7 ms·

Dangerous is not a "value judgement." A country where journalists may feel intimidated to death because crazy men with guns are angry about their duty of report

Dangerous is not a "value judgement." A country where journalists may feel intimidated to death because crazy men with guns are angry about their duty of reporting (with one incident in 2015 also) is a pretty dangerous place to do responsible, non-corruptible reporting, period. The feeling left hanging in the air is that the situation can worsen with the years as wackos multiply themselves.

Brendinooo 8y ago
Two events caused 6 deaths in the US (one event is a non-factor if you don't do hurricane reporting). Zero deaths in China, but 60 journalists were detained. If you were a journalist, in which country would you feel safer and more capable of doing your work with integrity? What about Egypt? Still no deaths, fewer detainees. "Death count" is a fact, "dangerous" is more up for interpretation. NBC used the latter word that the report did not use, and "dangerous" and "deadly" are not interchangeable.
- simion314 8y ago
  Why is China the base line? So if X is worse in China then all is great, let's point at China.
  - Brendinooo 8y ago
    China doesn't have to be the baseline. I'm trying to say that NBC News was dishonest in its use of the word "dangerous." Don't want to use China? What about Egypt? Or what about Russia? zero deaths, zero jailed, zero hostages. Think that Russia is a less dangerous place to do journalism than the United States? I have my answer, but I could see you having a different answer based on how you view the populaces and governments and the US as well as the kind of journalism that you want to do. Thus, "dangerous" is a value judgment, compared to "deadly", which is the term the original report used.
    - simion314 8y ago
      Why not have the baseline to be zero deaths, then if you prefer you can add more dimensions like journalists arrested etc, then we can create a metric and maybe you can find one where you can rank China and Russia over US but you still have US rank over the countries with no kills and no arrests. Your point seems to be a "what about" China/Russia or other extreme country.
      - Brendinooo 8y ago
        I think you're missing my point. NBC's headline is deceptive: there is no "most dangerous countries" list in the cited report. Furthermore, using the word dangerous is far more subjective than "deadly", which is made evident by the fact that we seem to disagree on what constitutes a dangerous country. My comparisons to other countries is trying to make the point that you can be a country with zero everything and still be more "dangerous" than a country that experienced a mass shooting and a hurricane. This is why I object to NBC News conflating the two words and suggesting that the US is more dangerous than it is. Also, how realistic is a baseline of zero deaths? >Least likely to die on the job were people in sales, with fewer than 2 deaths per 100,000, and management, with about 2 ½.[0] Those two salesmen probably weren't murdered, they probably fell down the stairs in the office or were hit by a car crossing the street. This could have happened to a journalist or two this year as well in addition to what's in this report. But while zero deaths is a noble goal, I don't think it's a useful baseline for the profession of journalism. No job has zero hazards. [0]: http://www.safebee.com/health/most-and-least-dangerous-jobs-us http://www.safebee.com/health/most-and-least-dangerous-jobs-...
        simion314 8y ago
        You still ignore the countries where 0 journalists were killed by an angry person because of that they wrote or represent. I agree US is not as dangerous as China,Russia etc but is more dangerous then the rest of the countries, you want to draw a base line somewhere above US "danger" level ,(again keep in mind this is a global comparison of journalists that died at work not random accidents)
msj29 8y ago
Matt Taibbi has just written an entire book on the media called, what else - Hate Inc - taibbi.substack.com - you can easily see how much the media itself is responsible for stirring the pot.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
As Charlie Hebdo case shows, no country is immune to angry people with guns.
- miramardesign 8y ago
  no country with muslim immigration. japan is doing fine.

Brendinooo 8y ago

Two events caused 6 deaths in the US (one event is a non-factor if you don't do hurricane reporting). Zero deaths in China, but 60 journalists were detained. If you were a journalist, in which country would you feel safer and more capable of doing your work with integrity? What about Egypt? Still no deaths, fewer detainees. "Death count" is a fact, "dangerous" is more up for interpretation. NBC used the latter word that the report did not use, and "dangerous" and "deadly" are not interchangeable.

simion314 8y ago
Why is China the base line? So if X is worse in China then all is great, let's point at China.
- Brendinooo 8y ago
  China doesn't have to be the baseline. I'm trying to say that NBC News was dishonest in its use of the word "dangerous." Don't want to use China? What about Egypt? Or what about Russia? zero deaths, zero jailed, zero hostages. Think that Russia is a less dangerous place to do journalism than the United States? I have my answer, but I could see you having a different answer based on how you view the populaces and governments and the US as well as the kind of journalism that you want to do. Thus, "dangerous" is a value judgment, compared to "deadly", which is the term the original report used.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Why not have the baseline to be zero deaths, then if you prefer you can add more dimensions like journalists arrested etc, then we can create a metric and maybe you can find one where you can rank China and Russia over US but you still have US rank over the countries with no kills and no arrests. Your point seems to be a "what about" China/Russia or other extreme country.
    - Brendinooo 8y ago
      I think you're missing my point. NBC's headline is deceptive: there is no "most dangerous countries" list in the cited report. Furthermore, using the word dangerous is far more subjective than "deadly", which is made evident by the fact that we seem to disagree on what constitutes a dangerous country. My comparisons to other countries is trying to make the point that you can be a country with zero everything and still be more "dangerous" than a country that experienced a mass shooting and a hurricane. This is why I object to NBC News conflating the two words and suggesting that the US is more dangerous than it is. Also, how realistic is a baseline of zero deaths? >Least likely to die on the job were people in sales, with fewer than 2 deaths per 100,000, and management, with about 2 ½.[0] Those two salesmen probably weren't murdered, they probably fell down the stairs in the office or were hit by a car crossing the street. This could have happened to a journalist or two this year as well in addition to what's in this report. But while zero deaths is a noble goal, I don't think it's a useful baseline for the profession of journalism. No job has zero hazards. [0]: http://www.safebee.com/health/most-and-least-dangerous-jobs-us http://www.safebee.com/health/most-and-least-dangerous-jobs-...
      - simion314 8y ago
        You still ignore the countries where 0 journalists were killed by an angry person because of that they wrote or represent. I agree US is not as dangerous as China,Russia etc but is more dangerous then the rest of the countries, you want to draw a base line somewhere above US "danger" level ,(again keep in mind this is a global comparison of journalists that died at work not random accidents)

msj29 8y ago

Matt Taibbi has just written an entire book on the media called, what else - Hate Inc - taibbi.substack.com - you can easily see how much the media itself is responsible for stirring the pot.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago

As Charlie Hebdo case shows, no country is immune to angry people with guns.

miramardesign 8y ago
no country with muslim immigration. japan is doing fine.