Very good.

Too me that means, "no hate speech" laws.  My enemies can say what want.

We're trying, we're trying, Aung San Suu Kyi, there are still a few more monsters in the world and nations and groups and religions and ideologies who use force and violence to tell people what to do and how to think.  We're getting there, cm by cm :3

I may have sounded irreverent.  But yes, this is a very important topic and we need to take it seriously.

Did I read that she had been released from house arrest?  

I support the concept however, the many members of the press abuse their freedoms by not living up to their responsibilities.

I agree Motheroffive, but I often wonder if the abuse of the press is created by the fear of oppression.

LB

--------------------------------------------------------

A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad. . . . Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better, whereas enslavement is a certainty of the worse.

     Albert Camus

I don't doubt that's true, LB. It's a dilemma, for sure, since private ownership, and especially concentrated ownership, basically guarantees that the press won't be free. I also acknowledge that totalitarian regimes misuse their power in many ways, manipulation of the media being one of them. That's why it's so crucial to fight against domination of the internet by the media/broadcasting sector (see www.openmedia.org for more information) since it's one of the few broadly accessible sources of current events that's available to use, both in acquiring and in disseminating info.

The concentrated ownership is definitely a problem, newspapers and media outlets ownership is getting smaller and smaller.  Ownership in multiple areas - like entertainment - means that what appears to be news oriented markets the product of the parent company.  I believe this is why news has become so fluff orientated.

Profit motivation means expensive foreign bureaus are closed - so that the information received becomes second or third hand and thus increasingly unreliable.  The perspective narrows.

Even in my little outback, where we have more publications than one could burn in a harsh winter, the actual ownership is down to one or two companies.
 

This also narrows the opportunities for journalists making them fearful for their jobs and thus towing the corporate line.  Oppression does not only come from governments.

LB

---------------------------------------------------------

The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover.

     Al Franken

Try New Brunswick. All the English papers are owned by one family. I have never seen such lying and  unethical  newspapers.

Indeed, after some thirty years or more of writing for newspapers and magazines, broadcasting for TV and radio, I 'm now retired. Now, I have a blog, and for the first time I can tell the whole truth.

Most people have no idea of how much our news media hold back.

Graeme, I don't think any *one* of us possesses the "whole truth" but each of us has part of the story.  This is why I do rant on about multimedia corporate ownership. 

If Rupert Murdoch owns all media outlets around the globe, then what is transmitted is Rupert's "Truth".  It may be factual, it may be accurate but it will always be only one side of the facts, one perspective of the reality and therefore never balanced; never "whole".

News has always reflected the Editor.  Each outlet had their perspective and there is nothing wrong with that IMHO, but when there is only one editor then there is no outlet for opposing views.

I agree that the Web currently allows for the expression of opposing viewpoints and this is a very good thing.  However, that openness is also under threat by governments and corporations.  It is a threat that the average person is unaware of because, one could almost say ironically because, the movement to control the Web gets little media coverage as the corporations seeking control of the Web have control of mainstream media.

As a cynic I believe that people ultimately lose what they take for granted.  In a democratic country like Canada the majority take for granted a free press and ignore the signs that the freedom is being lost.  People refuse to fight for anything but their own perspective without realizing that it is the freedom of all perspectives that is what gives each of us our individual liberty.

As an optimist, I know that there will always be individuals out there that will find ways to get an opposing view point out - I just wish that those that ultimately benefit from these individuals' arduous task would be more supportive and demand a higher standard of a free press.

LB

------------------------------------------------------

Continue - we must continue - with this wonderful task of renewing the hope of writers who are still being held captive, by shouting out to the world their ideas, their truths, their souls transformed into words.

Let's work to ensure that tolerance is not an everyday dream, but the most precious gift of every man and every woman. Let's work, lastly, to bequeath to the future the tangible miracle of freedom.

     Ricardo González Alfonso, Cuban Writer, imprisoned for 7 years

 The press is freer in Britain and parts of Ejurope than it is in North America. The editor chokes it day to day. But he simply reflects the owner.

CBC and BBC are much hampered by fears of government cuts. I was actually freer on public radio than on CBC. In fact, CBC fired me after twelve years because I had too often been critical of language laws and of separatism. Actually, I had nit spoked much of it at all. And on French language CBC you could criticize Canada and anglos as savagely as you liked. But the English side was terrirfied of offending the politicians.

Most newspapers around the world aren't very good. But you will find top quality in Britain (as in The Manchester Guardian), in France (Le Monde), in Israel (El Haaretz ). I don't know of any top quality daily in North American. And, yes, I am including the New York Times.

And for those that think journalist oppression only occurs in dictatorships.....

James Risen’s Subpoena, May 24, 2011, New Yorker

********

The case in question involves a book that Risen wrote, “State of War,” in which he described a failed effort by the C.I.A. to sabotage Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. Jeffrey Sterling, a former C.I.A. officer, is facing trial on ten felony charges relating to the leak of the information. (He has pleaded not guilty.)

[.....]

Risen released a statement to the Times yesterday, saying that “I am going to fight this subpoena. I will always protect my sources, and I think this is a fight about the First Amendment and the freedom of the press.”

This is the government’s third effort at subpoenaing Risen in the case. He has been subpoenaed twice before, to appear before grand juries. He fought the first subpoena legally, and eventually it expired. The second time, the presiding judge, Leonie Brinkema, quashed the subpoena. Rather than accepting the judge’s position, the government has now subpoenaed Risen a third time, to testify in the trial itself.

One lawyer familiar with the case, who asked not to be identified, believes that the government is hoping to pressure the judge into making Risen testify, or else, if the judge refuses, hold her responsible should the case collapse. The lawyer also suggested that the government “just wants to put Risen in jail.”

********

James Risen is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist for The New York Times who previously worked for the Los Angeles Times.  (wikipedia)

In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.

Obama Takes a Hard Line Against Leaks to Press, NY Times, June 11, 2010