Press Freedom Index

[woolybanana]

It seems that the UK and France are by no means at the top of the latest Press Freedom Index. Why?

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

 

[NormanH]

Fascinating!  Murdoch and Sarkozy are two names that spring to mind..

[Anton Redman]

Formalised D notice system.

Libel laws which mean the seriuosly wealthy can intimidate anybody who it not seriously wealthy.

Concentrationof media control in the hands of a few individuals

Honours system which provides an incentive not to rock the boat

[YCCMB]

I dunno about France, other than the Sarko effect, but as for the UK I shall take a teeny pinch of salt, given that the report is issued by an organisation which, whilst it has some very noble aims, is nonetheless dedicated, among other things:

• To act in cooperation with governments to fight censorship and laws aimed at restricting freedom of information;
• To morally and financially assist persecuted journalists, as well as their families

Fundamentally, these are laudable objectives. I wonder where they draw the line, though? Because for me, there was quite a lot that came out during the Leveson inquiry that would suggest the UK had been a bit lax when it came to freedom of the press. I think that, where that "freedom"  is one that interprets "in the public interest" into "we will intercept the private voicemails of anyone we choose, in order to be the first to the story" or "we will pay people in positions of power and influence to give us privileged information", I'd draw a big, fat line.

Didn't I hear Rebekah Brooks' husband say she was being "persecuted"? I wonder if she's getting any "moral and financial assistance" from RSF?

I wonder what RSF has to say about the press abusing its freedoms? Or does it just move a country down the list once it steps in to curtail such abuses?

[Rabbie]

There seems to be much confusion between the "Public interest" and what the "public is interested in". The popular press isvery good at serving up tittle-tattle and justifying it as "public interest". With freedom comes responsibility and this seems to be forgotten by press nowadays. However once you bring in controls to curb the irresponsible you also make it more difficult to publish stories of genuine public interest such as the Parliamentary Expenses scandal.

A balance needs to be struck

[NormanH]

I am no expert but I am very suspicious of the use of 'superinjunctions' since I am sure they are only for the privileged few..

[woolybanana]

For once, Norman, I think we agree.

[YCCMB]

Quite possibly, Norman, although I believe that the press, like a child having a tantrum, has been somewhat prone to blame "super-injuctions" every time they don't get their own way. There was a judicial report recently that suggested that, in fact, only two of these have been issued since 2010.

And, in the spirit (I accept) of two wrongs not making a right, I doubt there'd be any real need for anyone - rich or poor - to protect themselves against the press if the press hadn't been quite so robust in their pursuit of a story, or got the lines between "public interest" and "juicy scandal" quite so comprehensively blurred.

[idun]

We have the internet now, where we can see utter nonsense and/or perhaps the truth. Is it in the interests of governments to try and manipulate the press????? When we can get information in other ways?????????

I remember reading le Carré's Absolute Friends and being very upset by it's ending. I never did quite trust what I read, but when le Carré is writing about it, for me it just shows that there is a big problem.

I wonder if these squeaky clean countries really are, anyone from Finland on here, I'd like to hear what they have to say about it all.