Bitcoin Forum

I hear people say over and over that the US press/journalism is nothing like in authoritarian states like Russia and China where journalists can't write anything negative about the government. But is this really the case? Mainstream media in the US ignores the corruption of the US government, while reporters that try to break the silence by releasing important stories get harassed and silenced. Just recently I read about the story of James Risen, a New York Times journalist who is about to go to jail for refusing to give up a source he used to write his anti-government book "State of War".

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html

What do you guys think?

It's not state owned, but large outlets are owned by same oligarchs who pay off  the elected officials... What difference that makes, I do not comment on...

Persecution and prosecution of journalists in the US over the past few years has gone beyond anything in my lifetime, but Obama's a lame duck. Since they're largely administrative (DoJ, admin lapdog) decisions, it's kind of pointless to talk about it except maybe to bring awareness to it and see what 2016 pres. candidates say.

yeah it's owned by the de-facto oligarchs.. but i'd say it's probably better than being owned by some autocratic form of government that gets to control every little detail that gets out there. at least we can bitch about how corrupt and fucked up our government is, unlike china and russia.

a big issue, also, is that our media outlets are not so much concerned about informing the public, but more like raking in cash for the big billionaires standing behind them.

I look at it this way.  It's more free than some, but not free enough.  It's no different in Canada, mainstream media has it's own agenda that's driven by whomever owns it.  Media is no longer non biased.  

I try to tune out from it as much as possible.  Far too much fear mongering on a daily basis.  You'd think it was a war zone outside by the way the media reports sometimes. Much easier to push through a militarized police force when the public lives in fear of violence that is actually declining.

Our press chooses to be protective of the administration. They were originally given the protections they have to be a watchdog but hav ebecome lapdogs. There have been some chilling moves by the current and previous administrations.

2-3 peoples control news programs in USA

In USA you have monopol on news, and truth

Yep, and it's only going to get worse.  I know this is a little old, but it paints a pretty good picture of where we are headed.

http://media2.mic.com/2691baf28e3da9a56b5785fad8298fb5.jpg

Same thing with all the banks, Department stores, etc.

Once all our choices are taken away, I fear what our future will look like.

However un-free you think you are, Russia and China have it worse.

While we haven't been shooting down air transports carrying "aide" that happens to be 40+ soldiers, the US media is increasingly becoming a joke (if not already).

The morning news on ABC spent 2 min talking about how handsome an inmate was while it spent 13 seconds on missing emails and conflicting information from FBI vs IRS.

The US press freedom ranking (including the UK) has gone down over the last few years though we're still a lot better than say China and most parts of the Middle East.

https://image.guim.co.uk/ni/1398941918470/Press_Freedom_map.pdf

Probably pretty accurate barring the most recent events.  Silly they would put India's press behind the US - India skewers their candidates.  In the US we have reporters asking what Obama's most enchanting moment was:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-enchanted-answer/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-enchanted-answer/)

So hard hitting I just threw up. ::)

Bilderberg group control media all over the world

People always knock on the government here but a strong independent unbiased publicly funded media source is important in my opinion. Just look at the state of American media to see why.

Although it doesn't have to be government funded, it could be funded on donations, but I don't think people have the will to fund such an organization.

In the U.S any blogger can usually say what they like no matter what and you could set up a newspaper by yourself and print it with a home PC but one thing that does happen a lot is the biggest media outlets take sides in any debate no matter how wrong they are, you will usually find that they take the side of whichever particular ideology they belong to. So for example, Fox news as we all know is blatantly on the side of Republicans and don't even try to hide it, MSNBC and CNN tend to be on the side of Democrats.

How can you tell? Whenever someone on the opposite side fucks up they're all over it, Obama fucks up, Fox News go after him, if Bush fucked up people like MSNBC will go after him but the real clue into who they belong to is in who they defend or DON'T mention, so with Fox News you'll never hear them attacking Bush or other Republicans very much ( except for Ron Paul ) and with MSNBC you'll barely hear them mention anything Obama has done unless it's major or the news journalists can't be bothered keeping up the façade anymore.

You'll even see this mentality on these very forums and it makes it very difficult to talk to Americans about politics because if you mention things that Bush and Obama have done if they're supporters of either ( and I noticed a couple of mainstream republicans worming their way in here ) they'll get extremely defensive about it and try to blatantly deflect the blame. I always wondered why I could never get along with anybody before when it came to talking politics/religion and now I know it's because my views weren't mainstream, they were with the Anarchist/Libertarian type ideologies, hell I bet I could get along with Marxists better than I could with the common politics people follow today but they all seem to have vanished.

Exactly.

People should debate the issue and not the person/party.

This question shouldn't even be asked, how can you expect from companies (that's what they are) owned by big corporations to be partial when it is will known that those corps are elites when it comes to lobbying, and they are politically involved

one way i see china as being different from the U.S. is that in china, the government controls everything (including commerce). in the U.S., it's an oligarchy where corporations and billionaires run the government.

china controls its media outlets by shutting their mouths with an iron fist, while the U.S. does it by marginalizing the peoples' collective voice.

Good debate requires intellectual honesty. That is a lost art in general whether the topic is religion or politics or just about anything else. That's why we have an aristocracy of idiots playing gotcha politics steering the ship in the US.

I think the real problem is that the news has become nothing more than a hook to get you to watch commercials. So no bad news or anything that might rock your boat. Certainly nothing that would spoil your shopping mood. 

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php (http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php)
Those are the 2014 world press freedom rankings and the US isn't even in the top 19.

The press in the US is obviously not free, as practically everyone else in this thread already mentioned, and I believe mostly for the reasons previously stated: they are paid by people that have a vested interest in spreading their views. Now, there are exception to this, usually in the form of small, mostly online based companies, that don't receive state or corporate funding and rely on public donations instead. Examples are Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/ (http://www.democracynow.org/)), The Young Turks (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured)), The Real News Network (http://therealnews.com/t2/ (http://therealnews.com/t2/)), and so on.

However, I think a more interesting topic would be in what way a "good education" may influence this by limiting the spectrum of "acceptable" opinions. You see, in most cases, I don't believe there actually is anyone telling journalists and editors they can't report on something, or that they need to do so through a specific view; people are groomed to accept it. Then those that more easily rise through the ranks are those that have internalized those views.

As a practical "try it yourself at home" example, what if someone told you that every American president since the second world war ought to be brought before an international court and tried for war crimes? :P

This is crazy! Wasn't expecting this results at all.
Not only surprised by America, but also Southern Europe and the UK!
Long ways to go yet...

Yes, they are good examples of what not to follow, but let us not fall into the error of excusing what we have in the west because it could be worse; with the resources we have at our disposal, it should be better, a lot better than what it currently is.

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?

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.

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.

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 (http://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. :P


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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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. 

They're free to fuck off...

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?

It's far from optimal, but it could definitely be worse. TV media is free to an extent, but they do have to worry about editors, and of course government. Editors could also be compromised one way or another. There are many reasons why a station might not report on an important story, and they don't all have to do with government intervention. But Operation Mockingbird is definitely worth looking into. If you think that the US government stopped placing undercover assets in various news organizations, I have a boat to sell you.

Kind of off topic, but  I remember reading about a man in the UK who was arrested for simply having in his possession a copy of Al Qaeda's magazine Inspire, which you can download online.

“This is a serious terrorist offence and we hope this will send a clear message that anyone caught in possession of such material can expect to be bought before the courts,” a government official said.

This would never fly in the US.

The US press is not quite as bad as it is in some places of the world like China or North Korea, but it will almost always have some kind of bias.

You cannot eliminate bias - that is human.  You can try to curtail it by having reporters state facts as facts and not offer conjecture.  They should make every news piece an opinion piece by selectively withholding facts.

If one side overpowers and basically sidelines the other or multiple other viewpoints it's no longer free.

Yes.

Even news on the internet can be biased as moderators can censor and ban user.

This is true but the media is suppose to only report facts and leave bias out of stories. Another issue is that the bias is almost always to the liberal viewpoint

Not to mention censorship of the NYT.

I think as long as humans are involved there is going to be some bias.  I think the US press is free from most government censorship.

That would be interesting, but probably not very practical and/or hard to implement. I mean, on the one hand, many events can easily be misinterpreted when presented without context (that is, an idea of what led to the current situation); on the other hand, the bias could easily shift to simply not reporting selected events, which kind of already happens.


It might be true that the press is mostly free from government censorship in the US (though certainly not completely); but as mentioned before, government censorship is only one way to control the media and it's not the primary method used in the west, as far as I can tell.

This type of censorship is done at the editor/owner level. It is not done by the hand of the government.

I'd guess he was referencing James Risen who works @ NYT, though prosecution was entirely for content in a separate book, I think (not entirely sure on that). Either way, depending on the kind of articles censored, very possible it's a chilling effect and thus the result of government heavy-handedness with journalists & whistleblowers over the past few years.

The media has already solved the James Risen problem, as maybe a year or so ago I stumbled across a link on NBC news that directs me to a TOR hidden service webpage that allows someone to submit a tip via TOR and stay anon even to the reporter.

I wouldn't say that the Obama administration's assault on the media (wiretapping journalists, forcing them to give up sources, ect.) is so much censorship of the media, as the media will still report newsworthy stories, but is rather intimidation of potential whisleblowers.

US press is by no means free. Look at Fox or CNN: they would show only things which are permitted/approved by the government.

I am from Russia. I really still a free press in America or not. I see that in spite of the enormous natural wealth for ordinary people we live in poverty. This is because of the terrible corruption and oligarchy. And in America, if a lot of work actually higher standard of living.

Don't worry, the career politicians in the US seem to be hellbent on creating the very same corrupt oligarchy in this country.  Get the simple people to squabble with each other over topics like gay marriage while they enslave the populace though a lifetime of debt.

Most politicians at least claim to support the middle class in that they either want to give the middle class other people's money or want to create more opportunities for them.

This is great post.
I think that same situation is in whole world.
We actually live in masked feudalism, where big "fishes" want to have regular people under control.
Same is for press.
First we need to live in free society where money will not be on the first place, then press will have same opportunity to be free.
That is my opinion.

You are just being enlightened about the fact that power always finds a way to rest its head. To dramatize this as a form of feudalism reeks of 1st world dramatism.

This is not at all true. How do you think Edward Snowden was able to leak all of our NSA secrets? How do you think a number of government whistle-blowers that the Obama administration hates were able to leak their information?

they don't leak their information to Fox and CNN

Both fox news and CNN have reported heavily on the snowden leaks. Snowden has leaked the NSA secrets to the Washington Post likely because of it's previous work (likely the watergate scandal).

Both news services have been highly critical of the NSA spying programs