5 ms·

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 framew

by 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
        Sorry I really don't know what you're on about, I'm done with this conversation.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        It's usually not necessary to announce you're done unless you want to get the last word for some reason. In the case that you are interested, ability to be bribed is not a feature or attribute unique to freedom or lack thereof and therefore cannot be a discriminator. Kites can be red. Shoes can be red. If red then kite is an example of the logical error.
        gtsop 6y ago
        You are looking at things in a vacumn and that's what preventing you from seeing the point here. When a gov actively bribes media it's not "just" an act of bribing that could or couldn't have happened. It implies pre-existing relationships between gov and media. It implies allignment of interests between gov and media. It implies will to comply to yhe gov. It implies future bonding between gov and media. Technically, the media are still "free". But we don't really care about the freedom of media to allign with the status quo. We care about the opposite. The reason media is useful and thr reason we care for oppression of the press is because we want media that can report against the gov who may have potentially done something bad. In that context, in real life, bribery is an indirect form of control. It's an indirect form of restricting freedom
- gtsop 6y ago
  Ok, let's not talk semantics then. Let's talk essence. If these metrics portray this country as a "good enough" place for journalism, then these metrics are of no value, because the reality is: mainstream journalism is broken to the point of causing harm to the citizens. Soft bribe, hard bribe, little corruption, much corruption... Does it matter? Not to me, the end result is bad. I don't care if journalists willingly play the government's game or not. Maybe I'm not the intended audience for this report > Are there more examples you left out? Because freedom does not preclude the susceptibility to bribery. Yes there are multiple reports of police preventing indepedent journalists from covering hot controversial topics. There are reports of that on the site itself
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    > If these metrics portray this country as a "good enough" place for journalism I think that's the issue: it's measuring a good enough place for journalistic freedom. That doesn't ensure the press will behave in an unbiased way.

by gtsop 6y ago

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
        Sorry I really don't know what you're on about, I'm done with this conversation.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        It's usually not necessary to announce you're done unless you want to get the last word for some reason. In the case that you are interested, ability to be bribed is not a feature or attribute unique to freedom or lack thereof and therefore cannot be a discriminator. Kites can be red. Shoes can be red. If red then kite is an example of the logical error.
        gtsop 6y ago
        You are looking at things in a vacumn and that's what preventing you from seeing the point here. When a gov actively bribes media it's not "just" an act of bribing that could or couldn't have happened. It implies pre-existing relationships between gov and media. It implies allignment of interests between gov and media. It implies will to comply to yhe gov. It implies future bonding between gov and media. Technically, the media are still "free". But we don't really care about the freedom of media to allign with the status quo. We care about the opposite. The reason media is useful and thr reason we care for oppression of the press is because we want media that can report against the gov who may have potentially done something bad. In that context, in real life, bribery is an indirect form of control. It's an indirect form of restricting freedom
gtsop 6y ago
Ok, let's not talk semantics then. Let's talk essence. If these metrics portray this country as a "good enough" place for journalism, then these metrics are of no value, because the reality is: mainstream journalism is broken to the point of causing harm to the citizens. Soft bribe, hard bribe, little corruption, much corruption... Does it matter? Not to me, the end result is bad. I don't care if journalists willingly play the government's game or not. Maybe I'm not the intended audience for this report > Are there more examples you left out? Because freedom does not preclude the susceptibility to bribery. Yes there are multiple reports of police preventing indepedent journalists from covering hot controversial topics. There are reports of that on the site itself
- nkozyra 6y ago
  > If these metrics portray this country as a "good enough" place for journalism I think that's the issue: it's measuring a good enough place for journalistic freedom. That doesn't ensure the press will behave in an unbiased way.