city of Baltimore (where they are based) with a view to organize the population into having greater control over the management of the city, and eventually spreading that across the country.


It's true there are those cases that you mention of people not wanting to "rock the boat", but those people at least "see the boat" for what it is. The point I was trying to make was the opposite: many don't see the bullshit and corruption because they accept it as being normal or at least a necessity for the way things work. In other words, they were brought up and educated with those views, so they don't even question it.

And the example I was trying to give with the presidents was the one that says that "despite all the flaws America might have, the intentions are always good and whatever errors might have been done are far outweighed by the rest. And who are those foreigners to judge an American president anyway?" sort or mentality, which is bullshit of course.


Why should the choices be limited to those two? As I said in response to another post, we have far more resources in the west (not for pretty reasons, but let's leave that aside for now), so we have far more possibilities than that. Start by spreading the word about alternative media to family, friends, coworkers, etc; donate if you can; and contribute directly if you'd like. Corporate controlled media might have the biggest share of viewers at the moment, but that can, and is changing.

EDIT: seems the site for wolf-pac is down at the moment; bad timing I guess. Anyway, if you go to the TYT youtube channel, you can see news of how things are going.

I think that the media is not free and is in fact Bias that said they are open to journalism but  carefully choose what to put on the newscast
In essence if it not on the news it did not happen at the same time even if it is on the news a certain perspective or viewpoint is prevalent that sometimes does not evaluate all sides of the story.

That is why more than one media source is needed as they can critically analyze something and bring about a fuller perspective to an issue.
Example take the road to RT get a strong critical analysis of America take the CNN and then its the opposite and find the truth in the middle.

I'm really surprised to see Canada that high up. Not sure if I buy those ratings considering it says we jumped up 2 spots. The press and news media here is becoming more and more biased by the day.

Wow, I did not expect the US to be that far down. Even Romania is rated higher!


I agree that there are those few independent news networks like Democracy Now, but the problem is that very few people listen to them, and they have very, very little exposure. And I'm sure they may have trouble with revealing truly inflammatory material (like Snowden / Wiki-leaks level stuff).

I also very much agree that people are groomed to not ask any questions and sort of just roll with the status quo. It is almost like the big news sources like the New York Times realize that they are only posting things that their owners allow and want, but they won't do anything to change that. It's like that saying "don't rock the boat" - the people that accept all of the bullshit and corruption they see will rise quickly.

In the end it comes down to what is really worse - state control or corporate control? Is the press more useful in either case? or are they equally bad?