Author Archives: Taylor Chante Carroll

As most of the U.S. is aware, the NSA was revealed last year spying on millions of Americans. People were shocked that citizens have been spied on so in depth and for such a long time. However, that outrage and headlines about the NSA seem to have faded in the States. But in Germany people aren’t backing down. there have been protests similar to  those on Wall Street and a lot of Germans lost their trust in the government. Germans care deeply about privacy, given their former political history. The issue of the NSA was a topic in Germany’s election and whether any candidates were working with U.S. and British spies.

It’s surprising to me that Germans seem more concerned with the NSA and their privacy than the U.S. does. They’re speaking out against it and their election is focused around it. There are papers that write about the privacy invasion and its always in the headlines. It seems as if Germany is trying not to repeat the past when they were under Nazi rule, which is something that I find to be awe inspiring. The U.S. and the UK should speak more on this subject and I think there should be a little more public unrest about this issue.

Source:http://buzzmachine.com/2013/08/20/the-nsa-germany-and-journalism/

With western newspaper readership declining, Le Canard has kept its readers enticed with its investigative journalism and sales haven’t dropped. The three things this paper has that others envy are “readers, influence and profit.” Many wondered how the investigative-satirical paper is still thriving. It outsells its rival Le Monde which is one of France’s largest newspapers.

Le Canard is printed in two colors and is eight pages long. It “carries no photographs or advertising, its articles are unsigned and the newspaper shuns the web.” Advertising isn’t used so the paper remains free of influence and independent, all shares of the company are distributed among its staff. It fully relies on sales which is about 600,000 copies each week. The influence Le Canard has caused the resignation of Michele Alloit-Marie, the French foreign minister. Le Canard broke the story of the spending of thousands of euros of the public’s money on private jets and other luxuries which caused Alloit-Marie to step down.

I can see how Le Canard keeps its readers even though they haven’t changed their paper in 90 years. The investigative journalism pushes the envelope and since there is no outside influence from advertisers or politicians, they are free to write any story. With France’s strict defamation laws Le Canard stays out of trouble by mentioning politician’s private lives only if it effects the citizens, as fore mentioned about the foreign minister. Most of us get our news online or from television, but I wonder if a system like this would ever work in the U.S. An American version of Le Canard could reveal things we wouldn’t know from other news outlets and could become popular.

Source: http://www.editorsweblog.org/2011/04/29/le-canard-enchaine-why-the-paper-is-so-successfully-averse-to-change

This anti-terrorist law was put into effect caused a stir among journalists in Germany. They were concerned that it would cause an issue with press freedom and investigative journalism. Some provisions of the law hinder reporters from protecting their sources. It also allows telephone and internet surveillance.

This law was implemented as an anti-terrorist law. However, there are people that think it will make it easier for investigators to spy on reporters without their knowledge. There’s also the worry that this will cause less critical journalism, which is essential in any democracy.

With this law enforced it would be risky being a source for a journalist. Their identity could become known by investigators if authorities felt the need to make journalist divulge who their sources are. There is a similar law like this in Australia that was enforced to counteract terrorism, but if its making the citizens , especially journalists, feel as thought their liberties are being taken away there must be a problem. Anti-terrorism legislation seems to be doing more harm than good.

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-anti-terror-legislation-journalists-worry-big-brother-law-will-kill-press-freedom-a-596807.html

French journalist Ivan Rioufol faced a trial in 2013 for his comments during a debate on Islam on a radio show. After a complaint from the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF). Rioufol was summoned to court under one of France’s strict press laws from the 19th century. The uproar came about after Rioufol objected a poster campaign the CCIF promoted.

Rioufol argued: “In seeking to undermine liberty of expression, a sacred principle of our civilisation, the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) takes the risk of appearing like a menace to democracy”

 I don’t think that a person should have to appear in court for voicing their opinion. It’s understandable that former Nazi occupied countries have laws like this in effect and  the line between what can be seen as hate speech and matter of opinion can be blurred at times. Unfortunately what Rioufol said specifically wasn’t in this article, but it said that he was disagreeing with the CCIF during a debate on a radio show, so it may not have actually been hate speech

Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451401/Ivan-Rioufol-prosecuted-19th-century-press-law-questioning-Islam-radio-debate.html