Close Topic Options

Silencing The Media

I read a survey today that shows all the countries who have jailed media over the past year.

China was number one with 32, followed by Cuba 24, then two neighbouring African nations Eritrea 15, and Ethiopia 13.

Other countries of note were Uzbekistan 6, Burma 5, and the United States, who surprisingly jailed 5 media representatives in Iraq and Guantanamp Bay.

Journalists jailed 2005

My question is, how do people feel about the media being jailed and what does it say about the countries who are doing this? Can there be democracy when the media are not free to keep governments accountable?

I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of people from the countries mentioned as well.

Media Silencing

Honestly as far as I have seen some members of the media go just for ratings or popularity I don't feel sorry for them at all. There has to be a point that they are held responsible for the actions they take in order for them to get the story they are after.

I am very proud of the countries that feel they can take charge over the media. There are certain things that hurt the country, communities, citizens, ect. and we trust our governing bodies to keep up safe. I support America 100% for jailing every member of the media that they felt they need to.

Not sure exactly how to say this so bear with me.

We, in America, have the freedom to bear arms. We take that too far and hurt someone we loose that freedom.

We, in America, have freedom of the press. Should that not also have consequences if it is taken to an unhealthy level?

Silencing The Media History & Civil Business Politics

Those are very good questions, but they leave an awful lot of area open for interpretation and misinterpretation.

For example, how many of those reporters / writers were jailed for actual crimes? If you are sure that they were jailed only for reporting "the truth", how can you be sure of that? Are you ONLY taking their word for it?

Now, I know that places like China and Cuba have a long and hallowed history of jailing anyone who dissents with them in any way. Is it fair, at all, to compare the US with either of those countries?

One good example in the US is Judith Miller. She was jailed for contempt of court. Not because of what she wrote, but because she stood up to the court. She had the right, at any time, to answer the questions of the court, but she refused to do so.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of the Press' right to keep all sources, at all times, secret. I believe that there is a huge amount of shoddy and/or vindictive reporting that is covered up by the "anonymous source" argument, which is essentially the only reason that I know of for reporters to be jailed in the US - specifically having to do with their reporting - in a very long time.

Now, let's consider another aspect of this. What about amateur, or home-grown reporting, as in blogs and newsletters? Do they deserve the protection and respect that you appear to demand for "the media"?

Anyway, back to your question. I think it purely has to do with the exact reasons that "the media" are jailed. If a reporter damages or attempts to damage national security, then they should be punished as traitors. If they give aid and comfort to the enemy, they should bear the consequences.

I don't really know if a democracy can survive the jailing of "the media." Some days, I would surely like to see us try! I wouldn't mind seeing a whole LOT of "the media" put away for a very, very long time!

Media Silencing

I disagree with the idea that a country has the right to take charge of the media. If the truth can hurt the country or the people, chances are the problem does not lie with the media person reporting it but with whomever is tyring to keep them silent. The only reason a media person should be arrested or punished by the government is if they've committited an actual crime (like contempt of court), committed fraud or plagiarism or of course if they reveal national secrets that could aid an enemy (If the media finds access to these types of secrets though I have to wonder how well guarded they were in the first place).

It is true that inaccurate journalism can be irritating, but it is not necessarily a crime. The punishment of a journalist who is consistently wrong will be there loss of credibility (and likely their job). Allowing any government the power to regulate the media for the sake of the people is an invitation to erode an essential liberty that is a trademark of most prosperous free societies.

Media Silencing

I am not quiet sure what do you mean by those countries that feel can take charge over the media. The Media is supposed to be an independent body, when a country takes over it then it stops to be a source of credibility.

I do not see why not, even though I agree with what you said about China and Cuba, I believe the US has some serious issues with the Media.

I think this is exactly the point. As a former journalist, I think I have the right to report the truth at all times, I also have the right to keep my sources safe and secure and I would stand jail if neccesary that I may keep those sources from harm. I do not believe any journalist should be above the law, yet nobody can force me to do something that goes against my journalistic values.

I agree 100% with what suek said.

Edited: LDS_forever on 17th Dec, 2005 - 1:30pm

Silencing The Media

I tend to agree with Suek and LDS on this issue.

But Nighthawk you raise some fair points. It didn't indicate the reasons for the arrest of journalists, but we are to presume it is for their reporting. It would be good if the website also showed the "official" reason for their incarceration. Mind you the official reason and the real reason can be two very different things.

The US should be compared and scrutinised as much as China or Cuba. The trend of jailing journalists in countries which the US occupies is a disturbing development, just as it is in China etc.

I totally agree with you on that. I never use anonymous sources unless it is to protect the safety of my source. But there is a lot of shallow reporting that I read which hides behind the screen of "a government official/spokesperson said". Such references are very disturbing to me because it shows a complete lack of accountability over the comments. I also hate the US trend of using PR stooges like Scott McClelland to speak on behalf of the Government. Thankfully this doesn't occur in Australia. Poiliticians must be accountable for their actions. Let them speak.

This is a very good point. In the media your reputation is everything. So if you destroy that with shoddy reporting you will be punished.

I reckon you should live in a country that takes charge of the media before supporting State controlled media. In Malaysia, for instance, the media is virtually controlled by the Government through a licensing system. Now if a paper reports on Government corruption or any negative aspects of the government, its license is revoked. There is also a sedition law which has been controversially introduced in Australia as well. Uou never get the real story about what is going on in Malaysia through their media. If you don't know what the government is doing, how can you make an informed decision to vote for them?

No. Does a "doctor" without any qualifications deserve similar rights and privileges of real doctors? Anyone can be a doctor with the right training and the same is the case with the media. Bloggers are really just opinion writers. It is a journalistic law to make it very clear when you express an opinion. This isn't the case with blogs. The media has plenty of laws they have to adhere to. In less free countries these rules are even more stringent.

Reporters are just conduits of information. They don't damage national security. If the information they circulate has a damaging effect on a country's security then the source of that information needs to be examined. Why shoot the messenger? It is also not a reporter's job to be a patriot at the expense of truth. I believe the truth must always be reported regardless of whether that is popular to a particular government. Governments are public servants. We vote them into power. We do that based on the information we are given about them. If you remove the informants you can not have true freedom because you don't know what you are voting for.

I am the same. I think there should be a law to protect sources. The whole notion that all information must be officially sanitised is very disturbing to me. Many of the great stories throughout history have come from dissenters. A lot of my biggest stories have come from people speaking off the record. If we take away protections for these people you won't get anyone coming out with the truth.

Fair enough, let's hope for my sake your wishes don't come true! I think the media plays a critical role in a free society. I've expressed the reasons above.

But let me ask everyone here another question. If the media didn't exist where would we get our news from? Would we know about major events like Wars, World Cups and Sept 11? Would we know what really happened or what the government wants us to know? Can a society thrive on word of mouth?

Edited: arvhic on 18th Dec, 2005 - 3:14am

Silencing Media

I believe a free media is one of the cornerstones of a free society. I don't believe freedom can be upheld without an organized media. Word of mouth would not cut it to spread the truth, news would be so muddled in rumor it would be difficult to decipher the true story. The media, especially in todays world, is able to disseminate information quickly and for the most part accurately. If the government controlled the media, or if there was no private media, you better believe the people would not be fully informed of government happenings. How could we hold elected officials accountable without a media to bring to light corruption or incompetency. The media has its faults but I'd rather have an imperfect free media then none at all.

Silencing Media Politics Business Civil & History

I think there needs to be a balance between media freedom and descretion. For the United States, in particular, I know there have been instances where the media put soldiers in danger by revealing too much of their location. While I don't necessarily find that reason enough to be arrested, I do believe the government has the right to step in, in a non-fascious way, to have some control over what is being reported on.

There is a difference between reprimanding a media official simply because they may hold a difference of opinion than somebody they may be reporting on.

You can't have the media completely allowed to have total freeway on what they report on because that can open up wounds for national security. On the contraty, you cannot have the government dictating any and everything that is being reported on. Not allowing the media the right to express different perspectives and exposing corruption is not fair to the public at large.