Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Tommaso Dorigo | May 1st 2009 09:29 AM | 15 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More A Quantum Diaries Survivor articles

All

About Tommaso Dorigo

I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN and the CDF experiment at Fermilab. In my spare time I play chess, abuse the piano, and aim my dobson telescope at... Full Bio

A new report on the freedom of press has been released today by freedomhouse.org. Freedom House is an independent, non-profit organization created in 1941 to monitor and defend the freedom of press in the World. The study is being presented today at the Washington News Museum, and the event can be followed via a live webcast through the organization's web site.

According to the report, freedom of press is declining everywhere, and it has been doing so for seven years in a row. The phenomenon is not just due to a few non-liberal countries:
The rollback was not confined to traditionally authoritarian states;
with Israel, Italy and Hong Kong slipping from the study's Free
category to Partly Free status [...]

Duh, they noticed. With Silvio Berlusconi back in power since last May, Italy for sure cannot be considered a country with free press - it was not so even before, when Berlusconi's party-company was at the opposition but still controlled the majority of media through direct economic influence or subtler political leverage. And now things have worsened significantly: TV anchors are constantly on the watch by the lacqueys of Berlusconi, and the pressure is very strong.

To explain to you how this pressure is not just a moral suasion but a real direct threat to journalists, it is sufficient for me to recall the "bulgarian edict", a declaration given in 2002 in the bulgarian capital Sofia by Silvio Berlusconi (he was Italy's Premier back then too), when he dictated that Biagi, Santoro and Luttazzi, two journalists and  a comedian employed in RAI, Italy's public TV network, had to be given the sack because of "the criminous use" of public TV they were making, being critical to his government:
The use that Biagi, Santoro,…what’s the other one’s name…
Luttazzi, made of public television, paid with everybody’s money, is a
criminous use. And I believe it is a precise duty of the new management
of preventing this from happening in the future.


Biagi, Santoro and Luttazzi were fired without explanations in the blink of an eye, and it took years for RAI to be forced to hire them again through legal action. While Biagi is dead, Santoro is now back in office with a new program, Annozero, but he is still receiving direct threats from Berlusconi's accolites, and has recently been subjected to an internal disciplinary action by RAI for a less than praising piece on the behavior of the government in the aftermath of the earthquake in L'Aquila. The action, needless to say, was requested by members of the government.

According to Karin Karlekar, the researcher who directed the studies of Freedom House, Italy's problem is not just the media control of Berlusconi, who is Italy's Premier, unchallenged president of the governing coalition, and little short of a dictator. (On the news today, Berlusconi declares he is "more popular than Obama, having the support of 74% of italians". He is of course lying, but his power is indeed abnormal.) The problem is also coming from the high rate of sues that journalist face for defamation, and the escalation of physical intimidation by criminal organizations.

But Italy is not alone, being ranked in the middle 31% of the distribution. Here is the breakdown, again quoting from the press release:
Out of the 195 countries and territories covered in the study, 70 (36
percent) are rated Free, 61 (31 percent) are rated Partly Free and 64
(33 percent) are rated Not Free. This represents a modest decline from
the 2008 survey in which 72 countries and territories were Free, 59
Partly Free and 64 Not Free. The new survey found that only 17 percent
of the world's population lives in countries that enjoy a Free press.

Seventeen percent. If the study is meaningful in its findings, we have a long way to go. Freedom of press is a crucial ingredient of a civilized World. Of course, if even Italy or Israel cannot give a good example, the future looks bleak.

Comments

It's not an accident that the Nordic countries have the highest scores of all countries for press freedom. They also have the most transparent and publicly accountable democracies. And the strongest wealth redistribution systems. These are not serendipitous correlations.

However, the fact that Iceland scored first place is a pity. It will lead to a lot of sniggering, given the catastrophic economic situation there.

This is a little controversial, but at least within Europe, there seems to be some correlation between how Protestant a country is (or was, traditionally) and the degree of press freedom it allows. Perhaps this is because traditionally, such churches are democratic in nature, and there is little respect for "received authority", and even though the influence of religion is in serious decline, their imprint lives on within the country's culture.

Hank's picture
Protestant countries have higher employment rates too, which means they are more capitalist.  That means freedom of the press may be a capitalist trait?   I think correlation-causation arrows are going all over the place on this one.   :)

Hank,
The Soviet Union had full employment. Everyone had a job. But they were not noted for capitalism.

Freedom of the press is a trait of democratic societies, and to my knowledge, all operate some form of mixed market capitalist economy.

I think you need to distinguish between crony capitalist countries, such as the US and Italy, where corruption is rampant and is widely tolerated, and those which operate genuine market regulation, such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which is essential for the operation of any really free market.

When crony capitalism takes over, and market regulation fails, as was clearly the case with Iceland, it doesn't matter how free your press is, how Protestant your culture. Eventually, when the chickens come home to roost, your unemployment rates are going to go through the roof.

Steve Davis's picture
It also has to be kept in mind that a free press can still be a biased press.

dorigo's picture
This is true, and in fact it shows there is more dimensionality to the problem. Imagine, in fact, that instead of a single Berlusconi, owner of most of the private TV share in Italy and dozens of newspapers -a blatant case of media control- one had twenty different subjects, all aligned with the Berlusconi government. One would still have a biased press, which would not be free, despite having a "freer" media market.

In fact I do think the organization who did the study took this into account in some way, but things are never easy, and the results may be argued to be biased themselves... In Italy, there is an "observatory" which determines the TV exposure of politicians, but the results are often criticized by those who are shown to get the largest share of exposure.

Cheers,
T.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I believe freedom of the press entails being able to freely publish one's viewpoint our perspective.  I don't believe freedom of the press is synonymous with "freedom of corporate media giants to make stuff up to sell papers".

I realize I'm being a bit frivolous, but freedom (in addition to governmental interference) should exist against corporate interference too.


dorigo's picture
Gerhard, I agree, but I think it is very hard to be decoupled in the media market. Unless one allows for government contributions to media subjects -which is a controversial thing which has its dark sides too. In Italy, for instance, every newspaper receives funds just for being there, because we value a varied offer on the market and we sustain small fishes. However, this is a widely abused practice, with fictitious newspapers that are there just to get the funds.

Cheers,
T.

Mr. Adam,

I heartily concur with you. There are responsibilities that exist with 'Rights' and 'Freedoms' which both the individual citizen, and the corporate citizen must honor by their actions...lest the abuse of said 'Rights' for some personal or corporate agenda leads to the collapse of the whole system.

Freedom of the Press is usually the first to go, in such instances, as my relatives who lived in Eastern Europe in the last century would emphatically point out...

Truth in what one speaks, or publishes, is the foundation of the issue, and the courts in particular enforce this by standards of conduct for perjury...

We have the First Amendment, and there are some requirements to be held by those who use that...

Here is what the type of philosophy someone of the American Revolutionary era who schooled at Harvard or Princeton would have learned about being truthful in one's speechs or publications:

"The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report." ---Westminster Larger Catechism, Q.144.

Gee, how does the modern press correlate with the above concept?

Steve Davis's picture
Exactly Gerhard. The publishing of dissenting opinions is almost meaningless when these are swamped by pro-corporate content, yet such a situation is referred to as a free press. 

dorigo's picture
Ok, but what do you propose then ? What would be a good system ? Or even better: how could we set up a system that evolves naturally to one where there is a real freedom of the press (save forced intervention from the government, I mean) ?

I myself cannot answer these questions meaningfully, although I am certainly able to detect a bad system...

Cheers,
T.

Steve Davis's picture
It's a good question Tommaso, and my initial response was government intervention, but I see you've ruled that out although I think a case could be argued along those lines.
Probably the best way to find an answer would be to take a close look at the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was extensive newspaper ownership by community organisations, to examine their rise and fall.

Hank's picture
Probably the best way to find an answer would be to take a close look at the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was extensive newspaper ownership by community organisations, to examine their rise and fall.

The criticisms were the same even then.   The term 'yellow journalism' arose for a reason and even Pulitzer was criticized for populist shilling and political manipulation.   

There can't be successful media that doesn't involve money.  If you've read most citizen journalism, it is just rehashed popular media or weird conspiracy theories.  Even government funding does not solve that problem since then it becomes a blatant political football.

dorigo's picture
Of course, studying past history is a sound way to get the correct background. I am rather ignorant on the matter, so for sure that'd do me good. Better still would be if those who govern us took the time to do so, but they are usually the most ignorant among us.

I am not opposing a government intervention in the press market, by the way. I am just saying that in Italy it is not working well, but so are many things there... I think a well-controlled intervention might do the job.

Cheers,
T.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I think we need to avoid confusing a "free press" with an accurate or unbiased one. 

No one will ever be able to avoid the "yellow" journalism or pushing of agendas.  My main criticism is that we need to ensure that whatever information is published is as free of direct manipulation as possible.  We can already see that corporate media has gotten far too close to the people they are reporting on, and will most often present information from the perspective of the status quo (to ensure future access) than to do any real investigation or reporting of useful information.

There is little argument that the 24/7 news cycle has also had a detrimental effect by escalating the demand for viewers and consequently exerting market pressures on what even constitutes news.

Perhaps one step in the right direction would be to require that news organizations be non-profit.  It certainly isn't a perfect solution, but perhaps the removal of the profit motive might ensure that more equitable and proper treatment is given to such an important charge (freedom of the press).

Certainly there are aspects of the internet that have done well in provided different perspectives so that an individual has better access to diverse sources of information.

There used to be laws that prohibited companies from owning television media and printed media within the same area, as these were intended to prevent a singular view from being expressed by a single entity.

In short, for freedom of the press to be meaningful, we need to ensure that the proper protections are in place so that individuals that want to report on information have as much insulation from retaliation as possible.  Similarly, there needs to be a fine line that ensures that malicious reporting is also guarded against, so that someone cannot simply exploit this freedom to the detriment of innocent parties.

In addition to "freedom of the press", there has been an extension (unjustified) as the "public's right to know".  These are not the same thing and there are many things that the public does NOT have a right to know, so this would be another area that should be carefully examined to determine whether information dispersal is helpful or harmful (consider pre-trail publicity where often guilty or innocence is determined before the first piece of evidence is presented).

This also extends to the practice where news outlets have extended their "freedom of the press" to blatantly push agendas by having programs detected to opinion only.  If there is no reporting going on, it is not proper that corporate financial power should be able to dictate which opinions are heard.  That is propagandizing and (in my opinion) not protected speech when it has the corporate media reach behind it.  It is improper when information should become a product so that individuals expressing opinions should be able to become rich simply from manipulating such information (hence my non-profit suggestion earlier).

There is no question that getting information (and even inaccurate or biased) views, but they should not be fueled by economic power that is disproportionate to the ability of others to respond.

dorigo's picture
Hello Gerhard,

it would be indeed a good thing if press organizations were non-profit, but I do not see an evolutionary strategy working in that direction. Or maybe I am - blogs are in fact the closest one gets to such a thing.
We will have to see how they evolve, though - in fact, the information industry has started swallowing blogs and turned them into business. Ahem, I am part of the problem, not the solution, it seems ;-)

Cheers,
T.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.