4 ms·

You guessed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Couso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Couso

sonnyblarney 7y ago
If this is your 'evidence' - then you've basically made my argument for me. A journalist who died in a combat zone, in what was by general consensus an accident - is in fact evidence that the US does have a fairly free and open press. The US gains little from independent journalists in a war zone, the Russians would have dropped a bomb on the building and never said sorry - or dropped a bomb on the next building to force them out. There are more press outlets in the US, of more variety (i.e. pro-gov, anti-gov, pro-civil liberties) than any state in the world. Though the US gov. does work with major outlets in time of war, that's clearly not the case otherwise. Most major press outlets are attacking the Executive wing on a daily basis. I don't need to visit CNN today to know that they are trying to call out Trump on something or the other. Contrast that with Canada or UK wherein the primary broadcasters are state-owned. Though at 'arms length' and nominally 'independent' - they nevertheless represent the interests of the state. Contrast again with Russia - where outlets are either directly owned/run by, or directly controlled by the state, and if they're not - they'r coerced. Journalists who exposes corruption in the Russian state or in business are routinely murdered, threatened, locked up arbitrarily. You can read about Russian media here [1] But the broader issue is - what kind of anger must people have to defy reality in such a manner as your comment has indicated? Nobody could seriously make the claim that America doesn't have a fairly open press by any reasonable international standard. There are 500 channels blabbing all day about everything. There are protests everywhere. There are leaks, Twitter wars, everyone has an opinion. There was reporting literally today about possible ill behaviour by the NSA. Contrast this with the death of journos in Russia who speak out. Contrast this with the total absence of free information in China, not just by journalists, but by citizens - wherein any hint of public discussion about certain subjects is met with the full violence of the state. None of this is contentious, it's well known and objective. And so how do intelligent people come to upside down conclusions? That's the interest part in this. FYI here is the press freedom index whereby you can see exactly which countries have specifically what kinds of problems with regards to press freedoms. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

If this is your 'evidence' - then you've basically made my argument for me. A journalist who died in a combat zone, in what was by general consensus an accident - is in fact evidence that the US does have a fairly free and open press. The US gains little from independent journalists in a war zone, the Russians would have dropped a bomb on the building and never said sorry - or dropped a bomb on the next building to force them out. There are more press outlets in the US, of more variety (i.e. pro-gov, anti-gov, pro-civil liberties) than any state in the world. Though the US gov. does work with major outlets in time of war, that's clearly not the case otherwise. Most major press outlets are attacking the Executive wing on a daily basis. I don't need to visit CNN today to know that they are trying to call out Trump on something or the other. Contrast that with Canada or UK wherein the primary broadcasters are state-owned. Though at 'arms length' and nominally 'independent' - they nevertheless represent the interests of the state. Contrast again with Russia - where outlets are either directly owned/run by, or directly controlled by the state, and if they're not - they'r coerced. Journalists who exposes corruption in the Russian state or in business are routinely murdered, threatened, locked up arbitrarily. You can read about Russian media here [1] But the broader issue is - what kind of anger must people have to defy reality in such a manner as your comment has indicated? Nobody could seriously make the claim that America doesn't have a fairly open press by any reasonable international standard. There are 500 channels blabbing all day about everything. There are protests everywhere. There are leaks, Twitter wars, everyone has an opinion. There was reporting literally today about possible ill behaviour by the NSA. Contrast this with the death of journos in Russia who speak out. Contrast this with the total absence of free information in China, not just by journalists, but by citizens - wherein any hint of public discussion about certain subjects is met with the full violence of the state. None of this is contentious, it's well known and objective. And so how do intelligent people come to upside down conclusions? That's the interest part in this. FYI here is the press freedom index whereby you can see exactly which countries have specifically what kinds of problems with regards to press freedoms. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index