3 ms·

Well what does that have to do with journalistic freedom, which is what this list aims to measure? This is about how states treat the media, not how the media

Well what does that have to do with journalistic freedom, which is what this list aims to measure? This is about how states treat the media, not how the media independently behaves.

gtsop 6y ago
Greece's government paid millions of euros to the mainstream media so that they allign with the government's narative on how the pandemic is being handled. They also give out non-papers to prevent media from saying bad things about the president. The police recently heavily restricted the freedom of journalists covering demonstrations. Is it clear now? That's just the tip
- nkozyra 6y ago
  I think that's very different than what they're attempting to capture here. Bribery is a little different than coercion by force. Bribery is something even the freest of institute is susceptible. Edit: it very explicitly defines this in the article. Media's ability to provide unbiased journalism independent to the state is not a metric. Indeed in a relatively free US there is terrible journalism everywhere you look. It's just not under the thumb of the state.
  - gtsop 6y ago
    I don't think your argument is very valid based on what they say their metrics are. Listing the relevant ones: Pluralism, Media independence, Legislative framework, Transparency. These are the metrics relevant to the examples I gave earlier. I don't think the score is fair. I did a bit of diging on their website and there is some coverage on many of the examples I listed, which surprises me. It may truly be a visualization issue
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      I think you're misinterpreting those metrics, though. This is entirely about the states ability to suppress freedom. Are there more examples you left out? Because freedom does not preclude the susceptibility to bribery.
      - bondarchuk 6y ago
        https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology >The criteria evaluated in the questionnaire are pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information. Bribery clearly falls into "media independence", perhaps also "self-censorship" (censor yourself to get free money). Their description of media independence: >Measures the degree to which the media are able to function independently of sources of political, governmental, business and religious power and influence. Again I think bribery and other soft/financial coercion should clearly be included here.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        When even the most free institutions could fall to bribery I really don't see how that could be a factor. Freedom does not preclude vulnerability to greed
        bondarchuk 6y ago
        Even if something is unavoidable, it can still be a barrier to freedom. Besides, I think there are lots of steps possible to limit bribery, from better living standards to closer scrutiny of money flows to the general culture of tacit acceptance, making it easier to report, etcetera. Also I don't see why bribery is different than e.g. violence or state persecution. "Even the freest institute is susceptible to state violence", you might say just as well.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        > Even if something is unavoidable, it can still be a barrier to freedom If it's equally possible in completely free and completely unfree scenarios how can you use it as a metric to show something is not free?
        bondarchuk 6y ago
mustafa_pasi 6y ago
If they are bought and paid for, then powerful entities don't need to suppress them through blackmail or violence. So without accounting for corrupt journalism the metric of journalistic freedom alone is misleading.
- nkozyra 6y ago
  You're right but what you're actually describing is an indicator of freedom. If I can compell you with the stick i have no reason to offer you a carrot

Well what does that have to do with journalistic freedom, which is what this list aims to measure? This is about how states treat the media, not how the media independently behaves.

gtsop 6y ago

Greece's government paid millions of euros to the mainstream media so that they allign with the government's narative on how the pandemic is being handled. They also give out non-papers to prevent media from saying bad things about the president. The police recently heavily restricted the freedom of journalists covering demonstrations. Is it clear now? That's just the tip

nkozyra 6y ago
I think that's very different than what they're attempting to capture here. Bribery is a little different than coercion by force. Bribery is something even the freest of institute is susceptible. Edit: it very explicitly defines this in the article. Media's ability to provide unbiased journalism independent to the state is not a metric. Indeed in a relatively free US there is terrible journalism everywhere you look. It's just not under the thumb of the state.
- gtsop 6y ago
  I don't think your argument is very valid based on what they say their metrics are. Listing the relevant ones: Pluralism, Media independence, Legislative framework, Transparency. These are the metrics relevant to the examples I gave earlier. I don't think the score is fair. I did a bit of diging on their website and there is some coverage on many of the examples I listed, which surprises me. It may truly be a visualization issue
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    I think you're misinterpreting those metrics, though. This is entirely about the states ability to suppress freedom. Are there more examples you left out? Because freedom does not preclude the susceptibility to bribery.
    - bondarchuk 6y ago
      https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology >The criteria evaluated in the questionnaire are pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information. Bribery clearly falls into "media independence", perhaps also "self-censorship" (censor yourself to get free money). Their description of media independence: >Measures the degree to which the media are able to function independently of sources of political, governmental, business and religious power and influence. Again I think bribery and other soft/financial coercion should clearly be included here.
      - nkozyra 6y ago
        When even the most free institutions could fall to bribery I really don't see how that could be a factor. Freedom does not preclude vulnerability to greed
        bondarchuk 6y ago
        Even if something is unavoidable, it can still be a barrier to freedom. Besides, I think there are lots of steps possible to limit bribery, from better living standards to closer scrutiny of money flows to the general culture of tacit acceptance, making it easier to report, etcetera. Also I don't see why bribery is different than e.g. violence or state persecution. "Even the freest institute is susceptible to state violence", you might say just as well.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        > Even if something is unavoidable, it can still be a barrier to freedom If it's equally possible in completely free and completely unfree scenarios how can you use it as a metric to show something is not free?
        bondarchuk 6y ago

mustafa_pasi 6y ago

If they are bought and paid for, then powerful entities don't need to suppress them through blackmail or violence. So without accounting for corrupt journalism the metric of journalistic freedom alone is misleading.

nkozyra 6y ago
You're right but what you're actually describing is an indicator of freedom. If I can compell you with the stick i have no reason to offer you a carrot