Does America or the west have a free press?

KingBrian2

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

And how do you know that isn't happening? I asked my question in a specific way. You've answered it with a different statistic. You can't say that americans only get their news from one source on the basis of which sources get the most viewers/readers/listeners.

The reality is that there are numerous news outlets. The average American, I suspect will read at least one newspaper a week, listen to radio shows, watch television and surf many different websites.

There is no evidence that the average american only gets their news from just one source.

Well you can only base it on historical trends. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush. The American public were ill served by the media is all these instances. Now we have WikiLeaks and Anonymous and they are not gvt sanctioned outlets. They are subversive news networks. Don't know about you but I like to know where my news is coming from.

Harvey Normal

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

All this has already been said.

It hasn't been rebutted.

Press freedom is the topic under discussion and if anything, the press has even more freedom in the US than in Europe for example; based on libel laws there.

.

Yeh. I said that.

Whether people believe the press or not is a completely different question.

I wouldn't consider the press free if (supposedly) free of government control. If all the Russian press was owned by pro Putin oligarchs but not formally under the government thumb, you wouldn't either.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well you can only base it on historical trends. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush. The American public were ill served by the media is all these instances. Now we have WikiLeaks and Anonymous and they are not gvt sanctioned outlets. They are subversive news networks. Don't know about you but I like to know where my news is coming from.

I'm not sure you can say the American public were ill-served by the media, especially in the case of Nixon.

But earlier you referred to the American public still believing in WMD in Iraq after the war 'ended'. Who's narrative was WMD in Iraq? It was certainly not a media driven one, it was Bush and Rumsfeld, i.e. 'The Government'.

All the while Bush was pushing his WMD agenda, the UN were struggling to control the outcome with inspections and this was widely reported. The fact is, the American public chose to believe their president and refused to believe the evidence from 'foreigners'.

And to a great extent, still do.

CMOTDibbler

Harvey Normal wrote: »

It hasn't been rebutted.

I wasn't rebuttinig it. Just pointing out it's already been stated on this thread.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I wouldn't consider the press free if (supposedly) free of government control. If all the Russian press was owned by pro Putin oligarchs but not formally under the government thumb, you wouldn't either.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out if a media organ is biased or under government influence, if not control.

But Russia goes a step further and allows no criticism of Putin or the government. The freedom of the press to criticise government is something we shouldn't take for granted.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The amount of misinformation and propaganda emanating from the private sector is huge in America and yes I do believe a gvt media side by side with the private sector can co exist. In other countries the gvt have a stake in the dissemination of news and private media operators can print in reason what they want. Freedom is not being taken away when the gvt give out public announcements or relevant news is updated.

Here in the UK, we have the BBC. Ireland has RTÉ. Neither of those countries would have a particular high standard of media. I like the BBC and think it stands head and shoulders above it's competition but that competition is very rarely up to much.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Can we truly say we live in a world of free press when political elites are backed completely by the media.

Well there's absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own news service to publish anything you want without government interference.

Chips Lovell

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Either way how can the voters make informed decision in a climate such as we have now in which gossip and rumour is presented as news. The public are made to care more about Bill and Trump's sex lives then their current policies. Taxation, immigration, foreign policy, role of government, etc. Before you go on to say Trump is useless. It is the media that focus relentlessly on his personal life. It also goes into this Imperial Presidency instead of the primacy of Congress.

Blame the public, not the media. The media is market driven and responds to public tastes.

Even if you set up some sort of US public news service, people would still be reading and tuning into the private media you dislike.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The amount of misinformation and propaganda emanating from the private sector is huge in America and yes I do believe a gvt media side by side with the private sector can co exist. In other countries the gvt have a stake in the dissemination of news and private media operators can print in reason what they want. Freedom is not being taken away when the gvt give out public announcements or relevant news is updated.

Government media is pretty much always a bad thing, for the obvious reasons, but there is a perfectly good model that meets your criteria - public service broadcasting. State or federally funded media, with clear editorial separation from the government of the day already exists, and does a pretty good job of coverage on the political front. NPR and PBS may not be up to BBC levels of funding, range and quality, but it's available to anyone who wants a non-corporate source for their news.

Sofa Spud

You need to consider too the impact that public broadcasters have on the wider media landscape - BBC, RTE, ZDF and others set a tone in an environment where newscasters do not provide any editorial opinions in news casts. They stick to the facts (and I know, that's subjective) and usually provide both sides of the story, with the implicit goal of letting the viewer decide for themselves. Look at the difference between Fox and Sky News. Both owned and run by the same corporation but complete opposites in term of journalistic quality and even resources - how many foreign correspondents does Sky have compared to Fox? Our press this side of the Atlantic is no where near perfect, but compared to the states, at least it encourages viewers/users to think for themselves and nuance and an understanding that there are rarely easy or simple answers still exists here....

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Government media is pretty much always a bad thing, for the obvious reasons, but there is a perfectly good model that meets your criteria - public service broadcasting. State or federally funded media, with clear editorial separation from the government of the day already exists, and does a pretty good job of coverage on the political front. NPR and PBS may not be up to BBC levels of funding, range and quality, but it's available to anyone who wants a non-corporate source for their news.

Why don't they get more attention then? I would trust PSB and NPR way more than Sky News or CNN. Honest broadcasting and none of the attacks on personalities.

InTheTrees

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Even if you set up some sort of US public news service, people would still be reading and tuning into the private media you dislike.

You only have to look at C-Span

Hardly a ratings giant.

K-9

Harvey Normal wrote: »

It hasn't been rebutted.

.

Yeh. I said that.



I wouldn't consider the press free if (supposedly) free of government control. If all the Russian press was owned by pro Putin oligarchs but not formally under the government thumb, you wouldn't either.

There should be restrictions on how much media one group or person controls.

However there are still quality newspapers out there. The problem is more to do with owners influencing or interjecting in reporting. A recent example was the Times not putting the Hillsborough exonerations on the front page when every other paper, barring the Sun covered it extensively.

People may disagree with perceived leanings of the Washington Post or the Guardian but these papers are trusted to report and investigate big stories, eg. Wikileaks or the Panama Papers.

As for political leanings, papers will go after a certain market to make profits, look at the UK were the majority of papers took a pro Brexit, anti-establishment line.

The future isn't looking good with papers facing cuts across the board and online not delivering the revenues expected or needed for wide ranging coverage. Unfortunately it looks like we'll see less and less widespread and extensive coverage of national and international news and politics, culture, sports etc. and more tabloid standard reporting because it costs less money and sells.

Maybe some type of BBC or RTE type newspapers maybe unavoidable in the future because quality, in depth and extensive journalism will be economically untenable in the future.

CMOTDibbler

I know it's considered comedy, but John Oliver covered journalism a few weeks ago and it's a sobering message about the future of journalism. Particularly print journalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ

Sofa Spud

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I know it's considered comedy, but John Oliver covered journalism a few weeks ago and it's a sobering message about the future of journalism. Particularly print journalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ

Yeah, scary stuff, and all you need to do is look at the Independent's front page and the amount of click bait and 'native advertising' - i.e. advertising disguised as content - to see how it's already happening here.....

realitykeeper

KingBrian2 wrote: »

With the upcoming election in the US approaching I wanted to start a thread on the newsworthiness of the world media we all have to listen to, watch and read on a daily basis. We are bombarded with daily stories and much of the media provides us with poor journalism. Presents as facts falsehoods and in the case of America a country renowned for its freedom we see propaganda everywhere. The refugee crisis, the economy, public representatives & war build up. The news ignores what is really going on and focuses on non stories. Such as appearances and pranks. Can we truly say we live in a world of free press when political elites are backed completely by the media.

I think you are right. The investigative journalism of yesteryear is a rarity today. Where investigations do happen, there is usually an ideological agenda which clouds the search for truth. Facts, when they are presented, are often accompanied by a biased interpretation - which is a bit annoying for those of us who like to think for ourselves.

Attitudes in general have changed a lot in the west in recent decades. James Bond, once known for his witty one liners is now as dour as a commy. I wonder why.

Ferrari3600

oscarBravo wrote: »

How are we defining "free press"?

My understanding of the term is that it means the government doesn't control what the press reports.

So, 1980s-era Pravda: not a free press. The BBC: free press.

Now, this is the point where some people will jump in with their claims about how RTE and BBC are completely state-controlled, but this is the Politics forum, not Conspiracy Theories.

By that definition: yes, the west has a free press. Do other people have different definitions?

You set a very low standard for what you consider to be a free press.

CMOTDibbler

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

You set a very low standard for what you consider to be a free press.

It's the generally accepted definition from an era when absence of government control of what the press published was not to be taken for granted.

It's still an issue in some parts of the world.

What people think now is a different matter. Wherever there is an ideology that is suppressed in a particular organ of the media because of its owner's particular beliefs or leanings, that organ could be said not to be free.

But that doesn't mean that the press as a whole isn't free. Freedom to publish anti-government sentiments is still the yardstick.

oscarBravo

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

You set a very low standard for what you consider to be a free press.

If we're going to set a higher bar, we need to get a consensus on what the bar is, and how it's to be achieved.

A number of people seem to be arguing that we don't have a free press, because some media outlets are biased. Let's go with that: how do you ensure media outlets aren't biased? By instructing them what they're allowed to publish?

Because that doesn't sound very free to me.

Brian?

A free press does not mean a press without bias. That's simply ridiculous. A free press means they are free to report the truth as they see it, within the bounds of the law.

The problem for the political right in America is that the bias in the press tends to lean left. Because college educated adults tend to lean left and journalists are college educated. There are papers and to channels that lean right, the number less than the left leaning sources but their reader/viewer figures are higher. So there is a quasi balance to the news. Foxnews is number one for ratings, despite being the only right leaning news network.

Ireland is an odd one. The newspapers tend to lean right, especially the Independent, and we don't really have balance on TV.

Basically, free press is here. Right wing people complain it's not free because it leans left sometimes. Quality logic.

Amerika

I would say - yes we have a free press in America. And that press is free to be as biased and lacking in journalistic integrity in their reporting as they want, and are. The fact that American’s trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to only 32% (its lowest level in Gallup polling history, and down eight percentage points from last year) pretty much proves it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

BuilderPlumber

One can look at the press in various ways. I feel in the West the press may actually have too much power and are the true rulers of many countries. Biased agendas are often behind them and they can make or break a government. Remember the time supposedly 'drunk' Brian Cowen was on the radio after a late night. It was exaggerated all out of proportion leading to his collapse from power only a short time later. The press had gotten the attention of the ratings agencies too.

The people who own the press have real power. In places like North Korea it is the government who owns the press. In countries like here it is rich businessmen and agendas then get set. Politicians or would be politicians write a lot in the press here too. Shane Ross, Willie O'Dea, John Bruton, and Bertie are just a few.

Is the press free? In theory yes. A more telling question is: is the press open to everyone to contribute to? The answer here is no. Certain opinions are pushed and others are not. Certain people have power to use the press to change things. Groups set up to fight for things like abortion are examples. If the press don't like someone or something they will chip away until it is gone.

We have I think become a media society where the media is seen as more essential than government or religion. Someone mentioned James Bond: 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies features as the bad guy (not a terrorist leader, dictator, corrupt businessman, exiled or dissident politician, mafia don or drug dealer but) a media tycoon. The film showed the power of the media and how the media make the news rather than report it.

In the real world, the media can report facts or decide not to report them. They can decide what to report and what not to. Country A and Country B may be two hellhole dictatorships doing the exact same atrocities to its people. We only get a negative view of A whereas we never hear anything about B because B is an ally and A is an enemy of the West. Paper A is the mouthpiece of political party A is thus biased in their favour. The media in other words is an all powerful tool for whoever uses it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

But if younger people are getting their news from Facebook it is mostly links from old media with some newer sources thrown in. Facebook or Google are just enabling people to share links or in Fb's case, maybe hiding or down voting right wing sources in their news feeds!

As for diversity, studies have shown Facebook will provide additional recommended media sources based on your past browsing history. So if you read the Huffington Post you'll get a lot of liberal or left leaning recommendations and the same applies if you generally read more right wing articles.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why are you using a gallop poll when actual data is available? Television ratings.

oscarBravo

K-9 wrote: »

As for diversity, studies have shown Facebook will provide additional recommended media sources based on your past browsing history. So if you read the Huffington Post you'll get a lot of liberal or left leaning recommendations and the same applies if you generally read more right wing articles.

In my experience, Google is a lot better at avoiding the echo chamber effect. It doesn't look at me reading liberal sources and decide to offer me other liberal sources; it looks at the topics I'm reading about, and offers me stories about those topics.

So, for example, I've (obviously) been reading a lot about Trump lately. Google will offer me articles from across the opinion spectrum, because "you've shown an interest in Donald Trump".

Chips Lovell

I've quite a high opinion of my friends and, despite that, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell I'd be better informed by relying on what they post to Facebook or Twitter as opposed to listening to the news or reading a paper.

The kind of person who relies on Facebook for news deserves Donald Trump as their president.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

In my experience, Google is a lot better at avoiding the echo chamber effect. It doesn't look at me reading liberal sources and decide to offer me other liberal sources; it looks at the topics I'm reading about, and offers me stories about those topics.

So, for example, I've (obviously) been reading a lot about Trump lately. Google will offer me articles from across the opinion spectrum, because "you've shown an interest in Donald Trump".

Google News maybe, I use Feedly myself but Google Now faces the same problem:

http://lifehacker.com/how-sites-like-google-and-facebook-put-you-in-political-1787659102

Facebook and Now are based on giving you what you like, giving you unbiased or well rounded sources isn't really what they are set up to do. A big part of the problem is if you do actually trust them to be unbiased because then you aren't screening it or questioning it. Fb has now removed the human element from its news provision but then we go into the whole area of algorithms which Fb and Google will guard closely, naturally enough.

Twitter is probably better for real time breaking news but again there's the echo chamber effect, studies have shown people tend to stick to their own side on political and contentious social issues, but interact more on day to day, entertainment type stuff.

So unlike something like Boards and other discussion sites, people on Twitter will often just get their news from people they like or agree with.

Then there's the whole issue of alternative online media that often don't have same type of restrictions that face the traditional printed press. How big a part are alt right type sites playing in the likes of Brexit, Trump, the rise of right wing, nationalistic and often isolationist political parties and opinion? These sites don't have the same responsibilities as regards fact checking and at least trying to remain unbiased.

K-9

Having said that, there's maybe an element if "in my day" thinking going on, we didn't have access to all this media 20 years ago so that has got to be a good thing, but if people are trusting and expecting Google or Facebook to be a BBC, what exactly are we basing it on?

Fb going back to just providing links and leaving it up to the readers is probably best, but it shows people have to be vigilant and holding them to account which ex employees did.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's entirely up to you. But I feel it weakens your point to quote from a Gallup poll versus actual data. It was a polite enquiry.

For the record, the public opinion research company is called Gallup. Gallop is what a horse does.

Nothing like pointing out an auto correct to score points. Nicely done.

ancapailldorcha

Facebook looks like it wants to be a one-stop shop. The Chinese oddly, never moved from phone boxes and landlines to mobiles and texting. Instead, they went straight from the former to Weibo, their equivalent of Facebook which allows them to blog, message, call, shop, order taxis, etc...

Facebook is trying to keep people clicking links as that's how it makes its money. If it sees you following The Sun and clicking their external links, it'll suggest more similarly orientated news outlets.

As OscarBravo pointed out, Google seems to be better for avoiding this problem. You can customise Google News but you can also search for a specific term. A search for "Heathrow" yields an array of results from a litany of news outlets and sources of differing ideological orientations for example.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KingBrian2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah in the olden days it was just called yellow journalism and it caused wars like when the British papers ramped up anti German propaganda during the first world war and then Germany did the same post war against the Jews. Punch Magazine journalism give us bad results, bad polices and screws everything over.

Don't care what you say an army of bloggers and fact-checkers can be bought off by anyone. Not everyone who gets into journalism is doing it for altruistic reasons. That is why the good journalists and the media outlets that do decent reports and documentaries need a fair hearing and the lies and misinformation is put right as opposed to the litany of lies which is printed as fact.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KingBrian2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The main problem here and the independent media I am talking about is that people like Assange and Anonymous have too much baggage. One is hold up in the Ecuadorian embassy and the other hacks sites. They are still way more bipartisan than the media in the US though in fairness to them so good luck to them.

K-9

While that shows the positives, the negative is if something goes viral that is incorrect, or frankly lies or propaganda, it's very difficult to stop the momentum and it gets accepted as fact. Humans are tribal by nature so not many are going to fact check a Huffington post or Breitbart article if it agrees with their world view.

I was thinking about a YouTube video that went viral with millions of views that depicted a riot that occurred in Germany at the height of the refugee crisis. The thing was it actually took place in Egypt or somewhere else in the M.E.

Once something like that goes viral it is nearly impossible to counteract the propaganda effect. At least with the established media it would be checked before it was published and corrected if it went out. I remember a Daily Mail journalist being interviewed around that time and he pointed out for every 10 "stories" sent into them, 9 couldn't be verified so couldn't be published. And that's a right wing, anti-immigration paper.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The main problem here and the independent media I am talking about is that people like Assange and Anonymous have too much baggage. One is hold up in the Ecuadorian embassy and the other hacks sites. They are still way more bipartisan than the media in the US though in fairness to them so good luck to them.

So your solution is to have a media outlet that reports only what it's told to report, with some formal authority deciding what is the unbiased truth?

Sounds like the opposite of a free press.

CMOTDibbler

K-9 wrote: »

Once something like that goes viral it is nearly impossible to counteract the propaganda effect. At least with the established media it would be checked before it was published and corrected if it went out. I remember a Daily Mail journalist being interviewed around that time and he pointed out for every 10 "stories" sent into them, 9 couldn't be verified so couldn't be published. And that's a right wing, anti-immigration paper.

This. I know some newspaper people and invariably when they publish a story it only represents a tenth of what they know about it. The other nine tenths are not fully substantiated and are held back until they can be. You often see a story develop over time, but many times, the extra information is never published.

Pepe LeFrits

Amerika wrote: »

I would say - yes we have a free press in America. And that press is free to be as biased and lacking in journalistic integrity in their reporting as they want, and are. The fact that American’s trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to only 32% (its lowest level in Gallup polling history, and down eight percentage points from last year) pretty much proves it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

Well no, all that indicates is that American opinion on the press has declined. Doesn’t prove anything about the actual standards of journalism.

Personally, I think it points more towards the cyberbalkanisation of the internet than any decline in press standards.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

So your solution is to have a media outlet that reports only what it's told to report, with some formal authority deciding what is the unbiased truth?

Sounds like the opposite of a free press.

Not what I was saying at all. I find the public service broadcasters to be best but by no means error free. In the case of America the Congress tv can be used to inform the citizenry of their not only of the news but their rights which is also rarely mentioned. In Europe news channels do provide details about what rights a citizen has and also how the institutions of the European parliament and commission work. Yeah all boring but as I said in terms of getting the message out it does a good job. One aspect of Trump is he has highlighted so much this election cycle. Can we honestly say Americans are dumber after this election. American citizens are registering to vote and learning about how their electoral system operates. I consider that a hell of a lot better than taking up a weapon or preaching extremism.

johnp001

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not what I was saying at all. I find the public service broadcasters to be best but by no means error free. In the case of America the Congress tv can be used to inform the citizenry of their not only of the news but their rights which is also rarely mentioned. In Europe news channels do provide details about what rights a citizen has and also how the institutions of the European parliament and commission work. Yeah all boring but as I said in terms of getting the message out it does a good job. One aspect of Trump is he has highlighted so much this election cycle. Can we honestly say Americans are dumber after this election. American citizens are registering to vote and learning about how their electoral system operates. I consider that a hell of a lot better than taking up a weapon or preaching extremism.

Public service broadcasting, in the UK at least, has been irreparably compromised by the Hutton inquiry where the BBC was found to be at fault for reporting statements relating to the fabricated reasons for starting the Iraq war that were denied by Hutton Report but subsequently admitted to be true by the later Chilcot Report.

Detailed description of the issue is given here Chilcot, Hutton and the death of Dr David Kelly, UN Weapons Inspector

A brief excerpt from the link above wrote:

...the conclusion of the Hutton Inquiry that "the notes did not support the allegation that the Government knew that the 45 minutes claim was probably wrong" On this basis Hutton condemned Gilligan, the BBC journalist, and condemned the management of the BBC. Condemnations that resulted in resignations and huge damage to the BBC. This is another serious issue, the government employed a kangaroo court to simply dispose of men of good faith in the BBC. We now know that the BBC was right and Hutton was wrong, Chilcot has shown that few if any members of the government actually believed the 45 minute claim (see below) and Blair would have been negligent if he actually believed the claim...

yo soy carlos

Nobody including the state should be allowed to own more than a third of national newspapers,radio or tv stations.Spain is a great example of a free media.Whist El Pais (centre left) is the top selling daily the next two El Mundo and ABC are centre right whilst there are five different national tv stations who provide national news each night(TVE,Antenna3,Telecinco,La Sexta and Digital+.The situation with Radio is even broader.Complete opposite to here as RTE,Newstalk,TV3,UTV,and the newspapers more or less all propagate the same social ideas if they diverge slightly on economics.

KingBrian2

yo soy carlos wrote: »

Nobody including the state should be allowed to own more than a third of national newspapers,radio or tv stations.Spain is a great example of a free media.Whist El Pais (centre left) is the top selling daily the next two El Mundo and ABC are centre right whilst there are five different national tv stations who provide national news each night(TVE,Antenna3,Telecinco,La Sexta and Digital+.The situation with Radio is even broader.Complete opposite to here as RTE,Newstalk,TV3,UTV,and the newspapers more or less all propagate the same social ideas if they diverge slightly on economics.

I have to say I agree with you. Independent media is the best approach to take. Plenty of choice.

GreenFolder2

Well, yes it's a free press, in so far as the Government doesn't dictate what it says. However, other parties may own large chunks of it...

johnp001

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Well, yes it's a free press, in so far as the Government doesn't dictate what it says. However, other parties may own large chunks of it...

A press that voluntarily or unwittingly complies with the government narrative is just as inimical to truth as one that is controlled directly by an authoritarian power.

GreenFolder2

johnp001 wrote: »

A press that voluntarily or unwittingly complies with the government narrative is just as inimical to truth as one that is controlled directly by an authoritarian power.

That's a free but corrupt press. If government can exert pressure on it comply, it's not free.

RDM_83 again

oscarBravo wrote: »

How are we defining "free press"?

My understanding of the term is that it means the government doesn't control what the press reports.

So, 1980s-era Pravda: not a free press. The BBC: free press.

Now, this is the point where some people will jump in with their claims about how RTE and BBC are completely state-controlled, but this is the Politics forum, not Conspiracy Theories.

By that definition: yes, the west has a free press. Do other people have different definitions?

I'm not sure if somebody has put out this point but lets remember if we're talking about the BBC in the 80's/90's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4409447.stm
Link is to the banning of various parties (mainly SF) being broadcast directly.
Its a pretty clear example of how the media wasn't exactly free in the west either.

GreenFolder2

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm not sure if somebody has put out this point but lets remember if we're talking about the BBC in the 80's/90's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4409447.stm
Link is to the banning of various parties (mainly SF) being broadcast directly.
Its a pretty clear example of how the media wasn't exactly free in the west either.

That was an example of fairly crude censorship.

The USA and UK rank very poorly for western countries on the press freedom index compiled by RSF reporters without borders.

38 th and 41st.

France rates very poorly too btw.

You can't really lump "the west" together as one homogeneous bloc. Different standards and different degrees of ownership concentration, intimidation of journalists, control by embedding and removing access for those who are too critical etc etc etc.

The huge issue in the UK is about ownership and about papers in particular acting as campaigning political players rather than just media outlets. You could describe some of the English tabloids as actual political activists not really normal media outlets. That doesn't tend to give journalists much freedom. Rather you have to pick a side and stay on message within house rules.