Talk:Reporters Without Borders

Contents

1 Punctuation 2 Title 3 United States 4 Who answers the questionnaire? 5 Context is anti-US 6 High US ranking 7 ETA is not a paramilitary group 8 Problems with the ranking 9 Fraud

Punctuation

I'm changing the decimal punctuation to '.' from ','. I'm not sure how the brits do it, but ISO decimals are not American english. 24.75.67.173 15:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Brits used do 100,000.001 to mean one hundred thousand and one thousandth. This means that commas are very confusing and are frowned on. Use dot for deciman point and spaces to separate every three digits (if anything). Thus 100 000.001 or just 100000.001. This also avoids confusing continentals and, even stranger, is quite okay for Americans Mozzerati 16:13, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Title

Possibly a stupid question, but why isn't this at Reporters Sans Frontières? MSF is, after all.
James F. (talk) 19:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The vast majority of links and references point to the English version, and rsf.org has French, English as well as Spanish as official translations, too. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the EU, it's always refered to as "Reporters Sans Frontières", never as "Reporters without borders" (or, at least, I've never heard of it referenced thus, though. Links can be changed - policy is, after all, to locate articles at the "most common" term for them... I dunno.

James F. (talk) 19:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's probably just a custom, nobody insists on it. FWIW, Google has 73,700 English pages for "reporters without borders", 34,600 English pages for "reporters sans frontières", and 10,500 English pages for "reporters sans frontieres". I don't think we'll be doing anything wrong if we just keep it where it is. --Joy [shallot]

United States

Any particular reason why they don't list the US at the top? We Americans practically invented freedom of the press and DID invent the Internet, which supports blogging and wikis and such.

What evidence does RWB give of "attacks" on press freedom in the US? (If no one answers this, I'll put which inexplicably ranks the US far down on its list in the intro paragraph.) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are joking, aren't you, dunce? Chameleon 14:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Violations of the privacy of sources, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations kept the United States (22nd) away from the top of the list. [1] (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11710)

The reason for this is that the ranking is *not* done that way - it's not a propagandistic "we're the best, so we must rank at the top", it's compiled as a result of surveys where the journalists of the countries ranked are questioned. You could just as well ask Amnesty International to not report human rights violations in the USA. That being said, Wikipedia does not have an opinion on anything; we merely give the facts (and in this case, the facts are that the USA does *not* rank at the top of the list), so please don't insert POV text like the above into the intro paragraph. -- Schnee 14:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which journalists are questioned? The RWB website apparently only queried its own staff:

• The questionnaire was sent to partner organisations of Reporters Without Borders (14 freedom of expression groups in five continents) and its 130 correspondents around the world, as well as to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. [2] (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11716)

I will not add my personal POV, but will merely contrast RWB point of view with the general beliefs of Americans. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rubbish. It *is* your POV, not that of (all) "Americans"; furthermore, the article is not POV as it is, as it merely states facts. I'm sure the article on George W. Bush contains some of shrub's POVs, too, but as long as they're labelled as such and not present as facts themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. It's important to distinguish between a fact, an opinion, and the fact that someone has a certain opinion. That being said, even if the article *was* POV, the correct course of action would not be to add yours, too; two wrongs don't make one right. Wikipedia is about a *NEUTRAL* point of view, and that specifically includes that it's not americanocentric or biased towards the USA (whether in a positive or negative way). Considering you're an admin, I hope you'll understand that and keep your own opinion out of Wikipedia. -- Schnee 14:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Any such beliefs aren't pertinent here, because this page is titled RWB, not freedom of the press. If the RWB mention in there looks wrong to you, fix that there. --Joy [shallot] 15:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

It seems this European-centered group has an anti-US bias. I thought it was beyond question that the US had the freest of free presses in the world, bar none.

The arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations, now was that for participating in a peaceful demonstration? That is, punishing a reporter for advocacy journalism (as opposed to straight news reporting)? Or was it for disorderly conduct during a demonstration that turned violent?

Also, is RWB asserting that no reporter should EVER be arrested? (They should have diplomatic immunity?) Or are they saying the arrests were bogus? Was there a trial? Were the journalists released, convicted or what? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stop being so arrogant. -- Schnee 14:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I assume this means you have no plans to answer any of these questions. I can therefore only assume that RWB is the sole source of the claim that America merits a low ranking on press freedom. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I have no plans to answer these questions; FWIW, I'm not affiliated with RSF in any way, either. I just happen to take offense at assertions like the one that "beyond question that the US had the freest of free presses" (which is entirely based on an overly large amount of pride rather than on facts), or allegations like "this European-centered group [having] an anti-US bias" simply because you don't like the results of their survey. Objective criticism should be not be taken as an offense, and if something's broke, then you should fix it, not scold whoever told you it's broke.

And for what it's worth, I think you're overreacting, anyway. A score of 4.0 is not too bad - you're still better than the UK, for example (6.0), Australia (9.0) and many others. -- Schnee 18:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"We invented freedom of the press" does not equal (even if it were ture) "we currently have the most free press in the world." This sort of reminds me of a friend's story of his trip to Washington, where a tour guide claimed the US invented democracy. Adam Bishop 18:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They think they invented apple pie too. Chameleon 14:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who answers the questionnaire?

RWB says that they sent a questionnaire to their "partner organisations". Is their anything to distinguish them from a mere advocacy organization, since they apparently only surveyed themselves and their friends? Like the Bush campaign citing themselves for a survey on voter intimidation. --Ed Poor

Nowhere in the article was it claimed that they didn't do this, it was simply implied that the sample is representative. I've integrated the two edits now, so everyone can be the judge of that. IMHO it seems as representative as it can get, because there doesn't appear to be another similar organization in the world. --Joy [shallot] 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Context is anti-US

With the US getting kicked off the U.N.'s human nights commission -- by a clique of the worst violators -- I think it's important for readers to find unbiased information about American adherence to democratic principles such as freedom of the press and other human rights. When a European organization rates America as significantly lower than some European countries, I want to know why.

It looks like RWB just asked their own "partners" to fill out a survey form. That's not much of a basis for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I guess we should do an article about organizations which rate the countries of the world, and which sheds light on the criteria they use for rating and how they gather information relating to these criteria.

Want to help? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're going off on a tangent. You can't blame them for being some sort of camarilla without even a cursory investigation as to who those partners are. It seems to me that they partnered up for one reason only: to support journalists in the face of whoever violates their freedom of expression. That does not imply some sort of anti-American agenda by definition. --Joy [shallot] 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, other than the initial focus on the Iraq crisis -- which is explained by the simple fact it's the most advertized crisis in the world at the moment -- there's very little in the way of focusing on the US on their web site, quite to the contrary, they go on about the places that are the US keeps complaining about (as well as places about which nobody talks about, which is indicative of their neutrality). Your reaction is quite U.S.-centric, which is fine, but not exactly encyclopedic. --Joy [shallot]

Let's be honest; the countries that interfere least with their presses are going to be small democratic countries that have a stable, happy population. Larger countries with more dissent, and by necessity more complex political systems, in the push and shove of things are going to have a little overreaction and a few idiots and have a few cases of reporter oppression. The results are to be expected. --Prosfilaes 23:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

High US ranking

I'm a little surprised at the US's high ranking on the table. Tabloids aside, I would have though the UK, for example, was obviously freer (though still greatly lacking). Spain too. Chameleon 14:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's irrelevant; this is not a list of press freedom, it's a list of who Reporters Without Borders thought had more freedom. If you want to know why, go to the primary sources. It might have something to do with the fact that the US has an explicit guarentee of press freedom that the UK lacks; for example, the Pentagon Papers would have been illegal to print in the UK.

Oh yeah, and there was really no need to add derogatory, information-free jabs at old, responded-to comments on this page. All it does is inflame passions.--Prosfilaes 06:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • The major difference between the USA and the two European nations mentioned is that ETA in Spain and the IRA and protestant paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland all threaten journalists, lowering the perceived level of freedom. This is not a government only record. Average Earthman 18:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ETA is not a paramilitary group

I have switched for two times the term “paramilitary” to the term “terrorist” regarding ETA.

Spain is not Colombia, here don’t exist paramilitary groups.

In ETA don’t exist military hierarchy, there are not Generals, sgts. or captains in ETA.

ETA have not uniform, they have not military basis or large training facilities, they have not garrisons. They shot in the back civilians while dressing a Nike shoes, blue-jeans and a T-shirt, for instance.

ETA attacks unarmed civilians, and also military personal, but when they are disarmed having a ride with his wife a saturday afternoon, for instance. ETA is included in the international list of terrorist organizations. Their tactics are classical terrorism, i.e. trying to impose their dogmas by terror. Thus, they threaten and kill journalist who wrote against them, and hence the low rank of Spain in freedom for journalism.

The Spanish Army does not act against ETA, but the National Police does. ETA is a police issue, not a military conflict.

Calling ETA “paramilitary group” is not just incorrect and fake, but also outraging. This is not suitable for the Wikipedia.

• They are described in the Wikipedia article on ETA as a paramilitary group, and on the paramilitary article as such. Average Earthman 23:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Really? So I give clear evidences on why ETA is not a paramilitary group(look in a dictionary what a paramilitary group is) and your answer is that ETA is described as a military group in the Wikipedia? The Wikpedia can say that the Moon is made on cheese, but this does not mean that the statament is true. The Wikipedia article on ETA is wrong, and I have a lot of work to do.

• as Jmabel says on the ETA talk page Terrorism is listed under words we should avoid and as Mtiedemann says his edit summary on the ETA page the term paramilitary does not exclude charges of terrorism so paramilitary is a solid term to use. O'Dubhghaill 15:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The other alternative as used by the BBC News is 'militant'. The BBC only uses the word 'terrorist' in quotations. Average Earthman 18:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the ranking

I have noticed that the ranking of the countries was not exactly the same in the other languages in wich this article appears. The english and the portuguese versions of the list are the same, of October 16 2004. The french and spanish versions are the same but they don't have a date. I don't know which version of those two is the most recent. A correction seems necessary. Thank you!

• Well, you could have tried the links at the bottom of the page that take you to the RSF website and compared the tables. Since it's an annual thing, and we aren't in October 2005 yet, the latest (3rd annual report) is the one from 2004. The one on French Wikipedia is the 2nd annual report. Average Earthman 07:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fraud

Reporters without Borders a fraud?

The introductory section of this entry seems to take Reporters without Borders at face value, but perhaps the organization deserves a closer look. Are more interested agendas at work beneath the benign surface of the organization? One reason to look closer is the reported link between RSF (the Paris-based organization's French acronym) and another benign sounding organiztion linked to powerful interests: the U.S. government agency known as the National Endowment for Democracy.

According to "The Reporters without Borders Fraud", an article by Salim Lamrani posted on the Z Magazine website on May 13, 2005, "Mr. Robert Ménard, secretary general of the RSF for twenty years, has confessed to receiving financing from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that depends on the U.S. Department of State, whose principal role is to promote the agenda of the White House for the entire world. Ménard was indeed very clear. 'We indeed receive money from the NED. And that hasn’t posed any problem'."

An international organization receiving money from a U.S. government agency dedicated since its founding to furthering U.S. interests if not democracy abroad, is unlikely to be free of U.S. government influence.

Edit by 68.232.250.167 on the 17 of May, 2005

I didn't cut the above text because it's wrong, per se. If there is a reputable link behind RSF and the US Government and some consider it evidence of fraud, it's probably worth adding to the article. But that text is non-encyclopedic in tone and clearly POV in color. Z Magazine needs to be linked, and a link to the article would be nice. Other sources would be nice, beyond one magazine article.--Prosfilaes 04:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)--Prosfilaes 04:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • The readdition is still very POV (and also rather hard to follow). Accusing RSF of never going against US interests is clearly over the top given a number of complaints it has raised against the US. I feel it should be written in a reporting manner - that others have raised questions about the impartiality of RSF due to its funding sources. Average Earthman 08:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)