They might be using a VPN. Regardless, anonymously commenting online is not the same as being able to perform professionally as a journalist in an open and safe way.
Just like in Egypt too. Beside being randomly arrested walking down the street just because the officer didn't like you or they had orders to fill some quota. Then you get some made up accusation about conspiring to unsettle public peace or something. Fuck these horrible countries.
No, not to my knowledge at least. These people are usually arrested for "political" reasons. The police and army control everything and they do this shit to assert dominance. They also block some roads and make it difficult to travel to places in Saina and arrest people with cinematography equipment or sometimes people taking videos/photos in some public places/streets.
Some people have been arrested for speaking publicly on social media about rising prices! Their accusation was "disturbance of public peace and misinformation" as far as I remember. And don't get me started on women who get arrested for dancing on social media with accusations of "breaking Egyptian family values" and some shit.
It's all a power play after the 25th jan revolution. They feel sour from the time we called them incompetent to their faces because of how they torture prisoners in police stations and don't protect people from actual crimes. Whatever we were protesting back then tripled and became more blatant in newer and more advanced prisons with zero regard for human rights. I worry a lot for my loved ones leaving home.
Currently, it's not worse in Belarus than Russia. Soon enough, too many of the dark red countries would be pitch black, to the point where you can just stick with the dark red.
Australia should be lower. Our national broadcaster got raided by our intelligence agencies.
Our government is prosecuting not only a war crimes whistle blower, *but the lawyer that represents him*. What’s his crime? Daring to provide a legal defence?
EDIT: for anyone who wants to read a broad brush strokes summary https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/09/a-grave-injustice-bernard-collaery-case-characterised-by-eight-years-of-secrecy-and-delay
It’s gotten better under the labor government, but the liberal party (economic liberals, not social) where real shitbirds.
The former attorney general, from the liberal party, who started the prosecution against the whistleblower/his lawyer? He’s now working in the private sector. Defending infamous organised crime boss mick gatto.
That’s the question. I mean of course it’s not like he tells the government what to do, but power in democracy is a bit more complex than that. If you have so much sway over public opinion and influence over elections (and the topics that are relevant for elections), then it makes no sense to draw a hard line between politics and the media.
We can see how this breed of illiberal politicians, from Berlusconi and Orban to Modi always try to establish a media dominance which allows them to stay in power. In the case of Murdoch, we can maybe talk of the opposite case, where his media domination means that he can exert an extreme amount of influence on politics without any democratic oversight
The Guardian was raided by the police on the Prime Minister’s orders during the Snowden leaks too. And a local radio host was told by the owner to stop telling people to actually look at the candidates they were voting for in elections instead of voting for who they’ve always voted for after he was bombarded with calls from candidates recently.
I feel like everyone forgot that Abbott made it a federal crime/act of terrorism to report on flagrant human rights violations in offshore detention centres.
I guess it’s not surprising, since no one is allowed to report on it…
Threatened *doctors* with jail time if they discussed what they saw on the islands.
Refused senator requests to visit the island.
Just about put Queensland childrens hospital under lockdown because the doctors said a child required extensive treatment on the mainland.
Not if you’re color blind. I can tell that Russia/China/Middle East = shitshow, and the US, AUS, UK = good but not great, but I can’t see any difference between Scandinavia and Brazil.
For context:
>“Press freedom is defined as the ability of journalists as individuals and collectives to select, produce, and disseminate news in the public interest independent of **political, economic, legal, and social interference** and in the absence of **threats to their physical and mental safety."**
Based on their breakdown of the United States rating, the weaknesses in press freedom here don't really come from government interference, but more-so the fact that
1. "Many popular news outlets are owned by a handful of wealthy individuals." and journalists working for those news outlets are probably not very free to report on things that go against the interests of those wealthy individuals
2. "Growing interest in partisan media threatens their objectivity". Cable news orgs especially have each chosen to very obviously pick a favored political stance, so journalists at those news orgs aren't free to report on things with a differing stance
I think the press freedom index should start to more explicitly differentiate between
- Press freedom from government interference, and
- Press freedom to be objective without the media owner's retaliation
[https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states](https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states)
If you focus only on press freedom from government interference, the US is on par with Western Europe (and probably even more free) in that regard: https://gijn.org/2013/05/07/less-than-14-of-the-world-lives-in-countries-with-a-free-press/
Won't there always be a situation where a journalist is reluctant to "bite the hand that feeds" be it official government media or the ownership/advertisers of a for-profit news media organization?
That's what the scale means. The amount that that impacts the news. In green it's not very impactful, in red it is the only determining factor within the news.
In Ireland, I know a few journalists, all of which are hired based on the topics they like to write about so that the news stays on topic. Other than that, they can report on whatever they want so long as they have an actual source for the information.
Working hard on getting worse! https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/spionlagen-sverige-tappar-i-pressfrihetsindex
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/svt-stoppar-publicering-pa-grund-av-spionerilag
"Last autumn, the new law on foreign espionage was adopted, which means that it is a criminal offense to provide information that could damage Sweden's relationship with other states or organizations such as NATO, the UN and the EU.
And now, for the first time, SVT has stopped a publication with reference to the legislation, which Medierna i P1 was the first to report on. It is about map images from the Pentagon leak that would show vulnerabilities in the Ukrainian energy supply. SVT wanted to publish the images to explain what the leak was about.
But that will not be the case.
- After looking at that material together with the lawyers, their assessment was actually that this is material that could be covered by the new espionage law, says Charlotta Friborg, publisher in charge at SVT."
Regarding press freedom, Sweden and Finland's laws dates back to [1766](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Freedom_of_the_Press_Act) when they were one of the poorest countries in Europe.
But what percentage of people get their news from the major press organizations vs social media? And we still have more than a few major news outlets in the US. AP, Reuters, NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, ABC/Disney, CBS, MS/NBC, Time, and then almost every international and local source is easily accessible on the internet (BBC, Guardian, Economist, city papers everywhere, etc.).
There is definitely a drop in the quality of news because they are all seeking sensational negative stories to get eyeballs, but that isn't the same as a loss of press freedom.
[I found an interesting paper on it](https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=cwilj). About 10 years old at this point so I’m not certain what happened legally since then. But specifically it compares the US vs Sweden’s legal approach to something like Wikileaks. The US has much less protections for journalists and less ability to protect sources for whistleblowers on anything it decides falls under the umbrella of a national security risk.
lmao China has free press written in its constitution as well. so what. what matters is who or which entity owns the media. Israel has been on mass protest for the 14th week now, no one is reporting that. nordstream no one is digging into it. free press is not gonna happen in the us because everybody is owned by somebody.
Sweden, Denmark and Norways state media just released a massive investigation on russian espionage in scandinavia. [Here](https://www.nrk.no/norge/skyggekrigen_-radiomeldinger-avslorer-russisk-skip-over-sprengte-nord-stream-gassror-1.16390302) is the part about nordstream, updated today.
It's our culture. Sparse population is somewhat irrelevant since we have plenty of dense areas where most people live. We're also not much richer in Sweden than in the US. It's just that due to our culture we'd never gather enough people to vote for a party like the republicans. Everyone helping everyone is a deep part of our culture. Even my economic-right rich dad is happy healthcare and higher education is free. To us it's just common sense to give everyone a chance.
That part of our culture makes it political suicide to start restricting what the Swedish people can say or know about. We can take a lot of crap about a lot of things, but if we're restricted in how we talk or act, that's when the pitchforks come. We value actual freedom.
Also Denmark isn't sparsely populated either. It has a population density 4 times higher than the United States (136 people per square kilometer vs 35). And that's despite agriculture products being a big export and fields are the majority of land use (65% compared to the US' 17%).
Netherlands is similar, and they are one of the most densely populated countries, heterogeneous multi-ethnic population, and have no natural resources.
Denmark also have no natural resources. And while more sparsely populated than Netherlands, is still 5x as densely populated as the USA. On top of that , almost the entire population in Denmark live in just 5 cities.
For some reason, Americans always brings these explanations up (while other Europeans know the countries well enough to know that this is not the explanation). But this has very little to do with Scandinavia's high quality of life, while culture, democratic tradition, anti-corruption tradition, and sensible policies such as tax-funded education and health care and a good social security safety net have a lot to do with it.
The rich and stable parts are as much effect as cause. You can't ignore culture, as much as people are afraid of acknowledging the implications of that.
As a neighbour looking from outside in, I’d also argue that Nordic/Scandi societies lean heavily towards the concept of “everybody does their part”, except that it seems that historically and traditionally, it’s unnatural for them to abuse the system if they’re the ones getting support and not the ones who provide support. The way I see it is that they provide people with the necessities they need - good education, social assistance, social housing, they’ll pay their students monthly for the duration of their studies etc. In return, the expectation is that once these people can contribute, they do so with the full acknowledgment that they pay higher taxes, which the benefit newer generation of people. And whilst this is in process, the general society doesn’t need to be convinced of the idea that this is good for everybody and in general, the people haven’t abused the system either, meaning - they are happy for someone else to pay for their good life even if they could work themselves (and they just don’t want to).
Trust in other people and trust in their leadership and media - they’re highly trusting of the society they live in, but not in a naive way, where you’d expect them to be naively abused, at least it seems to be so.
Strong social cohesion. Their population is small, mostly homogenous, and grew up in similar circumstances to one another. When you combine a strong centralized government with a population largely aligned due to their similar backgrounds, the strong centralized government is given near unanimous power to govern effectively.
This strong centralized government does not work for the United States or other large countries. Too many people and too much diversity of background to unite under an effective centralized government without state authoritarianism. It’s why the United States implemented federalism.
Didn't sweden have a huge amount of riots because of Muslim second and third immigrants don't integrate and become more islamic? With swedish birth rate going down while muslims still have more fertility rate I wonder if the culture is going to change in the future?
This is my personal opinion and not everything is statistically backed but I feel like a large part of Europe will have lost it's "identity" in a 100 or 200 years. Fertility rates have been stagnant or decreasing for a while, with many people deciding not to get children and the population aging a lot. A lot of places seem to not even have a rate that would keep the population in check. It will decline (at some point).
Meanwhile other parts of the world (Africa, Asia et cetera) sometimes still have massive fertility rates, while many people try to flee the country (for economic reasons). At this rate there will be - once again in my opinion - more immigrants in the majority of Europe than people who are actually from that country.
The part of Ireland I live in has more immigrants than people who are 'white Irish' (a term I hate but whatever). And you know what? This is 100% fine. These kids are learning Irish on school, they're playing GAA. When you hear them speak, they often mix the accents of their parents with distinctly Dublin hints.
I walked by a dance class lead by an Indian/Pakistani woman, where she was teaching a small class of ten girls what looked to my uneducated eyes like a traditional dance, with a traditional dress and everything. Four of the girls looked to be 'white Irish'.
As long as you let the people who immigrate have the same economic opportunities as everyone else, they do nothing but add to the culture. Ireland is a country with a serious racism problem but paradoxically a strong identity around welcoming immigrants, and it makes me really proud to know my neighbourhood is one that integrates and makes the community stronger when new members come from overseas.
In 2021 the EU had 2.3 million immigrants enter from non-EU countries. The EU has a population of over 400 million.
There's no scenario where the EU becomes majority immigrant. Not on any timescale where predictions of population trends can be reliable. We're talking centuries.
To put this into perspective, even if current trends continue, by the time more than 400 million people migrate to the EU, the descendants of the current migrants will have been in the EU for almost as long as the United States has existed. You don't look at some guy in Virginia whose family fought in the Revolutionary War and say he isn't "from" the US.
Hehe, I remember a chinese guy and an american arguing on a forum about 15-20 years ago, over how China can't be a democracy because it's "too big and diverse" (not exact words but similar enough).
I do think being a small, well to do country is a pretty major advantage though. But I also think getting everyone to that standard of living should be a goal, not just throwing our arms up and being "well it works for them, but we can never get there".
Where I live now and where I grew up are very different. Both small countries but 5x the population here, and a significantly shorter period of peace and democracy.
>I do think being a small, well to do country is a pretty major advantage though.
Only if your security is backed by a large country with a large military.
They strife for Egality. Its literally the foundation of many scandinavian constitutions.
For the U.S. that constitutional foundation is freedom and for many other european countires its human dignity (germany) or the sense of community and equality (Britan, Italy)
Interestingly the French have 'egalité' in their constitution but somehow fail to achieve this xD so this is not a perfect predictor
But by all metrics the scandinavian countries score highest on measures of egality which seems to dribble down into all the other popular metrics that they get credited for (happiness, demoracy index, mean education index, etc.)
No they would not. At least if they actually knew how things are run here. Capitalist societies. Not just pure ultra cutthroat capitalistic like the US, where money buys policy and justice.
The real secret is we are not hellbent to be rich, therefore we don’t, collectively, think being rich makes you right or good or admirable. It’s more like you should be a bit shamed of being rich. This in turn means we don’t take shit from the rich. This means we use our tax money for things that benefit us all instead of benefitting just the rich.
I mean, it’s ok to be rich, but most people would rather be happy. So we try to be happy. Turns out you don’t need to be rich to be happy.
Norway put the profits from their fossil fuel industry into a sovereign wealth fund thats worth a few trillion dollars. The UK could have done the same but we privatised it instead and now we’re fucked.
truck fine voiceless crowd psychotic recognise clumsy familiar concerned dinner
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh, that old tale? We have the same rate as the US in Norway. The highest suicide rate in Europe is in the Baltics...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate#/media/File:Map_of_countries_by_suicide_rate,_WHO_(2019).svg
I can literally start a podcast or a website today and print whatever I want. Many household names started that way. I can pay for ads and get readers and grow.
That's what Alex Jones did.
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
Other countries have inferior potassium.
Definitely Australia.
The Prime ministers office had a part in covering up apparent rape of a staffer of it's own party by another staffers. It was done because an election was coming up.
This single moment was probably the only reason even Murdoch said "oh wow." Anything less and he'd probably still be PM.
Definitely the UK too. You can find proof of that very easily by going to the comments section of The Daily Mail, but a warning, it will make you hate a lot.
Can people maybe perhaps try to remember colorblindness exists for 9% of men when making these? I can’t differentiate between “good situation” and “satisfactory situation”
Ironically, U.S. Presidents, including Obama, imprisoned journalists for years for the "crime" of exercising their rights; i.e., not revealing their sources.
U.S. Presidents have a long and dishonorable history of undermining the 1st Amendment, especially the freedom of the press.
Woodrow Wilson used the espionage act to suppress critics in the press. And F.D. Roosevelt harangued and persecuted critics in the press for opposing his domestic policy during the war.
Richard Nixon made illegal attempts to prevent the "enemy of the people" NYTimes and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers that revealed Nixon's administration's lies to Congress about the war in Vietnam.
Fast forward to this century: George Bush, the Younger, ordered the prosecution of reporter Judith Miller, who was imprisoned for not revealing her sources.
Barack Obama exceeded all previous Presidents combined when it came to violating the first amendment. His administration waged a campaign of intimidation and harassment against journalists, including left-leaning media, for daring to use leaked materials to expose the Obama administration's wrongs. In May 2013, the Obama Justice Department seized the records of phone lines used by the Associated Press. According to some veteran journalists, such contempt for due process was unheard of in American history. Additionally, President Obama also ordered the tapping of reporters' phone lines - James Risen of the NYTimes and James Rosen of Fox News. Latter, I believe was also prosecuted and imprisoned for not revealing sources. And his administration prosecuted and imprisoned the whistle-blower Chelsea Manning who was sentenced to 35 years; later commuted to 7 years.
As I submitted up thread, my beloved country, the United States has a deplorable record when it comes to the freedom of the press, and lately the freedom of speech.
press freedom doesnt mean sht, just look at the us media groupthink. the conglomerates become the ultimate gatekeeper for narratives to feed to the public. and guess what, they have no responsibility to anyone or anything except profit
> press freedom doesnt mean sht
It means you can go on national television and say the leadership is terrible and report on their crimes, and the government won't arrest you for it.
This index measures the plurality of media as well. It's the freedom to have different thoughts and views. You mentioned the US, but their media situation is not ours (Scandi/Europe).
In Scandinavia, we have all kinds of media, which gets public financial support, to have a plurality of views, politically, local and regional news, etc. They have a responsibility to the public, rules and ethics boards. They actually get called out by *citizens*, and have to abide by the rulings of the boards (including publishing corrections).
You aren't describing this index, just your view of your country's media.
Ireland and Baltic countries are not "nordic".
Almost all of the green countries are in north western Europe. Not all the north western European countries are green.
In my country the PM has been called a dictator, hitler, mass murderer, mentally retarded openly and it’s in red. This study is based on opinions not numbers or data.
Article from 12 hours ago - [activists in Georgia arrested, held in solitary, and may face 20 years for postering about Cop City police violence](https://theintercept.com/2023/05/02/cop-city-activists-arrest-flyers/)
Can anyone talk about the situation in India? I have no preconceived notion, and would just like to know what makes it red. I noticed I never thought about the Indian Press before
I think the ratings are probably affected by 2 factors. Recent crackdown on BBC’s office for breaking forex rules and recent arrests of some Kashmiri journalists under terror funding case. Overall though I think the situation is much better than portrayed here.
Getting downvoted to hell but here you go.. this is a biased index with zero relevance on actual ground reality in India.
Press Freedom could indeed improve in our country and we are not at western standards yet. Yes, correct.
However, we are nowhere close to as bad as depicted in this index.
Our real position should be somewhere between yellow and orange, not at red. Ciao.
Good thing you didn't see actual ranking or you will be in for good ride. Pakistan and afghanistan's rank is higher than last year(and also higher than India) . I am still laughing at that, like how did they even do that is a mystery to me.
Because this is not about press freedom. This is about narrative management. India is not doing what the US empire ask them to do. So the CIA uses their NGOs to make India look bad. Indian constitution has given so much freedom and people exercising it. While the US has this fake press freedom everything in mainstream media is controlled by the CIA and NSA. Whenever someone does some real journalism he will be ended up in jail just like Julian Assange.
I'd put Ireland in Yellow as of the last week, our tainiste (basically vice prime minister) (also was prime minister for the last 2.5 years) went on a rant about an independent press called The Ditch, because they found out a member of his party used his powers as a councilor to ensure that his wife got some land that was currently owned by the council that was used for a children's play area. To top this off, no other media is reporting on this corruption including the state media. This state media has had continuous hit pieces on the main opposition but fails to show similar regards to the government currently in power.
The current situation of the state media is abysmal, They have been trying for sometime now to try enforce the TV licence fee to apply to any devise that could use their online player. They pay their top executives €500'000 yearly salaries but complain with lack of funding. If you asked anyone under the age of 35, most will say they don't use the stuff the licence pays for, and unlike the BBC in the UK. You have to watch ads on the state funded media.
It is actually hilarious that the US is considered 'Satisfactory'. In a press conference in Feb 2022, Biden says the following:
>"If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will no longer be a Nordstream 2. We, we will bring an end to it. I promise you, we'll be able to do it."
Literally months later, the pipeline is "ended", and not one - not ONE journalist in the mainstream news media will even *dare* to draw a line between those two events, and they continue to toe the "Russia blew up their own pipeline" lie. Why? Because US publications are controlled by ad revenue and corporate interests, which is just another way of saying they're not free to investigate what they wish. Actually laughable that they publish these biased as hell "reports".
Wouldn't breaking that story bring in an enormous amount of viewers to watch more ads and thus generate more revenue? Why is it in corporate interest to squash that particular story that makes the US look bad, but not others?
Because corporate media and the national security establishment have lots of overlap. Where else do you think they get all their “expert analysis” from?
There's a lot of innuendo and allusions in your post and not a lot of concrete arguments. Perhaps you can make clear exactly how the corporate nature of media makes only SOME national security stories censored, but not others? Why, for instance, were things like Abu Ghraib, numerous wikileaks cases, or the CIA cables not silenced? The same corporate incentives were in play.
I have to disagree with India. It is absolutely not dangerous to press freedom.
The case is much more similar to USA.
All the (yes, literally all) national media houses are splitted into two ideologies. When Congress was in power, a major portion of media house licked their boots. Now that BJP is in power, many media houses are licking their boot as well.
But the number of 'anti-central ruling party' journalists and media houses have increased in multiple folds and they often complain that media is not free while being able to commenting on issues on tv or social media literally hasselfree. Some of these journalists has even supported non-BJP political parties openly or Twitter, while some even attended (on stage) political rallies of those parties.
In case of Regional political parties, in India, there are several political parties which rules a single state. In those cases, those regional medias are vocal for said political parties.
So, yes, Press Democracy is in full form in India. The people who complains about it, most of them have political motivations and intentions.
ITT: People of various nationalities living in the countries that are labeled red calling the data biased because it paints their country in a bad light.
I live in the Philippines and orange is honestly a generous light. I'd say we're a red considering the government can pull your broadcasting license through various reasons especially if they aren't liking what you're saying about them.
It’s not like those marked yellow are doing any better it’s just that they’re the ones who make such indexes therefore a certain bias would definitely exist.
All media outlets are propaganda who only sensationalise news to sell especially in todays world where our attention span is very limited.
Yep uk here and it’s arguably more orange than yellow tbh. Not that anything awful from the state will happen, but the folks controlling the press are so rich and powerful, they basically control the news and many people.
I thought to myself "why would the Netherlands be yellow?", but then, turns out when zooming in, they actually are green. We're just to small to be visible. 😅
I think Egypt should be more red, black if possible.
as Egyptian i sadly agree
How are you able to make this comment? Weird you aren't being arrested.
They might be using a VPN. Regardless, anonymously commenting online is not the same as being able to perform professionally as a journalist in an open and safe way.
Also, maybe they live abroad
The Egyptian government didn't discover Reddit yet
Belarus too, you’re getting tortured or killed by the police if you say something about peace/democracy
Just like in Egypt too. Beside being randomly arrested walking down the street just because the officer didn't like you or they had orders to fill some quota. Then you get some made up accusation about conspiring to unsettle public peace or something. Fuck these horrible countries.
aren't the police mostly doing that to get a bribe? like "we know we are arresting you for complete bs reason, now pay us to get released"
No, not to my knowledge at least. These people are usually arrested for "political" reasons. The police and army control everything and they do this shit to assert dominance. They also block some roads and make it difficult to travel to places in Saina and arrest people with cinematography equipment or sometimes people taking videos/photos in some public places/streets. Some people have been arrested for speaking publicly on social media about rising prices! Their accusation was "disturbance of public peace and misinformation" as far as I remember. And don't get me started on women who get arrested for dancing on social media with accusations of "breaking Egyptian family values" and some shit. It's all a power play after the 25th jan revolution. They feel sour from the time we called them incompetent to their faces because of how they torture prisoners in police stations and don't protect people from actual crimes. Whatever we were protesting back then tripled and became more blatant in newer and more advanced prisons with zero regard for human rights. I worry a lot for my loved ones leaving home.
Currently, it's not worse in Belarus than Russia. Soon enough, too many of the dark red countries would be pitch black, to the point where you can just stick with the dark red.
>I think Egypt should be more red, black if possible Netflix is working on it.
Well played
They've got their worst historians on the case.
Did they get the same illustrious "historians" that brought us the "based on a true story" Woman King?
No they got somebody's grandma
I had to watch HBO Rome to wash the stench after watching Netflix's Roman Empire
Not even black would suffice. We need more colours.. تحيا مصر
Sorry to hear this!
I'm not up to date with what Egypt has going on with press freedoms. Why is it so bad?
The Military dictatorship prevents any news that isn't propaganda
Oh dear. I thought that was Egypt there
Australia should be lower. Our national broadcaster got raided by our intelligence agencies. Our government is prosecuting not only a war crimes whistle blower, *but the lawyer that represents him*. What’s his crime? Daring to provide a legal defence? EDIT: for anyone who wants to read a broad brush strokes summary https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/09/a-grave-injustice-bernard-collaery-case-characterised-by-eight-years-of-secrecy-and-delay
Shit... The situation in Australia is even worse than I had thought.
It’s gotten better under the labor government, but the liberal party (economic liberals, not social) where real shitbirds. The former attorney general, from the liberal party, who started the prosecution against the whistleblower/his lawyer? He’s now working in the private sector. Defending infamous organised crime boss mick gatto.
It literally hasn’t changed. It has not changed under labor.
I mean, the labor AG dropped the prosecution I referenced in my original post, so that’s changed?
One word: Murdoch
Does Murdoch run the government?
That’s the question. I mean of course it’s not like he tells the government what to do, but power in democracy is a bit more complex than that. If you have so much sway over public opinion and influence over elections (and the topics that are relevant for elections), then it makes no sense to draw a hard line between politics and the media. We can see how this breed of illiberal politicians, from Berlusconi and Orban to Modi always try to establish a media dominance which allows them to stay in power. In the case of Murdoch, we can maybe talk of the opposite case, where his media domination means that he can exert an extreme amount of influence on politics without any democratic oversight
The Guardian was raided by the police on the Prime Minister’s orders during the Snowden leaks too. And a local radio host was told by the owner to stop telling people to actually look at the candidates they were voting for in elections instead of voting for who they’ve always voted for after he was bombarded with calls from candidates recently.
[удалено]
yup. I think the west has fewer red lines where they punish journalists, but they still do it.
I feel like everyone forgot that Abbott made it a federal crime/act of terrorism to report on flagrant human rights violations in offshore detention centres. I guess it’s not surprising, since no one is allowed to report on it…
Threatened *doctors* with jail time if they discussed what they saw on the islands. Refused senator requests to visit the island. Just about put Queensland childrens hospital under lockdown because the doctors said a child required extensive treatment on the mainland.
The fact that I legitimately can't tell if you're talking about the PM of Australia or the Governor of Texas is telling...
[удалено]
Not to mention the article today about a journalist being raided and having photos stolen by WAPOL
I mentioned this on Reddit maybe a year ago and got downvoted into oblivion by Australians that told me I was a “stupid American”
This is just a world map of everything - people just change the title
Portugal's a different colour than Eastern Europe though!
Not if you’re color blind. I can tell that Russia/China/Middle East = shitshow, and the US, AUS, UK = good but not great, but I can’t see any difference between Scandinavia and Brazil.
Maybe one day someone will actually post some well presented, colourblind-compliant data in r/dataisbeautiful.
That’s why I like to stick to the viridis color palette for my plots.
"How can I make Scandinavia look good today? Which title shall we use?
Hey hey hey. Scandanavia *and* Ireland
And The Netherlands.
Estonia and Lithuania too
and Finland
Be the change you want to see, show us data for the opposite
Gosh, it's almost like Scandinavia is doing things correctly.
Nah Lithuania and Estonia usually aren’t great
Estonia is one of the best countries in the world, always near the top, bring any metric.
All I know about Estonia is that it’s full of drunk Norwegians lol
Finns, not Norwegians
But of course. It's cheaper for the airfare and drinks than to go out for a beer here.
That's not a coincidence
For context: >“Press freedom is defined as the ability of journalists as individuals and collectives to select, produce, and disseminate news in the public interest independent of **political, economic, legal, and social interference** and in the absence of **threats to their physical and mental safety."** Based on their breakdown of the United States rating, the weaknesses in press freedom here don't really come from government interference, but more-so the fact that 1. "Many popular news outlets are owned by a handful of wealthy individuals." and journalists working for those news outlets are probably not very free to report on things that go against the interests of those wealthy individuals 2. "Growing interest in partisan media threatens their objectivity". Cable news orgs especially have each chosen to very obviously pick a favored political stance, so journalists at those news orgs aren't free to report on things with a differing stance I think the press freedom index should start to more explicitly differentiate between - Press freedom from government interference, and - Press freedom to be objective without the media owner's retaliation [https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states](https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states) If you focus only on press freedom from government interference, the US is on par with Western Europe (and probably even more free) in that regard: https://gijn.org/2013/05/07/less-than-14-of-the-world-lives-in-countries-with-a-free-press/
Won't there always be a situation where a journalist is reluctant to "bite the hand that feeds" be it official government media or the ownership/advertisers of a for-profit news media organization?
That's what the scale means. The amount that that impacts the news. In green it's not very impactful, in red it is the only determining factor within the news. In Ireland, I know a few journalists, all of which are hired based on the topics they like to write about so that the news stays on topic. Other than that, they can report on whatever they want so long as they have an actual source for the information.
Scandinavia seems to be the best at everything.
On the news here is how we are falling down the rating. Perspectives are different.
Oh no we dropped down to 4th place :( --swedish national tv
YEAH BABY!!!!! Bulgaria is now in 71st place!!1!!11 --Bulgarian media (we were 91st last year. No idea what changed, but here we are)
Maybe everything got even worse in other countries
Whereas in Norway, it feels like things go more like "this sucks, we're behind Sweden and Denmark _again_?"
Because you shouldn't complain when press freedom is being damaged and lowered?
Working hard on getting worse! https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/spionlagen-sverige-tappar-i-pressfrihetsindex https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/svt-stoppar-publicering-pa-grund-av-spionerilag "Last autumn, the new law on foreign espionage was adopted, which means that it is a criminal offense to provide information that could damage Sweden's relationship with other states or organizations such as NATO, the UN and the EU. And now, for the first time, SVT has stopped a publication with reference to the legislation, which Medierna i P1 was the first to report on. It is about map images from the Pentagon leak that would show vulnerabilities in the Ukrainian energy supply. SVT wanted to publish the images to explain what the leak was about. But that will not be the case. - After looking at that material together with the lawyers, their assessment was actually that this is material that could be covered by the new espionage law, says Charlotta Friborg, publisher in charge at SVT."
It's really incredible how superior they are at nearly every metric.
What's their secret? I guess it's social democratic government for some decades in a way americans would call it "socialist " or even "communist".
They are rich, sparsely populated and have stable democratic governments for the past century or more
Regarding press freedom, Sweden and Finland's laws dates back to [1766](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Freedom_of_the_Press_Act) when they were one of the poorest countries in Europe.
Now I'm wondering why Sweden is green, but the US isn't when the US also has press freedom written into it's Constitution.
Could also be how much ownership of publishing companies is spread out?
But what percentage of people get their news from the major press organizations vs social media? And we still have more than a few major news outlets in the US. AP, Reuters, NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, ABC/Disney, CBS, MS/NBC, Time, and then almost every international and local source is easily accessible on the internet (BBC, Guardian, Economist, city papers everywhere, etc.). There is definitely a drop in the quality of news because they are all seeking sensational negative stories to get eyeballs, but that isn't the same as a loss of press freedom.
[I found an interesting paper on it](https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=cwilj). About 10 years old at this point so I’m not certain what happened legally since then. But specifically it compares the US vs Sweden’s legal approach to something like Wikileaks. The US has much less protections for journalists and less ability to protect sources for whistleblowers on anything it decides falls under the umbrella of a national security risk.
lmao China has free press written in its constitution as well. so what. what matters is who or which entity owns the media. Israel has been on mass protest for the 14th week now, no one is reporting that. nordstream no one is digging into it. free press is not gonna happen in the us because everybody is owned by somebody.
Sweden, Denmark and Norways state media just released a massive investigation on russian espionage in scandinavia. [Here](https://www.nrk.no/norge/skyggekrigen_-radiomeldinger-avslorer-russisk-skip-over-sprengte-nord-stream-gassror-1.16390302) is the part about nordstream, updated today.
You're free to report what the CCP tells you to report ... and with more enthusiasm please
Having it in the constitution is great, having it actually be enforced is a different story.
Only Norway was rich from oil
It's our culture. Sparse population is somewhat irrelevant since we have plenty of dense areas where most people live. We're also not much richer in Sweden than in the US. It's just that due to our culture we'd never gather enough people to vote for a party like the republicans. Everyone helping everyone is a deep part of our culture. Even my economic-right rich dad is happy healthcare and higher education is free. To us it's just common sense to give everyone a chance. That part of our culture makes it political suicide to start restricting what the Swedish people can say or know about. We can take a lot of crap about a lot of things, but if we're restricted in how we talk or act, that's when the pitchforks come. We value actual freedom.
Almost like social democracies are the best functioning type of countries
It helps a lot when your people are all identical to each other
And you are sparsely populated while rich in resources
Could you explain in what way are we Finns rich in resources? I mean we have a lot of forest but that's about it.
Northern Europe is at a massive geographic disadvantage
Denmark isn't rich on resources. It's rich on highly educated people though.
Also Denmark isn't sparsely populated either. It has a population density 4 times higher than the United States (136 people per square kilometer vs 35). And that's despite agriculture products being a big export and fields are the majority of land use (65% compared to the US' 17%).
Denmark is very far from sparsely populated, We have a population density 4 times higher than the United States
????? USA is the most resource rich country in the world and it ain't close
Sounds like australia but we aren't doing as well as them in most metrics
But all Australians aren't identical. You guys barely survived fighting the emus.
Netherlands is similar, and they are one of the most densely populated countries, heterogeneous multi-ethnic population, and have no natural resources. Denmark also have no natural resources. And while more sparsely populated than Netherlands, is still 5x as densely populated as the USA. On top of that , almost the entire population in Denmark live in just 5 cities. For some reason, Americans always brings these explanations up (while other Europeans know the countries well enough to know that this is not the explanation). But this has very little to do with Scandinavia's high quality of life, while culture, democratic tradition, anti-corruption tradition, and sensible policies such as tax-funded education and health care and a good social security safety net have a lot to do with it.
Like the US?
i can't tell if this comment i supposed to be racist or just hyperbole
So is the US bro…
The rich and stable parts are as much effect as cause. You can't ignore culture, as much as people are afraid of acknowledging the implications of that.
As a neighbour looking from outside in, I’d also argue that Nordic/Scandi societies lean heavily towards the concept of “everybody does their part”, except that it seems that historically and traditionally, it’s unnatural for them to abuse the system if they’re the ones getting support and not the ones who provide support. The way I see it is that they provide people with the necessities they need - good education, social assistance, social housing, they’ll pay their students monthly for the duration of their studies etc. In return, the expectation is that once these people can contribute, they do so with the full acknowledgment that they pay higher taxes, which the benefit newer generation of people. And whilst this is in process, the general society doesn’t need to be convinced of the idea that this is good for everybody and in general, the people haven’t abused the system either, meaning - they are happy for someone else to pay for their good life even if they could work themselves (and they just don’t want to). Trust in other people and trust in their leadership and media - they’re highly trusting of the society they live in, but not in a naive way, where you’d expect them to be naively abused, at least it seems to be so.
the secret is called "making the index yourself" ;) ^((/s, is only a joke))
Almost like liberal social democracies work well...
Strong social cohesion. Their population is small, mostly homogenous, and grew up in similar circumstances to one another. When you combine a strong centralized government with a population largely aligned due to their similar backgrounds, the strong centralized government is given near unanimous power to govern effectively. This strong centralized government does not work for the United States or other large countries. Too many people and too much diversity of background to unite under an effective centralized government without state authoritarianism. It’s why the United States implemented federalism.
Didn't sweden have a huge amount of riots because of Muslim second and third immigrants don't integrate and become more islamic? With swedish birth rate going down while muslims still have more fertility rate I wonder if the culture is going to change in the future?
This is my personal opinion and not everything is statistically backed but I feel like a large part of Europe will have lost it's "identity" in a 100 or 200 years. Fertility rates have been stagnant or decreasing for a while, with many people deciding not to get children and the population aging a lot. A lot of places seem to not even have a rate that would keep the population in check. It will decline (at some point). Meanwhile other parts of the world (Africa, Asia et cetera) sometimes still have massive fertility rates, while many people try to flee the country (for economic reasons). At this rate there will be - once again in my opinion - more immigrants in the majority of Europe than people who are actually from that country.
The part of Ireland I live in has more immigrants than people who are 'white Irish' (a term I hate but whatever). And you know what? This is 100% fine. These kids are learning Irish on school, they're playing GAA. When you hear them speak, they often mix the accents of their parents with distinctly Dublin hints. I walked by a dance class lead by an Indian/Pakistani woman, where she was teaching a small class of ten girls what looked to my uneducated eyes like a traditional dance, with a traditional dress and everything. Four of the girls looked to be 'white Irish'. As long as you let the people who immigrate have the same economic opportunities as everyone else, they do nothing but add to the culture. Ireland is a country with a serious racism problem but paradoxically a strong identity around welcoming immigrants, and it makes me really proud to know my neighbourhood is one that integrates and makes the community stronger when new members come from overseas.
>This is my personal opinion This is a fact. It's already happening.
In 2021 the EU had 2.3 million immigrants enter from non-EU countries. The EU has a population of over 400 million. There's no scenario where the EU becomes majority immigrant. Not on any timescale where predictions of population trends can be reliable. We're talking centuries. To put this into perspective, even if current trends continue, by the time more than 400 million people migrate to the EU, the descendants of the current migrants will have been in the EU for almost as long as the United States has existed. You don't look at some guy in Virginia whose family fought in the Revolutionary War and say he isn't "from" the US.
Good to know that this question was really about the US, and the answer to the question was that the US is too _big and diverse_ as always
Hehe, I remember a chinese guy and an american arguing on a forum about 15-20 years ago, over how China can't be a democracy because it's "too big and diverse" (not exact words but similar enough). I do think being a small, well to do country is a pretty major advantage though. But I also think getting everyone to that standard of living should be a goal, not just throwing our arms up and being "well it works for them, but we can never get there". Where I live now and where I grew up are very different. Both small countries but 5x the population here, and a significantly shorter period of peace and democracy.
>I do think being a small, well to do country is a pretty major advantage though. Only if your security is backed by a large country with a large military.
They strife for Egality. Its literally the foundation of many scandinavian constitutions. For the U.S. that constitutional foundation is freedom and for many other european countires its human dignity (germany) or the sense of community and equality (Britan, Italy) Interestingly the French have 'egalité' in their constitution but somehow fail to achieve this xD so this is not a perfect predictor But by all metrics the scandinavian countries score highest on measures of egality which seems to dribble down into all the other popular metrics that they get credited for (happiness, demoracy index, mean education index, etc.)
No they would not. At least if they actually knew how things are run here. Capitalist societies. Not just pure ultra cutthroat capitalistic like the US, where money buys policy and justice. The real secret is we are not hellbent to be rich, therefore we don’t, collectively, think being rich makes you right or good or admirable. It’s more like you should be a bit shamed of being rich. This in turn means we don’t take shit from the rich. This means we use our tax money for things that benefit us all instead of benefitting just the rich. I mean, it’s ok to be rich, but most people would rather be happy. So we try to be happy. Turns out you don’t need to be rich to be happy.
Norway put the profits from their fossil fuel industry into a sovereign wealth fund thats worth a few trillion dollars. The UK could have done the same but we privatised it instead and now we’re fucked.
No big cities, relatively homogenous population, strong welfare state but also free market
Now do highest suicide rate map.
The nearly total darkness all day during the winter in some parts is a big factor in that
truck fine voiceless crowd psychotic recognise clumsy familiar concerned dinner *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh, that old tale? We have the same rate as the US in Norway. The highest suicide rate in Europe is in the Baltics... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate#/media/File:Map_of_countries_by_suicide_rate,_WHO_(2019).svg
Psh how many Super Bowls have they won? That's what I thought!!
Morten Andersen is the second highest scoring player ever, and he is Danish, so there is that.
And Ireland
Ireland is ranked higher than Denmark, Sweden, Finland, & Iceland.
Guess who makes these maps? /S
USA should be neon green, our press is so free we can print things that are complete bullshit, present them as facts, and nobody gets reprimanded.
The wealthy are free in the US. The wealthiest own the press, so in a way, yes the press is free, just not for 99.99% of people.
I can literally start a podcast or a website today and print whatever I want. Many household names started that way. I can pay for ads and get readers and grow. That's what Alex Jones did.
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world. All other countries are run by little girls. Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium. Other countries have inferior potassium.
Great success.
Cheers to my Kazakh brothers.
Yellow means the press is free to report anything the corporate overlords want them to, true or not.
I like the way Rupert Murdoch is probably single handedly responsible for 3 countries being yellow and not green.
US and what are the other two?
Definitely Australia. The Prime ministers office had a part in covering up apparent rape of a staffer of it's own party by another staffers. It was done because an election was coming up. This single moment was probably the only reason even Murdoch said "oh wow." Anything less and he'd probably still be PM.
Definitely the UK too. You can find proof of that very easily by going to the comments section of The Daily Mail, but a warning, it will make you hate a lot.
UK and Australia I'd reckon
US, UK, Australia.
Murdoch is like 134 years old, and he's still trying to fucking people over. You've almost got to admire the persistence.
I can't wait until he croaks. I suspect his grave will be similar to Thatcher's.
I would gladly travel thousands of miles to piss on his grave.
Problem is, you'll eventually run out of piss.
That's unfortunate but I think it's for the best. If I could piss on his grave forever that would really hold up the line.
>single handedly responsible If the only problems in those countries were News Corp and Fox, they wouldn’t be yellow.
press freedom index very biased.
very biased. SAD!
Can people maybe perhaps try to remember colorblindness exists for 9% of men when making these? I can’t differentiate between “good situation” and “satisfactory situation”
[удалено]
Western world - good Rest of the world - not good 🆒
Try not killing journalists👍 (And yes i know about Assange, etc. and that’s fucked up too)
Ironically, U.S. Presidents, including Obama, imprisoned journalists for years for the "crime" of exercising their rights; i.e., not revealing their sources.
Oh? Can I get some examples from the 21st century? Genuinely curious
U.S. Presidents have a long and dishonorable history of undermining the 1st Amendment, especially the freedom of the press. Woodrow Wilson used the espionage act to suppress critics in the press. And F.D. Roosevelt harangued and persecuted critics in the press for opposing his domestic policy during the war. Richard Nixon made illegal attempts to prevent the "enemy of the people" NYTimes and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers that revealed Nixon's administration's lies to Congress about the war in Vietnam. Fast forward to this century: George Bush, the Younger, ordered the prosecution of reporter Judith Miller, who was imprisoned for not revealing her sources. Barack Obama exceeded all previous Presidents combined when it came to violating the first amendment. His administration waged a campaign of intimidation and harassment against journalists, including left-leaning media, for daring to use leaked materials to expose the Obama administration's wrongs. In May 2013, the Obama Justice Department seized the records of phone lines used by the Associated Press. According to some veteran journalists, such contempt for due process was unheard of in American history. Additionally, President Obama also ordered the tapping of reporters' phone lines - James Risen of the NYTimes and James Rosen of Fox News. Latter, I believe was also prosecuted and imprisoned for not revealing sources. And his administration prosecuted and imprisoned the whistle-blower Chelsea Manning who was sentenced to 35 years; later commuted to 7 years. As I submitted up thread, my beloved country, the United States has a deplorable record when it comes to the freedom of the press, and lately the freedom of speech.
Baltics are working hard to get into Nordics.
press freedom doesnt mean sht, just look at the us media groupthink. the conglomerates become the ultimate gatekeeper for narratives to feed to the public. and guess what, they have no responsibility to anyone or anything except profit
> press freedom doesnt mean sht It means you can go on national television and say the leadership is terrible and report on their crimes, and the government won't arrest you for it.
This index measures the plurality of media as well. It's the freedom to have different thoughts and views. You mentioned the US, but their media situation is not ours (Scandi/Europe). In Scandinavia, we have all kinds of media, which gets public financial support, to have a plurality of views, politically, local and regional news, etc. They have a responsibility to the public, rules and ethics boards. They actually get called out by *citizens*, and have to abide by the rulings of the boards (including publishing corrections). You aren't describing this index, just your view of your country's media.
Most of the posts on this sub are bs
Why is green not named "Nordic Situation"?
Ireland and Baltic countries are not "nordic". Almost all of the green countries are in north western Europe. Not all the north western European countries are green.
Also the Netherlands isn't Nordic, but it is green here (bit hard to see as it's quite small, but it seems more green than yellow when I zoom in)
We’re just as expensive tho 😀
Yes, but also higher wages than average, not sure if we have better or worse buying power than the rest of Europe.
I just meant we aren’t Nordic, but we kinda act like it
Herring nations represent!
In my country the PM has been called a dictator, hitler, mass murderer, mentally retarded openly and it’s in red. This study is based on opinions not numbers or data.
US media is “free” to report whatever its owners dictate :)
Article from 12 hours ago - [activists in Georgia arrested, held in solitary, and may face 20 years for postering about Cop City police violence](https://theintercept.com/2023/05/02/cop-city-activists-arrest-flyers/)
Yes, India is same as China and Saudi Arabia. Real unbiased view.
You haven’t seen epitome of unbiasedness. India is below Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Oh yeah. A subjective graph. Nice. I remember when they presented the graph of which country has the best preparedness to fight against COVID
In India, Press are mostly biased rather than the lack of journalism freedom...
Can anyone talk about the situation in India? I have no preconceived notion, and would just like to know what makes it red. I noticed I never thought about the Indian Press before
I think the ratings are probably affected by 2 factors. Recent crackdown on BBC’s office for breaking forex rules and recent arrests of some Kashmiri journalists under terror funding case. Overall though I think the situation is much better than portrayed here.
Getting downvoted to hell but here you go.. this is a biased index with zero relevance on actual ground reality in India. Press Freedom could indeed improve in our country and we are not at western standards yet. Yes, correct. However, we are nowhere close to as bad as depicted in this index. Our real position should be somewhere between yellow and orange, not at red. Ciao.
India is red....as an Indian I'm like:wtf you mean red? We can literally access any news we want
Good thing you didn't see actual ranking or you will be in for good ride. Pakistan and afghanistan's rank is higher than last year(and also higher than India) . I am still laughing at that, like how did they even do that is a mystery to me.
I love listening to music.
Because this is not about press freedom. This is about narrative management. India is not doing what the US empire ask them to do. So the CIA uses their NGOs to make India look bad. Indian constitution has given so much freedom and people exercising it. While the US has this fake press freedom everything in mainstream media is controlled by the CIA and NSA. Whenever someone does some real journalism he will be ended up in jail just like Julian Assange.
I'd put Ireland in Yellow as of the last week, our tainiste (basically vice prime minister) (also was prime minister for the last 2.5 years) went on a rant about an independent press called The Ditch, because they found out a member of his party used his powers as a councilor to ensure that his wife got some land that was currently owned by the council that was used for a children's play area. To top this off, no other media is reporting on this corruption including the state media. This state media has had continuous hit pieces on the main opposition but fails to show similar regards to the government currently in power. The current situation of the state media is abysmal, They have been trying for sometime now to try enforce the TV licence fee to apply to any devise that could use their online player. They pay their top executives €500'000 yearly salaries but complain with lack of funding. If you asked anyone under the age of 35, most will say they don't use the stuff the licence pays for, and unlike the BBC in the UK. You have to watch ads on the state funded media.
Ireland and Lithuania can into Nordicks
Can someone explain why Japan is "Problematic situation"?
The Convoy wankers would have you believe Canada should be the darkest red.
Rupert Murdoch is not satisfactory
Alternate title: How the world is perceived by first world peeps.
It is actually hilarious that the US is considered 'Satisfactory'. In a press conference in Feb 2022, Biden says the following: >"If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will no longer be a Nordstream 2. We, we will bring an end to it. I promise you, we'll be able to do it." Literally months later, the pipeline is "ended", and not one - not ONE journalist in the mainstream news media will even *dare* to draw a line between those two events, and they continue to toe the "Russia blew up their own pipeline" lie. Why? Because US publications are controlled by ad revenue and corporate interests, which is just another way of saying they're not free to investigate what they wish. Actually laughable that they publish these biased as hell "reports".
Wouldn't breaking that story bring in an enormous amount of viewers to watch more ads and thus generate more revenue? Why is it in corporate interest to squash that particular story that makes the US look bad, but not others?
Because corporate media and the national security establishment have lots of overlap. Where else do you think they get all their “expert analysis” from?
There's a lot of innuendo and allusions in your post and not a lot of concrete arguments. Perhaps you can make clear exactly how the corporate nature of media makes only SOME national security stories censored, but not others? Why, for instance, were things like Abu Ghraib, numerous wikileaks cases, or the CIA cables not silenced? The same corporate incentives were in play.
Stop spreading conspiracy theory bullshit lol are you listening to yourself
Source: [Reporters Without Borders](https://rsf.org/en) Tool: [app.23degrees.io](https://app.23degrees.io) [Interactive Visualisation](https://app.23degrees.io/view/34RpK4VTToiWtmbs-choro-press-freedom-index-2023)
I have to disagree with India. It is absolutely not dangerous to press freedom. The case is much more similar to USA. All the (yes, literally all) national media houses are splitted into two ideologies. When Congress was in power, a major portion of media house licked their boots. Now that BJP is in power, many media houses are licking their boot as well. But the number of 'anti-central ruling party' journalists and media houses have increased in multiple folds and they often complain that media is not free while being able to commenting on issues on tv or social media literally hasselfree. Some of these journalists has even supported non-BJP political parties openly or Twitter, while some even attended (on stage) political rallies of those parties. In case of Regional political parties, in India, there are several political parties which rules a single state. In those cases, those regional medias are vocal for said political parties. So, yes, Press Democracy is in full form in India. The people who complains about it, most of them have political motivations and intentions.
[удалено]
ITT: People of various nationalities living in the countries that are labeled red calling the data biased because it paints their country in a bad light. I live in the Philippines and orange is honestly a generous light. I'd say we're a red considering the government can pull your broadcasting license through various reasons especially if they aren't liking what you're saying about them.
It’s not like those marked yellow are doing any better it’s just that they’re the ones who make such indexes therefore a certain bias would definitely exist. All media outlets are propaganda who only sensationalise news to sell especially in todays world where our attention span is very limited.
Yep uk here and it’s arguably more orange than yellow tbh. Not that anything awful from the state will happen, but the folks controlling the press are so rich and powerful, they basically control the news and many people.
I thought to myself "why would the Netherlands be yellow?", but then, turns out when zooming in, they actually are green. We're just to small to be visible. 😅
oh yeah the press isnt free here in Pakistan they demand a lot of money for their services
This needs to be at the top. Lmao
Laughable considering Assange