4 ms·

Their methodology is stated very explicitly. They do a questionnaire in all of the relevant countries and have a formula to derive the scores. You cannot begin

by wfo 11y ago

Their methodology is stated very explicitly. They do a questionnaire in all of the relevant countries and have a formula to derive the scores. You cannot begin with an intuitive notion of the countries that you want to have a high "press freedom" index and when the actual scores don't match your intuition blame it on the assumed bias of the source. I'm certainly open to the idea that this report is crap, but they have data, numbers, a sample, formulas, and reasoning and arguments for why they did things the way they did. If you think they are incorrect, explain why, don't just say "this doesn't fit my preconceived notions about the countries I want to believe are more free, so the people who did it are lying". For example, I'm not at all shocked that they rated Lebanon as having higher press freedom than Israel, in fact that's probably to me an indicator that they are doing something right and not just picking out statistical proxies for western european-style nations.

dogma1138 11y ago
Not buying it sorry. I've read the report every year and they don't publish their aggregated data. The questionnaires are filled by local representatives of their choosing. They had have made political moves which go against their own statements and condemnations and they have quite a few very weird picks that don't even seem to correspond to their own summary of the country. And while it's true that I can't hold an intuitive understanding of the freedom of the press in various countries I can some how understand that countries where the government shuts down TV stations and news papers all day long probably have less freedom than countries where "organized crime" harasses Journalists.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Don't publish aggregated data == lying to suit an agenda. I literally can't think of any other reason.
- wfo 11y ago
  Okay, I'd buy that the targets of the survey may very well be pre-selected to align politically with a particular set of positions. What do you mean by aggregated data? I'm fairly well trained in mathematics and statistics but I'm not sure what that phrase means -- does it not just mean the statistics derived from the sample? And doesn't it matter mostly how /the journalists/ feel about how much press freedom they have? Journalists may very well not be effected by overreaching hate crime legislation (journalism rarely involves writing hate speech) though laypeople see it as a violation of freedom of speech. Organized crime may feel more oppressive than certain oppressive governments. And the survey only purports to express the opinions of journalists in many countries about how free they feel they are, it doesn't pretend to solve a centuries old open problem in philosophy and accurately define 'freedom' and then measure it.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Aggregated data means actually publishing the data they've collected not some numbers that may or may not hold any relevance. For each country they should publish how many questionnaires were issued, who they were issued too (local journalists? foreign journalists?) split abuses to actual abuse of power by the state vs the nature of reporting from conflict zones, and maybe make those filled questionnaires public with or without the actual names?
victorhooi 11y ago
I think anybody with even a rudimentary exposure to statistics, or survey methodology will tell you that what you said is, quite frankly, not even remotely true. Even a grad student could present statistics to show whatever they wanted (trust me I've done it...), and you can orient survey questions, or even ask them in a certain order that you will guarantee a certain response. It's like asking "What are your thoughts on the freedom of press that you enjoy?", versus "How do you feel about your government's attempts to curb press freedom?" As Ronald Coase said, "If you torture the data enough, nature will always confess." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase
- wfo 11y ago
  Of course it is true. What you've said is the case about literally every study that has ever been done in a huge number scientific fields. The fact that you have used statistics to lie does not mean that these people have. They published their questionnaire, you can read it. They published a detailed description of their methods, you can read them. That's the best we can do in science. It is not only malicious but even worse, lazy, to say "I don't like your results, so your methods must be bad", which is literally all I've seen in this thread. That and "country X doesn't have literally the exact same definition of freedom of speech as the U.S., how could they possibly score high on a press freedom [which is only tangentially related to freedom of speech] index?!?!?! LOL"
  - victorhooi 11y ago
    Many, many other people on this thread have already pointed out the glaring ommissions and biases in this study. You don't need to hold a magnifiying glass to see them. For example - see this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538812): > From the RFS entry on Surinam, position 22: "“public expression of hatred” towards the government is punishable by up to seven years in prison under a draconian defamation law. The controversial Dési Bouterse, who became president again in 2010 in an election, has managed to be amnestied for the 1982 murders of 15 political opponents including five journalists." > RFS on Jamaica at 10: " The very occasional physical attacks on journalists must be offset against this, but no serious act of violence or threat to media freedom has been reported since February 2009, a month that saw two cases of abuse of authority by the Kingston police." > Or even Ireland at 9: "... defamation lawsuits are common. Finally, interviewing police sources has been virtually impossible since the Garda Siochana Act of 2005, which bans police officers from talking to journalists without prior authorization." > Not a little biased are we? Amnesty for murdering journalists isnt my idea of freedom of the press, nor are defamation law suits, or a prohibition against interviewing the police. Whilst everybody loves a good US-bash, if you're actually trying to tell me reporters have it harder there than any of the above, then you are seriously deluding yourself.

by wfo 11y ago

dogma1138 11y ago

Not buying it sorry. I've read the report every year and they don't publish their aggregated data. The questionnaires are filled by local representatives of their choosing. They had have made political moves which go against their own statements and condemnations and they have quite a few very weird picks that don't even seem to correspond to their own summary of the country. And while it's true that I can't hold an intuitive understanding of the freedom of the press in various countries I can some how understand that countries where the government shuts down TV stations and news papers all day long probably have less freedom than countries where "organized crime" harasses Journalists.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Don't publish aggregated data == lying to suit an agenda. I literally can't think of any other reason.
wfo 11y ago
Okay, I'd buy that the targets of the survey may very well be pre-selected to align politically with a particular set of positions. What do you mean by aggregated data? I'm fairly well trained in mathematics and statistics but I'm not sure what that phrase means -- does it not just mean the statistics derived from the sample? And doesn't it matter mostly how /the journalists/ feel about how much press freedom they have? Journalists may very well not be effected by overreaching hate crime legislation (journalism rarely involves writing hate speech) though laypeople see it as a violation of freedom of speech. Organized crime may feel more oppressive than certain oppressive governments. And the survey only purports to express the opinions of journalists in many countries about how free they feel they are, it doesn't pretend to solve a centuries old open problem in philosophy and accurately define 'freedom' and then measure it.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Aggregated data means actually publishing the data they've collected not some numbers that may or may not hold any relevance. For each country they should publish how many questionnaires were issued, who they were issued too (local journalists? foreign journalists?) split abuses to actual abuse of power by the state vs the nature of reporting from conflict zones, and maybe make those filled questionnaires public with or without the actual names?

victorhooi 11y ago

I think anybody with even a rudimentary exposure to statistics, or survey methodology will tell you that what you said is, quite frankly, not even remotely true. Even a grad student could present statistics to show whatever they wanted (trust me I've done it...), and you can orient survey questions, or even ask them in a certain order that you will guarantee a certain response. It's like asking "What are your thoughts on the freedom of press that you enjoy?", versus "How do you feel about your government's attempts to curb press freedom?" As Ronald Coase said, "If you torture the data enough, nature will always confess." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase

wfo 11y ago
Of course it is true. What you've said is the case about literally every study that has ever been done in a huge number scientific fields. The fact that you have used statistics to lie does not mean that these people have. They published their questionnaire, you can read it. They published a detailed description of their methods, you can read them. That's the best we can do in science. It is not only malicious but even worse, lazy, to say "I don't like your results, so your methods must be bad", which is literally all I've seen in this thread. That and "country X doesn't have literally the exact same definition of freedom of speech as the U.S., how could they possibly score high on a press freedom [which is only tangentially related to freedom of speech] index?!?!?! LOL"
- victorhooi 11y ago
  Many, many other people on this thread have already pointed out the glaring ommissions and biases in this study. You don't need to hold a magnifiying glass to see them. For example - see this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538812): > From the RFS entry on Surinam, position 22: "“public expression of hatred” towards the government is punishable by up to seven years in prison under a draconian defamation law. The controversial Dési Bouterse, who became president again in 2010 in an election, has managed to be amnestied for the 1982 murders of 15 political opponents including five journalists." > RFS on Jamaica at 10: " The very occasional physical attacks on journalists must be offset against this, but no serious act of violence or threat to media freedom has been reported since February 2009, a month that saw two cases of abuse of authority by the Kingston police." > Or even Ireland at 9: "... defamation lawsuits are common. Finally, interviewing police sources has been virtually impossible since the Garda Siochana Act of 2005, which bans police officers from talking to journalists without prior authorization." > Not a little biased are we? Amnesty for murdering journalists isnt my idea of freedom of the press, nor are defamation law suits, or a prohibition against interviewing the police. Whilst everybody loves a good US-bash, if you're actually trying to tell me reporters have it harder there than any of the above, then you are seriously deluding yourself.