What Impact Would Press Freedom Have on People Without It?

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
May 2, 2008
World Press Freedom Day -- May 3, 2008

Freedom of the press is treasured in the United States. This freedom is a liberty not enjoyed by everyone in the world but deemed important enough to have an entire day devoted to it. The United Nations recognizes World Press Freedom Day on May 3rd.

If press freedom were available to all, what impact would it have on the people of those countries without it now?

Comments

Comments

Joe
|
Tennessee, USA
May 2, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

A free press is only free if there is Free Enterprise that support various views. Otherwise, what is the difference between a controled government press vs a corp. controlled press?

nokia
May 3, 2008

Nokia writes:

Freedom is good, I like freedom

Catherine
|
Texas, USA
May 3, 2008

Catherine in Texas writes:

If press freedom WERE available to all, other countries' citizens would be forced to correct their governments' grammar as well.

Joe
|
Tennessee, USA
May 3, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

Freedom of the Press

To have any freedom, be it personal, civil, economic there must be some limitations donãt you think? Here in America, it has become so chaotic and monetarily oriented that publications exist which print total lies, under the legal auspicious of gossip or entertainment. Newspapers put Servicemen at risk rather than use discretion as to the Greater Good. The news industry even publishes matters without full information that place the State in jeopardy to have the first print or release.

Somehow, the dynamics have changed dramatically when a dollar is put before the Truth.

With the advent of the computer, as much as 70% of intelligence comes from Open Text.

The premiss of having Free Press was: KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL SET YOU FREE.

Be free, but, be honest and consider the purpose as overall Truth not pieces of the truth for political or fiscal purposes.

DN
|
District Of Columbia, USA
May 3, 2008

DipNote Bloggers write:

@ Catherine in Texas -- Nice catch ...and a great use of free speech!

NB
|
Pakistan
May 6, 2008

NB in Pakistan writes:

Press freedom should not mean fabricating news under the influence of dollars or power.

Lisa
|
Vermont, USA
May 6, 2008

Lisa in Vermont writes:

If press freedom were available to all?

Well that day will never happen as long as we have authoritarian leaders and governments that censor the media and have total control of the media in their countries, and imprison or murder journalist who are only trying to do their job. But if press freedom were available to all -- the impact it would have on countries without press freedom is the same impact it has on those countries now... This is not a question of "if." The people in these countries are silenced, their voices are not heard and they have no control over the sources used to communicate messages in their country. They are lagging behind the developed world in terms of access to many forms of media. However, some would argue that they are being protected from Western media globalization ? Hmmmm??

Sasha
|
California, USA
May 6, 2008

Sasha in California writes:

I think that if press freedom were available to all, then those countries without it now would be able to more freely express themselves and the citizens of those countries would be more confident to stand up and speak out about injustices in their countries.

Whether you agree with the way the U.S. press operates or not, several countries do not have the freedom to express thier views PERIOD, let alone via the press. They also dont have the press to act as a "watchdog". You may think that the media is controlled here in the U.S., but we have the luxury of having so many channels to express freedom of thought, whether it be a blog, commenting on a news story online. We have sooo many types of media representing different polticial views, cultures, etc. that its really hard to say that the media is "totally controlled", because even if you dont get one view through a major news source, there are hundreds of others that allow us to freely express our opinions. Although there is some corruption, I would agrue that it is free press in comparison to many other countries.

If these people were given the oppurtunity to express themselves without penalty there is no doubt that they would speak out, just as we do here in the United States. I think it would empower the people in these countries, it would modernize these countries, it would inform the people in these countries. I also think it would have a positive effect on us in the United States. I say that because we would be able to hear thier voices and better understand what they think, want, and need, as well as what is going on in their countries. For example, in Burma during the protests this year, before the Buremese Regime halted internet/press access, the world was able to see what was going on, to feel thier pain, to spread the news...without press freedom a window into several places in the world is shut...and Im sure they would prefer to engage and be a part of the international community....

Ronald
|
New York, USA
May 6, 2008

Ronald in New York writes:

Press Freedoms... The question implies that increasing press freedom would have a positive impact on countries where press freedoms are prohibited. Actually, suppression of press freedom is rising as global media grows. Corrupt and rogue regimes are more assaultive to media as their despotic activities increase.

Ronald
|
New York, USA
May 6, 2008

Ronald in New York writes:

Press Freedom

A strange question. Press Freedom is a function of good governance. For those in corrupt or despotic regimes, press freedoms are absent. I would think that people in repressive countries would suffer more, if their neighboring countries had a healthy functioning press.

John
|
Greece
May 7, 2008

John in Greece writes:

Nowadays is extremely difficult to have an A+ Press Freedom even in the western world. And this happens on the ground that the news chain is being constituted by various gatekeepers that affect the process: the owners, the journalists and the production faculty -- press or electronic.

All these guys, in their personal way, affect the news flow and the final product. This happens automatically and not by a Big Brother. It's logical to happens and affects the news flow. It's a reaction of the fact that in modern Communications many different people are required in order for the news to become finalized, packaged in a final product format in order to reach the audience.

The only pure, absolute Press Freedom we ever had was this classic era of the romantic cowboy movies when the owner of the local small-town newspaper was both the journalist and the printer ?and the advertiser and the publisher. He was everything, but only one person in the news chain.

Of course this cannot happen nowadays.

Nevertheless, we should all keep on fighting for Press Freedom, otherwise we will become like Russia, where if you write something that is not approved by the Kremlin you end up to have no newspaper as happened recently with the Putin fiance photo case.

Or maybe worst?

marjean
May 7, 2008

Marjean writes:

Could you have worded the question worse?

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
May 8, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I thought it might serve everyone's perspective to fully appreciate what press freedom is not.

Enjoy the reality check.

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2008&m=04&d=16&a=13

JOE
|
Tennessee, USA
May 8, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

The premise of having Free Press was: KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL SET YOU FREE.

Be free, but, be honest and consider the purpose as overall Truth not pieces of the truth for political or fiscal purposes.

I had to babysat an Editor we brought back from El Salvador in the 90's actually. ...He loved the freedoms we had here; but, did note how abusive they were in printing lies or half truths on a national level without consequence. He was appalled at the News industries level of ethics here in America.

John
|
Greece
May 9, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico -- I think that Iran is the last country in the world that can debate or talk about Press Freedom. After all, they have no Freedom in general.
Very interesting and descriptive link Eric.

As always, you are accurate and clear.

@Marjean -- If you are referring to my question (I am not absolutely sure what do you mean), I can become a little bit more specific. What I mean with the "worst"? is that loosing your newspaper due to governmental fascism is almost nothing compared to the great number of journalists, authors and media owners that have been mysteriously threatened, executed or disappeared in such places of the world.

Recently I read that 65 journalists were killed worldwide only in 2007.

Let me share some quotes with you:

"China's onerous restrictions on the media in the run up to the 2008 Olympic Games, the erosion of press freedom in many of Africa's new democracies, the criminalization of journalism in central Asia, and the increasing use of vague "antistate" charges to jail journalists around the world are among the troubling trends revealed in the new edition of Attacks on the Press."

In the introduction by CPJ (The Committee to Protect Journalists) Executive Director Joel Simon we can underline areas of the planet with a major problem concerning Press freedom:

In Russia, where "ex"-President Vladimir Putin has created a national security state ruled by spies, dissent has been redefined as ?extremism.? Under sweeping new laws, media criticism of public officials is now a criminal offence. The Kremlin?s tactic of rewriting laws to criminalize journalism has been exported to countries such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
  • In parts of Africa, where democracy has supposedly taken root after
    years of strife, press conditions have actually worsened. While accepting accolades from Western donors, repressive leaders in Ethiopia, the Gambia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have cracked down on critical media, shuttering newspapers and putting journalists in jail.
  • A similar strategy is unfolding in the Middle East, where a number of Arab governments are expressing public commitment to democratic reform while using less visible legal strategies to control the press. ?Manipulating the media, they have found, is more politically palatable to the international community than outright domination,? writes CPJ Senior Program Coordinator Joel Campagna.
  • In Venezuela, President Hugo Chᶥz Frí¡³? government forced a critical television station off the air in May 2007 by failing to renew its broadcast concession. Venezuelan authorities said they were acting within the law, but a CPJ investigation found that the process was arbitrary and politically motivated."

Moreover,

"All journalists around the world are condemning the beating of Goran Gavrilov, General Manager of Kanal 77, which rebroadcasts VOA's Macedonian-language radio programs across its nation-wide network. Mr. Gavrilov was beaten violently outside his home in Stip, on the night of January 25.

Alisher Saipov, a journalist who reported extensively for VOA's Uzbek language service was killed outside his office in Osh, Kyrgyzstan".

And, unfortunately, there are tens of other examples.

Best Regards. I look forward to read more of your posts.

Anna
|
District Of Columbia, USA
May 9, 2008

Anna in Washington, DC writes:

The world would be really different. Journalists could live without fear. In some ways, the world is freer than it has ever been, but journalists - and free speech - still face a lot of threats. Reporters without Borders shows us that in 2008 alone, 10 journalists have already been killed, 129 have been imprisoned and 63 "cyberdissidents" have been jailed. Read more at www.rsf.org.

Rabbit
|
District Of Columbia, USA
May 9, 2008

Rabbit in Washington, DC writes:

Quick thoughts of the Rabbit:

1. Putin has had an agenda.

2. Limitation and control of the press were necessary in establishing control over the Chaotic dismanteling of the former USSR to establish a more solid form of Nationalism.

3. There are times when, if descreation is not going to validate a national directive to move a country in one direction, it may be appropiate and not a direct violation of a Free Press if that Press has no validity or ethics.

4. "No Webs do we Weave"...for a reason.....

5. China also has a similiar situation in control of their massive populas. Freedom of the press may have direct negitive affect in establishing directive toward planned growth.

I agree with "Joe in Tennessee:" Freedom comes at a cost: Honesty, integrity, loyality and above all: The truth.
The only exception would be National Security Issues...and that is a reality...

.

Latest Stories

Pages