 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 2 May 2009 04:29:07 EDT, "Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
>> (I want to be a Danish
>
> You want to be a pastry? :-)
>
> We, in the UK, are in the world of 1984.
You'll be missed.
--
Best file compressor around: DEL *.* (100% compression)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
At the very least, you have better internet access than, say, Chinese,
right? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2009 13:42, Carlo C. wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 2-5-2009 11:06, Carlo C. wrote:
>>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> On 2-5-2009 10:29, Carlo C. wrote:
>>>>> Italy is the only European country to be downgraded in the last year from the
>>>>> category of "countries with free press" to countries where press freedom is
>>>>> "partial".
>>>> Do you have a source?
>>>>
>>> http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=445
>> It is not on that page. On page 16 there is a small 2009 map that I can
>> not find anywhere else on the site. That has indeed italy again in
>> yellow (2004-2006 it was also yellow).
>>
>> It seems as if the Italians every now and then vote for a partial free
>> press.
>
> The Italian newspapers led me into error, sorry.
No need to say sorry. It appears that you are right, but that the data
is not so easy to find.
> In summary:
> - Political right is ok.
> - Civil liberties is downgraded from 1 to 2. :-(
Yes, but that is only Berlusconi. As soon as you stop electing someone
who controls the main media and who needs to be a politician just to
stay out of jail, you'll get back to a 1 status.
> The Freedom status is still *FREE*.
> But Italy is the *only* country in Western Europe downgraded.
>
> http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/FIW09_Tables&GraphsForWeb.pdf
That's the bunny.
>
> In italian, "Sei un osso duro", Andrel!
> :-)
My italian is not so good and my latin is a bit rusty. :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> At the very least, you have better internet access than, say, Chinese,
> right? ;)
Heh, good point.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Also "free press" in no way implies that the press is unbiased. While
> some
> very small newspapers may be more willing to publish even more "taboo"
> points of view, it's rather common that the big ones tend to be rather
> biased on how they approach certain "taboo" subjects. In extreme cases the
> press at large may engage in open witch-hunting against certain movements
> or even individuals (it *has* happened, even here).
I'd say free press means the press can be unbiased, or it can be biased to
any thing it wants; instead of being forced by the govt to be biased in
favor of the govt, forced by the govt to hide things, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Also "free press" in no way implies that the press is unbiased. While
> > some
> > very small newspapers may be more willing to publish even more "taboo"
> > points of view, it's rather common that the big ones tend to be rather
> > biased on how they approach certain "taboo" subjects. In extreme cases the
> > press at large may engage in open witch-hunting against certain movements
> > or even individuals (it *has* happened, even here).
> I'd say free press means the press can be unbiased, or it can be biased to
> any thing it wants; instead of being forced by the govt to be biased in
> favor of the govt, forced by the govt to hide things, etc.
But my point is that in many countries the free press is consistently
biased towards certain things, which *effectively* makes them not so free
after all. People are still getting biased information, sometimes to the
point that they are truely deceived.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 02 May 2009 17:52:05 -0400, Warp wrote:
> But my point is that in many countries the free press is consistently
> biased towards certain things, which *effectively* makes them not so
> free after all. People are still getting biased information, sometimes
> to the point that they are truely deceived.
Depends on whether or not people look to only one source for their news
or not.
Nearly anything that's reported is going to have some sort of bias -
totally unbiased reporting is extremely rare. Most of the so-called
"news" organizations spend less time providing factual information and
more time providing editorialized opinions.
But by definition, a "free press" is allowed to do just that - they're
free to report the news more or less as they see fit.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2009 21:21, nemesis wrote:
> At the very least, you have better internet access than, say, Chinese,
> right? ;)
You know the chinese internet access is censored, how do you know yours
isn't? If it was, that fact would be censored as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Carlo C. wrote:
> Italy is the only European country to be downgraded in the last year from the
> category of "countries with free press" to countries where press freedom is
> "partial".
>
> The Best are the nations of Northern Europe and Scandinavian countries: Iceland,
> Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden (top five worldwide).
>
> No controversy here, I believe that *Freedom House* says the right.
> I am an italian *partially free*, but I *already knew it*.
>
> Current situation? Maybe this:
> #declare Italy = (1 / Anything);
>
> (I want to be a Danish, and drink freely the good Danish beer in the long
> Scandinavian afternoons). :-)
The reason you regard the foreign presses as freer than you own is
because you don't live in the nations they cover. I hear reports that
the Swedish news organizations aren't terribly free, either.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Carlo C. <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> The Best are the nations of Northern Europe and Scandinavian countries: Iceland,
>> Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden (top five worldwide).
>
> Note that even though there's no governmental pressure on what the press
> can publish, there may still be (and actually *is*) cultural and sociological
> pressure on what kind of things the press will allow itself to publish.
> Self-censorship in certain subjects is quite common.
>
> Also "free press" in no way implies that the press is unbiased. While some
> very small newspapers may be more willing to publish even more "taboo" points
> of view, it's rather common that the big ones tend to be rather biased on
> how they approach certain "taboo" subjects. In extreme cases the press at
> large may engage in open witch-hunting against certain movements or even
> individuals (it *has* happened, even here).
Happens in the U.S. all the time. Of the major media institutions
(print and media), the majority of them are well to the left of the
American populace (in polls taken of journalists, they tend to vote for
one party over 80% of the time, whereas the general populace, as whole,
favors both parties evenly).
They routinely repeat, without even a token effort at corroboration, the
statements issued by one of our two major political parties, and in so
doing have reported things which are objectively false. They have
assisted the character assassination of opponents of that major party,
and of opponents of that party's positions on just about any topic you
can name.
It is no secret that they definitely took sides in our most recent
presidential election, and given how close the election was, had a
decisive effect.
On April the 15th, there were literally thousands of demonstrations in
the U.S. against the massive taxing and spending agenda of the current
administration. The demonstrations were run by the demonstrators
themselves with no significant overall organization (what we call a
"grass-roots" movement). With one exception, the major media houses did
their best to ignore the demonstrations (which were weeks in the
planning) up until the day of the demonstrations, and then portrayed the
demonstrators as a minor extremists fringe, misrepresented their views,
and dismissed them as puppets of the one major television news outlet
that does not share the other news outlets' views. On-location coverage
was notoriously biased. Demonstrators interviewed on-camera were
frequently not allowed to speak as much as a complete sentence without
interruption by the reporter, whereas in coverage of demonstrations on
the other end of the spectrum, demonstrators are essentially handed the
microphone.
The one major media format that runs counter to this picture is talk
radio. The talk radio audience is, as a rule, not interested in the
viewpoints that predominate in print and television, and therefore only
those shows which oppose those views can make a profit (the major
exception is subsidized by the government); the most recent major effort
to make talk radio more like the other news media resulted in massive
debt and (IIRC) bankruptcy.
It goes without saying that talk radio is routinely demonized by the
print and television media.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
