Reporters Without Borders
(RSF) released its annual World Press Freedom Index for 2016 which
ranks 180 nations according to the level of freedom available to journalists, a
ranking that RSF has published annually since 2002. The ranking is based
on a questionnaire that is supplied to key people within each nation as you
will see below.
Scores provide a snapshot
of the freedom of the media in each nation based on several categories that are
critical to ensure that the press remains free of outside interference or
influence. It is important to note that RSF does not rank the quality
of journalism, a rather fortunate turn of events for many newspapers, radio
stations and television stations in many nations.
To compile the rankings,
RSF uses an online questionnaire which consists of 87 questions targeted at
media professionals, sociologists and lawyers. Here are the categories
with each indicator given a score of between 0 and 100:
1.) Pluralism - measures
the degree to which opinions are represented in the media.
2.) Media Independence -
measures the degree to which the media are able to function independently of
sources of governmental, business, religious and political influence.
3.) Environment and
Self-Censorship - analyzes the environment which news providers operate.
4.) Legislative Framework
- measures the impact of legislation that covers news and information
activities.
5.) Transparency -
measures the transparency of the institutions and procedures that affect news
and information production.
6.) Infrastructure -
measures the quality of the infrastructure that affects news and information
production.
7.) Abuses - measures the
level of abuses and violence against the news and information industry.
Scores range from 0 to
100 with 0 being the best score and 100 being the worst. RSF calculates
two scores; ScoA is based on the first six of the seven indicators listed above
and ScoB combines the first six indicators with the seventh (abuses). A
nation's final score is the greater of these two scores.
Press freedom scores are
then grouped into five rankings as follows with a map colour code for each
ranking:
1.) From 0 to 15 points
is considered good (light yellow).
2.) From 15.01 points to
25 points is fairly good (dark yellow).
3.) From 25.01 to 35
points is problematic (orange).
4.) From 35.01 to 55
points is bad (red).
5.) From 55.01 to 100
points is very bad (black).
If you are interested, here is a link to the questionnaire.
Here
is a map showing the press freedom scores for all 180 nations in the study:
Let's look at the
rankings and scores for a few nations, recalling that a low score is better:
1 - Finland - score 8.59
2 - Netherlands - score
8.76
3 - Norway - score 8.79
16 - Germany - score
14.80
18 - Canada - score 15.26
25 - Australia - score
17.84
38 - United Kingdom -
score 21.70
41 - United States -
score 22.49
45 - France - score 23.83
72 - Japan - score 28.67
77 - Italy - score 28.93
101 - Israel - score
32.58
120 - Afghanistan - score
37.75
132 - Palestine - score
42.93
148 - Russia - score
49.03
149 - Mexico - score
49.33
151 - Turkey - score
50.76
158 - Iraq - score 54.35
161 - Iran - score 63.72
161 - Iran - score 63.72
165 - Saudi Arabia -
score 59.72
176 - China - score 80.96
177 - Syria - score 81.35
179 - North Korea - score
83.76
And, for your
information, the last place finisher was Eritrea with a score of 83.92.
While a lack of press freedom in nations like Russia and China is not terribly surprising, it is interesting to see
that the United States and United Kingdom have scores that suggest that the
press is not as free as one might expect. In the case of the United
States, while media freedom is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution,
the government's attacks on whistleblowers are quite apparent (just ask Edward
Snowden). As well, American journalists are not protected by laws that
guarantee that they don't have to reveal their sources. In addition, the
unspoken threat that journalists will lose access to "breaking news"
from government sources if they don't "play nice" also has a bearing
on how and what news is reported.
While not terribly
surprising, it is also interesting to see how American allies in the Middle
East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, both score very poorly as do the
recipients of American-led military actions including Afghanistan and Iraq.
So much for instilling American-style democracy.
Where freedom of the press is illusory, what passes for journalism is really not newsworthy. As we've noted
during the latest election cycle in the United States, reportage has been
biased to a level that has made it almost valueless to voters who actually want
to know where a candidate stands on key issues. This illusion of press freedom creates a voting public
that is ignorant of what really matters, instead, creating a highly biased
electorate.
How much is RSF itself an illusion?
ReplyDeleteRobert Menard, the Secretary General of RSF, was forced to confess that RSF's budget was primarily provided by "US organizations strictly linked with US foreign policy" (Thibodeau, La Presse).
NED (US$39,900 paid 14 Jan 2005)
Center for a Free Cuba (USAID and NED funded) $50,000 per year NED grant. Contract was signed by Otto Reich
European Union (1.2m Euro) -- currently contested in EU parliament
Rights & Democracy in 2004 supported Reporters Without Borders-Canada [1]
"Grants from private foundations (Open Society Foundation, Center for a Free Cuba, Fondation de France, National Endowment for Democracy) were slightly up, due to the Africa project funded by the NED and payment by Center for a Free Cuba for a reprint of the banned magazine De Cuba." [2]
Media ranked highly by RSF has no credibility with its readership – as in the USA, where Gallup found its credibility below 20%.
Media ranked low by RSF has high credibility with its readership – as in China, where it's 80%.