|
Showing 1 - 3 of
3 matches in All Departments
In its global campaign to fight terrorism is the Bush
administration trying to muzzle freedom of speech? David Dadge,
editor of the "International Press Institute", documents a number
of disturbing incidents of attempted press censorship in this
interesting perspective on the rising tensions between powerful
government interests and independent journalists. Dadge concludes
by arguing that rather than suppressing the media, political and
military institutions would be better off in the end by actually
increasing existing freedoms. This carefully researched and
well-argued discussion of free expression under siege should be of
great interest and concern to all who care about one of our most
important liberties.
What happens to journalists who expose uncomfortable truths? How
far are journalists prepared to go in order to report a difficult
story? "Silenced" provides answers to these questions with the
stories of journalists who risked their careers so that the public
might be informed. From China, where Jasper Becker, formerly
Beijing bureau chief of the South China Morning Post, fought a
lonely and unsuccessful battle against owners willing to soften the
newspaper's reporting of the Chinese government in the hope of
protecting mainland investments, to Zimbabwe where the harsh
treatment of the Guardian's Andrew Meldrum led to him being
arrested and forcibly deported from the country because he dared
criticise President Robert Mugabe, "Silenced" is a forcible
reminder of the risks - both personal and financial - accepted by
the media on our behalf. In other parts of the world, journalists
face more traditional problems. When faced with the threat of
censorship, all of these journalists reacted in a similar manner -
they chose to report and face the consequences. They decided to
place the ethics of journalism above all other considerations.;As
such they are proof that press freedom cannot exist without those
who are willing to uphold its fundamental principals. "Silenced" is
more than a book on the media. It is an expression of the bravery
and persistence of journalists everywhere.
Polls show that a sizeable portion of the American population
believes that troops found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was
somehow responsible for the attacks of September 11. Even after the
9/11 Commission Report and numerous other reports have concluded
that our intelligence was flawed, people in the freest nation on
earth continue to be misinformed about something that could not be
more vital to understand—the reasons for sending troops into
harm's way. This insightful analysis argues that the media should
have done a better job of performing its traditional role of
skeptic and watchdog, and it examines what went wrong. There are,
of course, many people whose support for going to war in Iraq was
not contingent on the existence of WMD or a connection to al-Qaeda.
But many others based their support for the war on misinformation.
Dadge explores why the media did not aggressively investigate the
claims made by the administration and intelligence agencies; in
short, why they did not do their job: to fully inform the citizenry
to the best of their ability. He examines pressures from the Bush
administration, pressures from corporate consolidation of media
ownership, patriotism and self-censorship, and other factors. He
concludes with recommendations for ways in which the media can
improve their reporting on government.
|
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.