The number of people around the world who have access to free and independent media has declined to the lowest level in more than a decade, says Freedom Watch:
In this year's annual index of global media freedom of 196 countries and territories, Freedom House says it rated 68 as "free" and the remaining two thirds as "partly free" or "not free."
Freedom House Senior Editor Karin Karlekar says this is roughly an even breakdown, but a closer look reveals a different picture. "If you look at the population statistics, they are much bleaker, only 15 percent of the world's inhabitants or one in six live in countries with a free press, while 42 percent have a partly free press and 43 percent, the majority, are in a not-free press," she said.
This perhaps isn't as crucial as it once was. Even as "the press" is being suppressed, the Internet, smartphones and social media are exploding; more and more, people have the ability to do their own journalism. Repressive regimes try to control all these new modes of commmunicating, too, of course, and with some success, but it's getting harder for them to keep up with technology.
But press crackdowns are important signs of how far a government is willing to take its tyranny. Controlling the flow of information is an essential part of controlling the population.
Comments
Interesting info that ties in with (Littlejohn) the necessity to remain the worlds' superpower, no?
Yeah, we'll have to see if the US government continues to try to take WikiLeaks down. :3
I'd argue, Leo, that suppression of "a free press" is more a sign that government is behind the times.
Newspapers don't publish news; they publish history, and TV isn't much better. Twitter gets the news out while it's still news.
Reagan said that the USSR feared the xerox machine more than they feared an armed population. Today's repressive regimes fear the internet instead.
Tim, our degree of military power is, as far as I can see, utterly unrelated to the degree of freedom our press enjoys. After all, my friend, the Founders enshrined press freedom in the Constitution when the United States had virtually no military at all - and we have retained it as we have risen to what you call "top dog" status.
As far as Twitter and the Internet being superior to more traditional outlets, I would have to disagree.
I'm reminded of a quote whose source I cannot find, but it goes something like this: Just as modern art makes everyone an artist, modern music makes everyone a musician.
The internet, unfortunately, makes everyone a journalist.
As a result, far more news becomes available more quickly, but at the expense of professionalism, accuracy and freedom from outright invention.
When you read about it in an established newspaper, or hear about it on a major TV network, you can be reasonably sure it is accurate.
Modern electronic media content is little more than gossip, with a comparable level of reliability.
Littlejohn: As a result, far more news becomes available more quickly, but at the expense of professionalism, accuracy and freedom from outright invention.
Revisionist history, sir.
When the New York Times says "all the news that's fit to print", that's an outright admission that they decide what they want you to read. William Randolph Hearst decided to slant the news so as to generate a war with Spain.
Ernie Williams could publish the story on page 1 when Helene Foellinger was stopped for reckless driving, only because Helene realized it was good for business to do so. When a major advertiser - for instance, Roger's Market - has a scandal - say, a suicide - you can be reasonably sure that the more embarrassing details are omitted.
In the Moses administration, I'd read stories in the Fort Wayne newspapers about economic development programs that said details aren't set - except that the legal notices of the newspaper had contained exactly those details the day before. Ever read a story about local sex change operations in a Fort Wayne newspaper? During the 1980s, there were an average of four legal notices a year showing name changes from male to female names.
The county court judge in Paulding County insisted that if you printed court details, you had to print ALL the details - but when I printed the hospital admissions and "forgot" to omit his name from that listing, I was threatened with being jailed for contempt of court.
And nobody reported on the whorehouse on OH-637 owned by the local attorneys. I didn't, the Crescent-News didn't, the Journal-Gazette didn't. We didn't dare. Rick Yocum told me I was a damned fool for not being more generous with a Christmas present for the sheriff; he gave him two fifths of liquor, himself.
When you read about it in an established newspaper, you can be reasonable sure that they're not offending a major source of advertising revenue, nor a major source of news, nothing more than that.
@littlejohn
"The internet, unfortunately, makes everyone a journalist."
Unfortunate how exactly? Every citizen here is subject to the same First Amendment, and has the same right to be a journalist. Are you upset that you'll have to pay more attention and consider more sources now?
"As a result, far more news becomes available more quickly, but at the expense of professionalism, accuracy and freedom from outright invention."
Harl there covered it pretty well there - I think you're assuming there's a lot more professionalism, accuracy and freedom from intervention there than there actually is or ever has been.
But then:
"I
@michaelk: I googled it too, and found only myself. I'm mystified. I didn't originate it; I'm not that clever. I suppose I was the only person to take notice. Not everything is on Google, as you know, which sort of bolsters my point.
Dr. Delos, a appreciate your perspective, but I am not a layman when it comes to newspapers. I've spent my career in them, as did my father, a two-time runner-up for the Pulitzer Prize.
I believe you are reading far too much into "All the news that's fit to print." It's just a slogan, not an admission of sloppy reporting.
I've discussed the slogan several times with the late Ben Franklin of the Times, who was a lifelong family friend. He certainly had a different take on it from yours.
@littlejohn
I think the reason it's not on Google in that format suggests that maybe you're smashing some half-remembered aphorism together that doesn't necessarily prove anything, much less the point I think you're trying to make...
Modern X making anyone X isn't necessarily a bad or undesirable thing.
I'm sure there are a lot of people like Ben Franklin and Leo Morris in the ranks of journalism. Angry that these new internet kids are stealing their bucket and running with it.