5 ms·

This is the same in every country, including the US where entire agencies will just stop talking to you if you piss them off (especially police departments.) It

This is the same in every country, including the US where entire agencies will just stop talking to you if you piss them off (especially police departments.) It's one of the ways we get all this propaganda even though we have a nominally "free" press.

nverno 4y ago
It's not "the same" at all. It's a matter of degrees, which make a huge difference.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  It's no different at all. You'll be excluded from press clubs and conferences just the same. Identical situation.
  - nverno 4y ago
    You can piss people/agencies off anywhere, true. But, the bar for what is expected to be tolerable behavior/reporting is vastly different.
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    not really. Japan runs under a unitary government that has almost exclusively been controlled by a single party since the post-war era. The US is a federalized country with quite big cultural differences between states, and at least alternates between two major parties, and frequently shifting administrations. You can at most get canceled by one side. Japan is centralized and monolithic to an extent that really has no parallel in any other democratic country.
    - SenHeng 4y ago
      > Japan is centralized and monolithic to an extent that really has no parallel in any other democratic country Singapore? The press doesn’t just toe the official line, they actively attack opposite viewpoints.
      - thematrixturtle 4y ago
        The previous poster did say "democratic". Despite the fig leaf of elections, Singapore has been ruled by the same party since independence, which straight up owns all licensed newspapers, TV and radio stations. Bonus points: the TV/radio wing has the delightfully Orwellian name of MediaCorp, and MediaCorp Radio at one point had the amazing slogan "MediaCorp Radio: Your choice!".
        pas 4y ago
        so what makes Japan more democratic? (is there some power consolidation index that can distinguish between Singapore and Japan effectively?)
        aikinai 4y ago
        The Japanese ruling party has actually lost power and smoothly transitioned.
        pas 4y ago
        > The LDP has been in power almost continuously since its foundation in 1955—a period called the 1955 System—except between 1993 and 1994, and again from 2009 to 2012. in theory there's no problem with this, after all if they represent the plurality ... just as in theory many political systems should work just fine. and it's certainly possible that this is what the vast majority of people there wants, so it might score 100% on "democracy", even if there are certain very obvious problems (let's say their insane justice system, or the simple fact that their population is both shrinking and ageing)
        WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        Opposition candidates who might have a chance are not systematically made ineligible on bogus charge of tax evasion or contempt of court like in Singapore. As an example, John Tan was disqualified for standing as a candidate to the parliament in 2019 because he posted a Facebook post in support of an activist who posted than Malaysian courts were more independent than Singapore ones in trials involving politicians.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      That's not really relevant. The causes are the same (they don't like what you say) and the effects are the same (you don't get to say it.) However you get from A to be, you get from A to B.
- vt85 4y ago
- pessimizer 4y ago
  With police departments, it might be worse. Imagine any local news outlet frozen out of police communications. The choice is to cease to exist, or to fire or demote the person that the cops want fired or demoted. If you live in the US, the reason you've seen 900 videos of cops dancing with children, opening fire hydrants, and handing out toys (on every network news show on the same day) is because they're press released by the cops, and there will be retaliation if the videos don't get on the air.
pmoriarty 4y ago
"This is the same in every country, including the US where entire agencies will just stop talking to you if you piss them off" They only stop talking to you through official channels. There will always be leakers, disgruntled employees and others willing to talk to you anonymously or unofficially. Not to mention that you can talk to people and ask questions without announcing that you're a reporter. This used to be called investigative journalism.
- dmurray 4y ago
  Investigative journalism is at an all time low at the moment: it's simply too expensive. Rephrased press releases from corporations, government bodies and celebrities sell just as well and the PR firms take full advantage of that.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >Investigative journalism is at an all time low at the moment: it's simply too expensive. I would just say it's not as profitable. Many independent journalists seem to do investigative journalism on the cheap. Wikileaks comes to mind. Saying it' too expensive, to me, denotes that they are unable to do it and be a sustainable enterprise, which is probably not accurate.
- watwut 4y ago
  It is not that frequent and it is difficult/expensive to verify those stories. Plus, anonymous/unofficial source is not much. To large extend, it amounts to gossip and a lot of it is basically unuseable.
- trs8080 4y ago
  Beat reporting and investigative journalism are very different "genres" of journalism. > They only stop talking to you through official channels. There will always be leakers, disgruntled employees and others willing to talk to you anonymously or unofficially. You cannot sustain beat reporting by relying on leakers and disgruntled employees. Furthermore, anonymous sources are not credible (ie, the news-consuming public largely does not trust them). Most of the time, simple facts need to be reported and the only way to do that is by talking to credible sources that have been developed over time. Not all journalism is investigative - what happens when you want to report on a new housing development but you've burned all your sources because you only talk to leakers and disgruntled employees? Or you're reporting on a crime and need to talk to some cops? > Not to mention that you can talk to people and ask questions without announcing that you're a reporter. City officials are pretty well trained to know when the person on the other end of the line is a reporter. Not to mention how incredibly unethical this is (won't even start on the legal issues here).
germanier 4y ago
Even they often try to cross the line, all German public agencies including police are required (by law in the states, by constitution for the federal level) to answer journalists' questions.
csdreamer7 4y ago
Yes and no. Trump actually had a reporter's white house press credentials revoked and a court reversed it. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-reporter/u-s-appeals-court-blocks-white-house-from-suspending-reporters-press-pass-idUSKBN23C2P https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-reporter/u-s-ap... The court does recognize the government has a right to prevent unruly behavior. But once it creates a forum with rules on who attends; it simply can not target those who disagree with it's speech. Yes, American agencies have stonewalled in the past but the 1st and 14th amendments do place restrictions and practices the governments must follow or their acts can be blocked and that American courts do uphold. As far as I know most countries do not have these practices.

nverno 4y ago

It's not "the same" at all. It's a matter of degrees, which make a huge difference.

guerrilla 4y ago
It's no different at all. You'll be excluded from press clubs and conferences just the same. Identical situation.
- nverno 4y ago
  You can piss people/agencies off anywhere, true. But, the bar for what is expected to be tolerable behavior/reporting is vastly different.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  not really. Japan runs under a unitary government that has almost exclusively been controlled by a single party since the post-war era. The US is a federalized country with quite big cultural differences between states, and at least alternates between two major parties, and frequently shifting administrations. You can at most get canceled by one side. Japan is centralized and monolithic to an extent that really has no parallel in any other democratic country.
  - SenHeng 4y ago
    > Japan is centralized and monolithic to an extent that really has no parallel in any other democratic country Singapore? The press doesn’t just toe the official line, they actively attack opposite viewpoints.
    - thematrixturtle 4y ago
      The previous poster did say "democratic". Despite the fig leaf of elections, Singapore has been ruled by the same party since independence, which straight up owns all licensed newspapers, TV and radio stations. Bonus points: the TV/radio wing has the delightfully Orwellian name of MediaCorp, and MediaCorp Radio at one point had the amazing slogan "MediaCorp Radio: Your choice!".
      - pas 4y ago
        so what makes Japan more democratic? (is there some power consolidation index that can distinguish between Singapore and Japan effectively?)
        aikinai 4y ago
        The Japanese ruling party has actually lost power and smoothly transitioned.
        pas 4y ago
        > The LDP has been in power almost continuously since its foundation in 1955—a period called the 1955 System—except between 1993 and 1994, and again from 2009 to 2012. in theory there's no problem with this, after all if they represent the plurality ... just as in theory many political systems should work just fine. and it's certainly possible that this is what the vast majority of people there wants, so it might score 100% on "democracy", even if there are certain very obvious problems (let's say their insane justice system, or the simple fact that their population is both shrinking and ageing)
        WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        Opposition candidates who might have a chance are not systematically made ineligible on bogus charge of tax evasion or contempt of court like in Singapore. As an example, John Tan was disqualified for standing as a candidate to the parliament in 2019 because he posted a Facebook post in support of an activist who posted than Malaysian courts were more independent than Singapore ones in trials involving politicians.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    That's not really relevant. The causes are the same (they don't like what you say) and the effects are the same (you don't get to say it.) However you get from A to be, you get from A to B.
vt85 4y ago
pessimizer 4y ago
With police departments, it might be worse. Imagine any local news outlet frozen out of police communications. The choice is to cease to exist, or to fire or demote the person that the cops want fired or demoted. If you live in the US, the reason you've seen 900 videos of cops dancing with children, opening fire hydrants, and handing out toys (on every network news show on the same day) is because they're press released by the cops, and there will be retaliation if the videos don't get on the air.

pmoriarty 4y ago

"This is the same in every country, including the US where entire agencies will just stop talking to you if you piss them off" They only stop talking to you through official channels. There will always be leakers, disgruntled employees and others willing to talk to you anonymously or unofficially. Not to mention that you can talk to people and ask questions without announcing that you're a reporter. This used to be called investigative journalism.

dmurray 4y ago
Investigative journalism is at an all time low at the moment: it's simply too expensive. Rephrased press releases from corporations, government bodies and celebrities sell just as well and the PR firms take full advantage of that.
- Clubber 4y ago
  >Investigative journalism is at an all time low at the moment: it's simply too expensive. I would just say it's not as profitable. Many independent journalists seem to do investigative journalism on the cheap. Wikileaks comes to mind. Saying it' too expensive, to me, denotes that they are unable to do it and be a sustainable enterprise, which is probably not accurate.
watwut 4y ago
It is not that frequent and it is difficult/expensive to verify those stories. Plus, anonymous/unofficial source is not much. To large extend, it amounts to gossip and a lot of it is basically unuseable.
trs8080 4y ago
Beat reporting and investigative journalism are very different "genres" of journalism. > They only stop talking to you through official channels. There will always be leakers, disgruntled employees and others willing to talk to you anonymously or unofficially. You cannot sustain beat reporting by relying on leakers and disgruntled employees. Furthermore, anonymous sources are not credible (ie, the news-consuming public largely does not trust them). Most of the time, simple facts need to be reported and the only way to do that is by talking to credible sources that have been developed over time. Not all journalism is investigative - what happens when you want to report on a new housing development but you've burned all your sources because you only talk to leakers and disgruntled employees? Or you're reporting on a crime and need to talk to some cops? > Not to mention that you can talk to people and ask questions without announcing that you're a reporter. City officials are pretty well trained to know when the person on the other end of the line is a reporter. Not to mention how incredibly unethical this is (won't even start on the legal issues here).

germanier 4y ago

Even they often try to cross the line, all German public agencies including police are required (by law in the states, by constitution for the federal level) to answer journalists' questions.

csdreamer7 4y ago

Yes and no. Trump actually had a reporter's white house press credentials revoked and a court reversed it. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-reporter/u-s-appeals-court-blocks-white-house-from-suspending-reporters-press-pass-idUSKBN23C2P https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-reporter/u-s-ap... The court does recognize the government has a right to prevent unruly behavior. But once it creates a forum with rules on who attends; it simply can not target those who disagree with it's speech. Yes, American agencies have stonewalled in the past but the 1st and 14th amendments do place restrictions and practices the governments must follow or their acts can be blocked and that American courts do uphold. As far as I know most countries do not have these practices.