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

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.