Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: U.S. falls to 47th in the world for Press Freedoms

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 27, 2012, 3:54 a.m. EST by Nordic (390)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

"The United States (47th) also owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests."

What I love about OWS is the intelligence behind it. The only way to get media attention in this country is through some kind of stunt that is simply impossible to ignore. That means staying power. Not going away.

The press can easily ignore a one day protests (like they did over and over again the last ten years), but they simply couldn't ignore OWS.

Instead, they fought it. Just like the cops did, only with their words, their editing, their disdain, their commentary.

Fuck them, they're as dead as dirt anyway. They have become completely irrelevant except to the hypotized class of brainwashed zombies who still worship their thieving gangster role models.

And Obamabots. Who are as blind as anyone.

38 Comments

38 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

I agree.

And regarding OWS I think it is important not to have specific leadership or specific positions.

1) I think the US People are still waking up and don't yet realize this is activism, freedom, democracy, part of our bill of rights and US Constitution.

2) Propaganda and Politics is about highjacking public thought. If the OWS moment was defined in some way or with hardline policy positions, then the Media would have shot it all down with "Foxnews Spin".

3) And of course politicians are always looking for galvanizing issues to use to take over a movement or take over the momentum.

4) But the Propagana, Slant, and Spin coming out of Washington and "Media CEOs and Executives" make it near impossible for people in the USA to think. We really need to start learning about propaganda techniques.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

1917: J.P. Morgan bought US corporate media to be 1%’s lying sacks of spin?

Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW I. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing control over America’s leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the war. Mr. Callaway alleged he had the evidence to prove Morgan associates were working as editors to select and edit articles, with the press receiving monthly payments for their allegiance to Morgan.

One of the leading papers, The New York Times, printed the story of Congressman Callaway’s call for investigation from Washington, D.C., but the editor chose a curious obfuscating headline:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/1917-j-p-morgan-bought-us-corporate-media-to-be-1s-lying-sacks-of-spin.html

[-] 2 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

The Consitution gives them the right to protest. Too bad they don't defend it. Americans would be much more inclined to suppor it.

NordicWhat I love about OWS is the intelligence behind it. The only way to get media attention in this country is through some kind of stunt that is simply impossible to ignore.

[-] 1 points by antiglobb (47) 2 years ago

Six months ago Italy has fallen to the 69° place. And I'm afraid that next year the two States will fall to the 100° one. These events happen when the citoyens don't control the behaviour of their governors. We're guilty like them.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

So what about changing the game? I have no personal problem with what's on cable; I'm simply not buying cable because I honestly have no use for it and probably never will. Cable is pay-to-play, and if people will pay for tits and TMZ then all they'll get is tits and TMZ. Broadcast TV, however, is not pay-to-play. It's freely available to anyone with a TV and a converter box, and there was a time when it was in fact a reliable source of information and investigative journalism.

I love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, partially because I agree with them politically, but the fact remains that they're comedians. Funnymen. They're the guys you're supposed to watch after you've had your fill of serious journalism when you want to laugh at the current state of the world, and yet they're actually no less reliable than typical network news. They have no obligation to fact check their material or provide intelligent commentary (even though they generally do those things), but the network news (which most reasonable people would argue does have such an obligation) is no more accurate or intelligent than they are. That, to my mind, is the problem. There are simple and fairly conservative (in the sense of scope rather than political alignment) measures that would cut out a lot of the crap, namely the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule.

As far as I'm aware, the rationale for dropping the Fairness Doctrine was that the sheer breadth of channels available on things like cable TV meant that we could endorse the "anything goes" mentality because if the field was wide enough then surely somebody would keep the public interest in mind and journalism would get better for the lack of regulation. Did that actually happen? Absolutely not. Actual good investigative journalism became much harder to find on the airwaves, and generally the group that would go out of its way to look for it was the group that needed it the least.

The Equal Time Rule would also be a great way to deal with changing the way we run campaigns in this country, as it pretty much dictates that no television station or overtly political event, save a few exceptions, may offer different airtime rates for different candidates and are required to give the candidates the same sweetheart rates that they give firms with whom they have a close relationship. I would expand its scope a bit so that actual debates would be subject to these provisions (providing an appropriate forum for independent candidates) and consider requiring broadcast TV stations to provide actual equal advertising time to all who request it.

Also, just a little side note: the Fairness Doctrine provided a very wide latitude to television stations as to how controversial political issues are presented or how different points and counterpoints are presented (format, style, length, etc.). A 1-to-1 equal time rule for different views was also not enforced and in fact was not part of the doctrine. The point was that differing views must be given their chance to be heard, and the standards of how this was to be accomplished was left up to the stations themselves. It was a way of holding broadcast TV to decent journalistic standards without exerting influence over which views were or were not "allowed".

To the people who want to cry censorship: there are already things that you can't say or do on broadcast TV because it is public airspace (the "Seven Words You Can't Say on TV" routine is one of the more humorous examples); the only reason I can think of that those rules should even exist is that on some level broadcast TV should be required to maintain a minimum level of usefulness for the American people. If we're going to sanitize broadcast TV the least we can do is put more intelligent programming on it.

Also, while we're at it we should make it a firing offense to arrest an on-duty journalist during the course of a police raid, and ban press blackouts.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

"They're the guys you're supposed to watch after you've had your fill of serious journalism when you want to laugh at the current state of the world, and yet they're actually no less reliable than typical network news. "

Good post, except for the above. There is no "serious journalism" left in the mainstream. It's all been removed. Even NPR is just the same old trash "branded" for the liberal yuppie demographic. Public Radio was taken over by former Voice of America (read: CIA) people and is right on the same page as the rest of them. You'll never hear anything outside of the pre-ordained, pre-approved "box" on NPR.

The Fairness Doctrine needs to come back, but it won't until we take the country back. We can't put the cart before the horse.

[-] 0 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

You lament the lose of press freedom in the United-States, then you go on to say how journalists are worthless and express your disdain for them with a slurry of uncreative childish pejorative terms. That's ironic to say the least. If journalists are crap, why do you care if they are free or not?

"Fuck them, they're as dead as dirt anyway."

If no one cares about journalists and their right to free expression and reporting, then it shouldn't be a surprise if their work is censored.

I take the opposite approach. I think we should care about journalists and help them fight for their right to free unbiased speech.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Show me some real journalists and I'll cheer them on. Matt Taibbi, Cenk, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, just to name a few, are awesome.

Chris Hedges is the Tom Paine of our time.

Are they working for CNN, MSNBC, or anywhere else mainstream?

No, of course not.

You're totally missing the point. There are journalists and there are "journalists".

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Six corporations own the main stream media. This is well documented and easily verified from any search engine. Quite a number of books have been written on this subject. Only 20 years ago, more than fifty corporations owned the media. The MSM serves the agenda of a highly concentrated extremely wealth group.

Warfare is the most profitable endeavor on the planet for a few at the great expense of the many.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGuR7FvGMqk&feature=related

[-] 0 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

the only credible fair and balanced news is "The Onion"

[-] -3 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

What garbage. If a journalist is participating in the protest, they are not really journalist, if they are just report , the police didn't touch them.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I have one name for you.

Bradley Manning.

[-] -1 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

Not sure what you mean; Bradley Manning the traitor? What does he have to do with journalism or journalist?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

He reported the wanton murder of a journalist.

How does that make him a traitor?

[-] -1 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

he leaked classified information to wiki...he is in prison now for doing that. He wasn't a journalist he was a soldier in the army. What wanton murder of a journalist are saying he reported on?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If you don't really know the story, you shouldn't assume so much.

He released the video of the murder of a Reuters reporter.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

What does that have to do with this blog? We were talking about reporters getting arrested at OWS protest (which seems like a false statement). Bradley released classified information to wiki, that is why he is in jail. He is not a Reporter a journalist or anything like that. He is just a pathetic traitor. Get your facts straight.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Because it's your beliefs, that have dropped us to 47th.

What Bradley did, was show the truth.

It was actually his duty, to do so.

It just made the brass look bad, and they don't like that kind of thing, so they locked him away and tortured him.

[-] 1 points by NKVD (55) 2 years ago

I agree. There should be nothing even approaching secrecy in our government. It's attitudes like that that make the rest of the world hate us.

[-] -1 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

we are not 47th in the world for freedom of the press. What king proclaimed that garbage? Bradley wasn't tortured you moron and you cannot have U.S. military personnel releasing classified information to the press. The 'murder' that you refer to of a Reuter reporter getting killed by the U.S. collateral was never proven. Your charge that it was a murder i.e. deliberate is unfounded. You sound like some old Soviet propagandist. Maybe you should go work for Hugo Chavez.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Didn't see the video, eh?

You should read up on Ed Bernays, if you wish to know about propaganda.

The USSR, learned it from us, and so did the Nazis.

Much of your post, is filled with propagandized wording, and you don't even realize it.

You should at least know, when you yourself are using it.

[-] -2 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

you must be confused, you just described yourself. And are you accusing the U.S. of teaching Nazis and Soviets. You must really hate the U.S.. I feel sorry for you.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Ed Bernays published much of his work.

They just bought the book.

The US government and corporations,actually hired him.

Are you anti-capitalist?

[-] -3 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

i don't see the connection between Ed Bernays and the fact that Manning is a traitor and released classified information while he was a soldier in the U.S. ARMY. Stay on point your mind is wandering.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Lost in your own BS, or just believing it?

Missed the thread title?

Lost in your own propaganda?

USA drops to 47th in press freedom, and we were not on top of the list in the first place.

PS: FLAKESnews doesn't qualify as journalism, but rather as propaganda, 100% pure.

[-] -2 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

who said we dropped to 47th in press freedom?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I can see you're not particularly serious.

What position in press freedom were you lead to believe we are?

[-] -2 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

There are roughly 193 countries in the world if we are 47th in press freedom that has got to put some countries in the 46th, 45th,... ranking that can't be better in press freedom. It utter left wing propaganda.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Hugo Chavez? You mean the democratically-elected leader of Venezuela, who is very popular with the people of Venezuela?

How is Hugo Chavez anything similar to anything Soviet? The Soviets weren't democratically elected. Chavez was.

But then a brainwashed troll like you doesn't KNOW things that are facts.

[-] -1 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

you think that old hugo is still democratically elected? What a fool you are. This is why we need to keep you OWSers away from any power.

[-] 2 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Public records show proof of the claims in the OP. Where's your proof? You don't have any because you're just making a wild claim based on your own biases. Do you know what the word "bias" means? Look it up. Thanks.

[-] -1 points by pedro01 (1) 2 years ago

What were the charges against the 'reporters' ?

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

And Obamabots. Who are as blind as anyone.

I resent that. And in fact, I do not believe it to be true.

I also think your analysis of the press is a bit off as well - you are more than welcome to see the press corps as a monolithic entity just as you do government, but it is a misconception. Both are hierarchies of people, all with their own individual attitudes, beliefs, and commitments.

I guess it is easier if you don't have time to pay attention to simply blame everyone.

[-] 1 points by NKVD (55) 2 years ago

Sorry but I have to disagree on that one.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

The only news organization that's remotely independent and doesn't just repeat all the press releases is McClatchy.

I've been studying this very closely for years.

It's you who isn't paying attention. Sorry, but it's true.

And why are you fooled by Obama? I really want to know. It's clear by his actions, not his words, that he's just another incarnation of Bush. So he's a fraud.

It's weird to me how all the sudden that it's an election year Obama is pretending he's the 2008 Obama again, saying the same populist crap, while for the last four years he's done nothing but set the Bush doctrine in STONE. And people are falling for this? That's how powerful the media is and how conditioned the American people have become.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you completely ignore the fact that the President has to work with Congress, or that even when the repelican house was a minority they managed to dominate the debates that appeared before their chamber.

As far as President Obama being a reincarnation of Bush, all one has to do is examine the statement Obama made as candidate, indicating that he would pull out of Iraq - that statement forced a change in U.S. foreign policy within two days.

Up until Obama had made that statement the bush doctrine was no timeline for withdrawl.

After he made that statement as candidate bush policy changed, and the neo-con dream of a 50 year occupation of Iraq blew away on the wind.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Are you cutting and pasting now? Or am I having a deja vu?

Obama LIED as a candidate. All you're telling me is that the voters weren't the only ones who were fooled by him. And what makes you think that what's happening in Iraq right now is any different than your fantasy version of a "50 year occupation of Iraq?"

We "occupied" Iran from 1953 until 1979 due to the fact that we installed a puppet there. Called The Shah. People forget that.

We're occupying Iraq right now. We have 50,000 troops there, god only knows (literally) how many mercenaries (way more than 50K), and an embassy that cost a billion dollars and is the size of Vatican City.

We are still occupying Iraq. And we will probably long after you and I are dead.

Why are you still believing Obama's bullshit? He's a serial liar, but you don't want to let go of your emotional attachment he manipulated you into having back in 2007 and 2008.

Break the umbilical cord already.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

We have 50,000 troops there,

I think you have confused Iraq with South Korea . . .