3 ms·

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 ha

by 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.
- wfo 10y ago
  You can quote news stories (you will always be able to find an exaggerated sensationalist piece about how terrible things are, no matter the conditions, in any country. I've read plenty of articles on HN for example that describe the U.S. police force as essentially identical to the Stasi) or you can actually ask the reporters in those countries what their experience is. Both are valuable. This survey purports to do the second. Reporters' experience may generally be expressed as relative both to surrounding countries, previous conditions in the same country, and relative to the expectations of the reporters in each country, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask them. If there was a survey of technologists that summarized their opinions on a technical issue, but there were articles about it saying something else, would you say "well, the survey is obviously biased, look at these news articles, they tell us what the facts are no matter what the experts say"? No, you would not. Because it would be disastrously foolish to ignore the opinions of experts who actually work in the field, subjective as they may be.

by wfo 11y ago

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.

wfo 10y ago
You can quote news stories (you will always be able to find an exaggerated sensationalist piece about how terrible things are, no matter the conditions, in any country. I've read plenty of articles on HN for example that describe the U.S. police force as essentially identical to the Stasi) or you can actually ask the reporters in those countries what their experience is. Both are valuable. This survey purports to do the second. Reporters' experience may generally be expressed as relative both to surrounding countries, previous conditions in the same country, and relative to the expectations of the reporters in each country, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask them. If there was a survey of technologists that summarized their opinions on a technical issue, but there were articles about it saying something else, would you say "well, the survey is obviously biased, look at these news articles, they tell us what the facts are no matter what the experts say"? No, you would not. Because it would be disastrously foolish to ignore the opinions of experts who actually work in the field, subjective as they may be.