Press freedom declines worldwide

<p>from the article..."...Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization that supports democracy and freedom of the media, said in its annual press freedom survey that "negative trends" outweighed "positive movements in every region, particularly in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and North Africa."..."</p>

<p>link to article <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/01/press.freedom/index.html">http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/01/press.freedom/index.html</a></p>

<p>I had a look at the article, and an accompanying report, and while I found definitions for some terms, did not see what they meant by "Free", "Partly Free" and "Not Free." On one hand it ought to be obvious; on the other, it did not quite seem that way. The most basic terms used to summarize things went unexplained. </p>

<p>The definition of terms - free, partly free, not free - used by Freedom House can be found, or at least inferred from context, on their website and a few other sites. While their survey methodology has occasionally been criticized, the terms appear to be defined within the context of their survey and report methodology. I haven't read enough of their PDFs to find a quick definition, tho', and it doesn't seem to be in their FAQ either.<br>

<br /> <a href="http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1">Freedom House website</a></p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House">Wiki article</a></p>

<p>Traditionally it's not unusual for news media reports to omit minutiae in printed and broadcast reports. Newspapers and news magazines seldom cite specific sources for background detail other than in full length in-depth reports and series. TV and radio news virtually never cite background info. But I'm disappointed to see "old media" organizations like CNN fail to take advantage of some of the most basic advantages of the internet, such as hyperlinks for the convenience of readers wanting background information. It's lazy journalism and there isn't much excuse for it these days. Not to get too far off on a tangent, but it's another example of why the traditional media have become increasingly irrelevant.</p>

<p>Tom - Thanks for posting this.</p>

<p>John - I agree that the article left too much unsaid. Freedom House has a site that explains the use of a point system to assign those ratings, as follows:</p>

<p><em><strong><em>Methodology</em> </strong> </em></p>

<p align="justify"><em>Our examination of the level of press freedom in each country currently comprises 23 methodology questions divided into three broad categories: the legal environment, the political environment, and the economic environment. For each methodology question, a lower number of points is allotted for a more free situation, while a higher number of points is allotted for a less free environment. Each country is rated in these three categories, with the higher numbers indicating less freedom. A country’s final score is based on the total of the three categories: A score of 0 to 30 places the country in the Free press group; 31 to 60 in the Partly Free press group; and 61 to 100 in the Not Free press group.</em></p>

<p align="justify"> </p>

<p align="justify">The above quote comes from this page:<br /> http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=350&ana_page=348&year=2008</p>

<p>And the "Freedom of the Press 2009 Survey Release" begins here:<br /> http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=470</p>

<p>Much more can be found on that site. And Lex, I'm revising because I just saw your post, and I agree: at minimum a link to the actual resource, or at least the reporting group's website, should be standard.</p>

<p align="justify"> </p>

<p align="justify"> </p>

<p>Thanks. I didn't mean to be too picky.</p>

<p> I think the world is becoming very aware of the power of photography and its implications; there lay the issues of freedoms. </p>

<p>Journalists Without Borders is a very good organization to support when it comes to supporting a free press worldwide. </p>

<p>I find this ironic, CNN, the organization that has no problems with trampling other freedoms is reporting this story about infringments on the freedom of the press. Even Carrie Prejean has the right to freedom of expression yet CNN has not recognized that. You don't have to agree with anything anyone says. But to ridicule one, you risk the rights of all, including your own. I believe in the free press for one and all, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and all the newspapers. All in all, when you trample the rights of the press, you set a dangerous precedence. Remember Nazi Germany, Remember Cold War Russia, Remember Modern Day Russia, Look at North Korea. All fine examples of a tightly controlled media. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the world is becoming very aware of the power of photography and its implications; there lay the issues of freedoms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes but the kinds of photography that do that don't come from the journalist (or the gifted amateur) with the SLR anymore. They come from the individual protestor with the camera phone.</p>