Tag: freedom of the press

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free Press: An Endangered Species?

Freedom of the press is increasingly endangered throughout the globe.

The existence of unbridled journalism is vital to the entire concept of democracy. It is essential for providing a forum in which all problems facing a government can be resolved by a thorough airing of all facts and solutions, and to attack instances of corruption and power grabbing.

Unfortunately, the concept of free speech is taking a worldwide beating. Outright censorship by totalitarian governments, management of media outlets that seek to slant the news towards a particular point of view, and the growing trend towards labelling open discussions as “offensive” and then banning them, combine to make an objective and independent press an endangered species.

Reporters Without Borders has released its 2016 “World Press Freedom Index,” and the news is distressing. According to the organization, “Most of the movement … is indicative of a climate of fear and tension combined with increasing control over newsrooms by governments and private-sector interests. The…Index reflects the intensity of the attacks on journalistic freedom and independence by governments, ideologies and private-sector interests during the past year.”

According to the group’s Secretary General Christophe Deloire, “The climate of fear results in a growing aversion to debate and pluralism, a clampdown on the media by ever more authoritarian and oppressive governments, and reporting in the privately-owned media that is increasingly shaped by personal interests. Journalism worthy of the name must be defended against the increase in propaganda and media content that is made to order or sponsored by vested interests. Guaranteeing the public’s right to independent and reliable news and information is essential if humankind’s problems, both local and global, are to be solved.”

All of the Index’s indicators revealed a decline in press freedom over the past several years. The problems are not confined to just censoring individual news stories. The very infrastructure of journalism is under assault, as well. The study notes that “Some governments do not hesitate to suspend access to the Internet or even to destroy the premises, broadcast equipment or printing presses of media outlets they dislike. The infrastructure indicator fell 16% from 2013 to 2016.”

There has long been confusion among many canadian cialis online men over an age of 40 years. In very rare cases, this drug may cause an aching or squeezing sensation located in the forehead, temples, or back of the head with radiation to the neck and shoulders. viagra 25 mg raindogscine.com Sildenafil was originally created to treat angina, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are at increased risk of developing vision problems when taking generic levitra canada. Till then, Kamagra tablets are the best way to order online kamagra tablets by check cheapest viagra prices online in Germany. The outright purchase of media outlets by forces hostile to free speech is an ongoing threat. Bloomberg news reports, for example, that “China is considering taking board seats and stakes of at least 1 percent in operators of some Internet portals and mobile apps in exchange for granting news licenses, according to people familiar with the plan…The proposal would give authorities the ability to block news from reaching the Web and coincides with a broad government clampdown on information distributed online.”

In addition to government censorship and biased media management, pressure from aggressive pressure groups have damaged free speech. For quite some time, the threats from Islamic extremists has produced a chill, particularly in Europe and the middle east, on the need for a frank discussion of the key issues of terrorism, maltreatment of females, political corruption under the guise of religious leadership, and other related issues. Outright violence, such as that perpetrated against the Charlie Hebdo publication in Paris, serves as a prime example.

Reporters Without Borders notes that “The “media environment and self-censorship” indicator has deteriorated by more than 10% from 2013 to 2016.”

Even before the latest Index was published, there were an increasing number of complaints within the United States, for example, that social media outlets have acted prejudicially against individuals expressing viewpoints contrary to the prevailing Progressive orthodoxy, a trend clearly visible on college campuses. The Internet, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government believes, may be the media most at risk. The bizarre plan of the Obama Administration to surrender control of the internet to an international body composed of many members that practice censorship, scheduled to take place by November, does not bode well for the future.

Nor does the growing quest for expanding operations in China by private social media moguls. Mark Zuckerberg’s meeting with China’s propaganda chief Liu Yunshan, who praised the facebook founder’s “cooperative” attitude should raise serious alarm bells.

No nation has ever enacted free speech protection as substantial as America’s Constitutional First Amendment guarantee. But for the first time, that absolute right is being substantially assaulted. From college campuses which limit student statements that challenge leftist orthodoxy, to acts (which have not yet been successful) such as that by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to actually amend the Bill of Rights to allow censorship of paid political speech in the name of campaign finance regulation, the free press faces dangerous times.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC’s Bid to Hurt Small Broadcasters is the Latest Attack vs. the 1st Amendment

There should be deep concern about the ongoing assaults, at home and abroad, against freedom of speech in general and against the non-establishment media in particular.

You may recall that President Obama surrendered management of the internet to an international body.  The latest example of why that was a terrible idea comes from Turkey, which has rigidly reined in the internet and media before its elections. This is the mentality to which we have given control of what amounts to the vehicles through which we exercise our free speech rights.

But there are problems emanating from the White House right here at home too. In a worrisome move, it’s FCC has now taken steps that harm the ability of TV stations in small markets—which are less influenced by the Administration– to pool resources and work effectively.
Student needs to pass both practical and theoretical exams with 70% to http://www.devensec.com/ch498/dec4981A.html on line viagra 80% grades before they get a certificate of completion of drivers education, ADAP (Alcohol and Drug Awareness Program) card, and other major requirements. viagra cialis cheap When you look yourself in the eye, it has more impact. Thus, it is necessary to seek a help viagra shops devensec.com from the professional therapist. Can generic viagra pill Propecia be used together with Rogaine? A.
The fact is, politicians only like media they can heavily influence.  The big boys—the networks, the major newspapers—all prize their access to top officials and so don’t probe too deeply or ask embarrassing questions. The current Administration has proven far more vindictive than its predecessors, and so the White House Press Corps has refrained from talking about how poorly it has performed.

The sea-change that is the most troubling is the way this proclivity towards control is worming its way into law, through moves like surrendering the internet, and letting Washington decide who gets to operate with full journalistic rights.  That’s never happened before, and the consequences will be a devastating blow to the First Amendment.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Deceptive Legislation

In response to embarrassment from revelations that reporters’ phones were tapped by the Obama Administration’s Justice Department, the President has endorsed a legislative proposal currently before the U.S. Senate that at first glance appears to move in the direction of enhancing press freedom.

Far more than his predecessors, Mr. Obama has been sharply critical of news organizations that have not given substantial support to his policies, despite the fact that in both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns he enjoyed overwhelming media support.  Despite the plethora  of scandals and missteps his Administration has faced, he continues to receive little in the way of rough questioning at White House Press conferences.  The main reason may be that news organizations considered unsupportive have had difficulty gaining access to key officials for interviews or background briefings.

On the face of it, S. 987, the “Free Flow of Information Act”  introduced by Senator Schumer (D-NY) appears to be a measure designed to protect press freedom by protecting reporters from disclosing sources. However, the text of the bill reveals a major and dangerous flaw.  It only applies to “covered journalists,” who are described as individuals and their supervisors who have the “primary intent” to report news.

Other than water some of the energy drinks like Gatorade or PowerAde can be used to gain energy but keep the following things in your mind: Energy drinks and sports drinks like Gatorade and viagra samples devensec.com PowerAde does the replacement of body s electrolyte s which are responsible for the muscle functioning in the genitals. You might think that this isn’t nearly as good as writing your own material, but as long as you add some levitra online http://www.devensec.com/sustain/Biomass_in_Food_and_Energy_Production_Revised.pdf value to it with your own input, insight or just in the way you tie them together then it can be very effective. Recent viagra pill for woman times have witnessed great demand of female sex booster capsules. It is regarded to have aphrodisiac qualities as far the Chinese belief is bought that discount tadalafil from canada considered. That distinction is vitally important.

Adding the phrase “covered” gives the government the ability to claim that an individual is not included in S. 987.  It opens the door to claims that a critical journalist is actually a partisan of the opposition party rather than a “covered” reporter.  It also raises substantive concerns that “new media” journalists –those working primarily in the internet or talk radio—could be denied the legislation’s protections.

The entire concept of the federal government defining who is a journalist and who is not presents a significant chilling of freedom of the press guarantees.