sign in sign up
<<
Home , Press Freedom Index

A Systematic Analysis of the Discrepancies between Press as Measured by Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House

Lee B. Becker James M. Cox Jr. Center for International Mass Communication Training and Research Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Georgia U.S.A.

Laura Schneider Graduate School Media and Communication Department of Journalism and Communication Science University of Hamburg Germany

Tudor Vlad James M. Cox Jr. Center for International Mass Communication Training and Research Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Georgia U.S.A.

ABSTRACT Since 2002, Reporters Without Borders, based in Paris, and Freedom House, based in New York, have conducted parallel, and ostensibly independent, measures of press freedom around the world. Across those years, the two nongovernmental organizations have produced measures that are extremely highly correlated. Perhaps because of the high correlations, no systematic analysis has been conducted of the discrepancies. This paper does just that, focusing on discrepancies that are consistent year-to-year as well as those that do not replicate. By using the textual summaries of discrepant cases, the authors attempt to understand the differences as a way of illuminating consistencies and discrepancies in the methodologies of the two evaluators.

Paper presented to the international conference Media and the Public Sphere, Lyon, France, July 2-3, 2012.

Introduction

Two organizations currently produce quantitative measures of media freedom around the world based on the work of professional evaluators. The best known and most widely used measure of press freedom is that of Freedom House (FH). A nongovernmental organization based in Washington, D.C., Freedom House was founded in 1941 to promote globally. In 1980, Freedom House began conducting its media freedom survey : A Global Survey of Media Independence which in 2011 covered 196 countries and territories (Freedom House, 2011).

The second organization that rates media freedom globally and ranks countries based on these evaluations is Reporters Without Borders (RWB). Reporters Without Borders has released annually since 2002 its media freedom survey Press Freedom Index, which in 2011 covered 179 countries and territories (RWB, 2012a). Based in Paris, RWB defends and media outlets by condemning attacks on press freedom worldwide, by publishing a variety of annual and special reports on media freedom, and by appealing to governments and international organizations on behalf of journalists and media organizations.

One criticism of the FH ranking is that it reflected U.S. perspectives on economic and political pressures on the media in different countries and on their judicial systems. The creation of the RWB index has been an alternative tool to the FH ranking.

Both of these indices have been widely used by governments, nongovernmental organizations and, more recently, by media scholars. They also have been repeatedly challenged and contested.

In Germany in 2006, for example, the political opposition blamed the ruling coalition for doing nothing in order to strengthen the “defaulted and endangered” press freedom in the country, when Reporters Without Borders downgraded Germany by five ranks (Spiegel Online, 2006). When Freedom House changed the status of the Italian media from “free” to “partly free” in 2009, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s spokesman Paolo Bonaiuti said in a plenary session of the European Parliament: “The left has made them (the press freedom indices, author’s note) become famous like Pink Floyd. (…) Why do 27 left-wing European MPs accuse Italy over a lack of

1 when everybody knows it’s not true?” (adnkronos, 2010). When Malawi plunged 67 places in the RWB index in 2011, the presidential and the government spokespersons strongly argued that the report was biased and did not reflect the media reality in the country (Media Institute of Southern Africa, 2012). Two professors at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication criticized the most recent RWB ranking of the U.S. (Grobmeier, 2012). They argued that the arrests of journalists who participated in the “Occupy” movement should not have led to a drop of 27 places in the index. The Freedom House measure for 2011 showed only a drop of one point in the country’s rating.

Despite the challenges to both measures and the discrepancies between them, relatively little analysis has been done comparing the two indices (Becker, Vlad and Nusser, 2007; Becker and Vlad, 2011). This paper focuses on those similarities and differences.

Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders Measurement

Both the Freedom House and the Reporters Without Borders global press freedom indices are generally based on the principles constituted in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human approved by the U.N. in 1948, although RWB does not state that explicitly. Freedom House, however, claims that its study is based on “universal criteria”, taking as a starting point “the smallest, most universal unit of concern: the individual” (Freedom House, 2011). Although neither of the two organizations provides a detailed definition of its concept of press freedom, the methodology sections of their reports indicate what the respective indices attempt to measure.

Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press index has an institutionalized perspective and seeks to detect the various ways in which “pressure can be placed upon the flow of information and the ability of print, broadcast, and -based media to operate freely and without fear of repercussions” (Freedom House, 2011). Thus, it aims to provide an idea of the entire enabling environment in which the media in each country operate.

Freedom House uses three broad categories in order to measure the status of press freedom in the almost 200 countries included in the index: the legal environment, the political environment and the economic environment. Every category comprises between seven and eight

2 methodology questions that are filled out by the evaluators. The legal environment category “encompasses an examination of both the laws and regulations that could influence media content and the government’s inclination to use these laws and legal institutions to restrict the media’s ability to operate” (Freedom House, 2011). Hence, this category includes questions about the protection of press freedom through the constitution and other basic laws, the independence of the judiciary, Freedom of Information legislation as well as about the market entry for all kinds of media. The political environment category evaluates “the degree of political control over the content of news media.” Issues examined include the control over sources, censorship and self-censorship, citizens’ access to a wide range of news media and the safety of both local and foreign journalists. Finally, the last category measures the economic environment for the media, looking at media ownership and its concentration, limitations to news production and distribution and control through advertising and subsidies, among others.

Each methodology question contains several sub-questions. Those 109 indicators are meant to provide guidance and help to evaluate each question correctly. For each country an analyst prepares the draft rating and country report. The analysts are external scholars as well as members of the core research team in New York. In the next step, the ratings are reviewed individually and on a comparative basis during regional and cross-regional meetings with the analysts and a dozen senior-level advisers. According to Freedom House the information needed to determine the score for each question is gathered from professional contacts, staff and consultant travel, international visitors, the findings of and press freedom organizations, specialists in geographic and geopolitical areas, the reports of governments and multilateral bodies, and a variety of domestic and international news media. The overall score of a country is calculated by determining the score for each of the 23 methodology questions and then, in a last step, adding the scores of the three categories. With 40 possible points, the weighting of the political environment category is greater in the final index than the scores of the other two, accounting for a maximum of 30 points each.

The scores resulting from the Freedom House evaluations range from 0 to 100. The current scale, however, is a replacement for a three-point ordinal measure used from the initiation of the measures in 1980 until 1992. In those early years, Freedom House differentiated between media systems judged to be “Free”, “Partly Free”, or “Not Free”. Since the 100-point scale was created, Freedom House reduces the data by labeling countries with a total score of 0 to 30 as

3 “Free.” Nations that score 31 to 60 are classified as “Partly Free.” And countries with more than 60 points are labeled as “Not Free.” The status of the countries is shown graphically in Freedom House’s Map of Press Freedom every year.

According to Reporters Without Borders, the Press Freedom Index reflects “the degree of freedom that journalists, news media and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom” (Reporters Without Borders, 2012). As an organization with the mission of defending journalists RWB’s Press Freedom Index focuses on attacks on journalists and the media, like physical violence, imprisonment and censorship. Consequently, the indicators used to compile the index tend to concentrate more on the ’s freedom as an individual, while economic factors play a subordinate role. The French organization explicitly states that its measurement neither indicates the quality of the media in the concerned countries nor the existence of human rights violations in general.

In order to measure the status of press freedom in the roughly 180 countries included in the index, the French organization uses a questionnaire composed of seven categories. The names of the categories have changed slightly over the years, but they still assess approximately the same issues. For the 2011 index these categories were: violence and other abusive treatment of journalists and the state responsibility in these abuses, the state’s role in combating impunity for those responsible for violence and abuses, censorship and self-censorship, media overview, including the diversity of news media, media legislation, judicial, business and administrative pressure as well as Internet and new media (Reporters Without, Borders 2012). Out of the total of 44 questions, 20 deal with physical violence and other abuses against journalists and the state’s and non-state actors’ role in them. Like Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders allocates points for each question. Neither of the two organizations explains why a certain question is weighed with a certain number of points.

Since the first publication of its annual press freedom index in 2002, Reporters Without Borders has used a 0 to 100 scale for scoring the countries’ media. In 2002 the worst ranked country, , had a score of 97.5 points. In 2007, the worst country, , had a score of 114.75 points. In 2010, the worst country, again Eritrea, had 105 points. For its 2011 Press Freedom Index RWB changed its point system and for the first time had more answers assigning negative points in its questionnaire. As a result, in 2011 the best ranked countries, and

4 , each had a score of -10, while Eritrea at the bottom of the rating scored 142 points. According to Reporters Without Borders, the change helps to “have a bigger spread in the scores and increase differentiation between countries” (Reporters Without Borders 2012). Still, the authors of the index claim that “although the point system has produced a broader distribution of scores than in 2010, each country’s evolution over the years can still be plotted by comparing its position in the index rather than its score.”

In order to get the scores for each country, the questionnaire is sent to 18 Reporters Without Borders’ partner organizations, to its network of 150 correspondents in all five continents, as well as to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. The questionnaires are sent back to the researchers in Paris who, as a final step, convert the responses into points.

An examination of the two indices and their measurement systems demonstrates different concepts of press freedom. While both focus on the constraints on the media resulting from state control, Reporters Without Borders gives more attention to threats from actors other than the state, including armed militias, secret organizations and terrorists (Holtz-Bacha, 2011). In addition, Freedom House concentrates more on legal limitations, while Reporters Without Borders has a strong focus on direct attacks on journalists. Freedom House’s questionnaire contains only one question that explicitly measures the violence against journalists. Reporters Without Borders’ measurement instrument, in contrast, has 11 questions concerning the different kinds of direct attacks on journalists. Freedom House only allots a maximum of 6 points to the question on violence against journalists. In the RWB index, up to 95 points are allocated to violence against journalists. These are important measurement differences between the two indices that can result in discrepancies of both the scores and the ranks of one country. They are not just minor differences that could be explained by the evaluation of different experts. Rather, they reflect somewhat different concepts of press freedom.

The time period reflected in the two indices also differs. Freedom House normally covers events from the year previous to its publication date. For the 2012 index, for example, that means that Freedom House took into account events between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011. The Reporters Without Borders index for 2011 reflects the situation between December 1, 2010, and November 30, 2011.

5 Both indices reverse code, meaning that a low score represents higher levels of press freedom. The general similarity in the range of possible scores further adds to the suggestion that the two indices should produce similar outcomes. The finding of a high correlation between the two scores (Becker, Vlad and Nusser, 2007; Becker & Vlad, 2011), however, is worthy of closer examination.

Methodology

In order to understand the discrepancies between the Freedom House and the Reporters Without Borders measures of press freedom, we conducted an analysis of the measures by the two organizations from 2002, when Reporters Without Borders released its first report, through 2010, the most recent year for which Freedom House measures were available when the analysis was done.

The analysis focused on the nature of the distributions of scores for the two measures and on the statistical relationship between the two measures. It next examined discrepant cases, identified through a comparison of the ranks and the scores.

Findings

Despite the apparent similarities in the two indices, even a cursory examination of the distributions shows important differences (Table 1). In each of the nine years, the range of scores assigned to countries by RWB was greater than the range of scores used by Freedom House. The minimum score is zero or slightly less in the RWB scale. The maximum RWB score ranged from 97.5 in the first year of the report, when only 139 countries were classified, to 115.5 in 2009. For FH, the range is between 87 and 90 for the nine, with minimum scores of 8 to 10 and maximum scores of 96 to 99. On both scales, a low score indicates high press freedom, while a high score indicates low levels of press freedom.

So while both RWB and FH seem to be using roughly the same scale, in fact they are not. The RWB scale is larger (has a larger range) than the FH scale. Even more striking is the difference in the mean scores. For RWB, the mean each year hovers around 27, ranging from 26.22 in 2003 to 31.63 in 2007. For Freedom House, the mean is near 46 most years, ranging from

6 44.79 to 47.44. In other words, Freedom House gives higher scores (reflecting lower press freedom) on average, than does RWB. The standard deviations around these means are surprisingly similar for the two distributions, and those standard deviations are largely stable across the nine years for which comparable data are available.

For RWB, the median scores (that is, the score at the middle of the distribution) are lower than the means, indicating that the scores are skewed. For the FH measures, the medians and the means for most years are not so different. Table 1 shows the skewness statistic, which measures the extent to which the distribution deviates from symmetry around the mean. A value of zero means the distribution is symmetric. (The normal curve has a skewness statistic of 0.) The positive skewness score for the RWB distributions indicates a greater number of smaller values, in this case, meaning a preponderance of scores reflecting high levels of press freedom. The Freedom House measures do not show such a degree of skewness, with the statistic closer to what would be expected with a normal distribution. In other words, the FH measures are more evenly spread on the distribution.

Kurtosis is a measure of the peakedness or flatness of a distribution. A kurtosis value near zero indicates a shape close to normal. A negative value indicates a distribution which is more peaked than normal, and a positive kurtosis indicates a shape flatter than normal. The RWB distributions are flatter than normal, that means they are spread widely from the mean. The Freedom House measures are more peaked than normal, meaning most of the cases are centered around the mean with relatively few cases in the tails.

The actual distributions are shown in the histograms in Charts 1-9. The clustering of the cases in the RWB measure near the low end of the scale (high freedom) is most obvious from these charts. The Freedom House histograms show another feature of those distributions: they tend towards bimodality. In each year, scores tend to cluster around 30 and around 60. These are the break points for classification of countries as “Free”, “Partly Free” or “Not Free”. The clustering at these scores shows the continued impact of these historical distinctions on the use of the data gathered with the 100-point scale.

Since both the Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House measures are interval level, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient would seem to be the best measure of

7 the relationship between them. That measure is shown in Table 2, and it documents the high degree of correspondence between the two measures. The coefficient of determination, or r squared, indicates about 60 percent of the variance in one of the measures is explained by the other.

But the analysis of the characteristics of the two scales in Table 1 indicated that one of the key assumptions of Pearson r is violated. Pearson’s r requires that the two variables used in the analysis be normally distributed. As noted, the RWB measures are badly skewed. The RWB distributions are flatter than normal, and the Freedom House measures are more peaked than normal.

Two alternative measures are Kendall’s tau and Spearman’s rho. Neither requires normally distributed data. The first focuses on cases that are concordant in contrast with cases that are discordant. Ties are neither. The tau b is a preferred subvariant of Kendall’s tau that corrects the measure of concordance for tie scores in a more complex fashion. Spearman’s rho focuses on the ranks, rather than the actual data values themselves.

Table 3 shows that, based on the Kendall tau, the relationship between the RWB and FH measures of press freedom also is judged to be quite high, though a bit attenuated from what is shown in Table 2. In Table 4, which shows the Spearman’s rhos, the relationship is a bit larger than is the case with the Pearson r coefficients shown in Table 2. Of course, the coefficients are not exactly comparable, but each is designed to show the strength of the relationship on a scale from -1 to +1.

So, while each of these measures shows high correspondence between press freedom as measured by Reporters Without Borders and press freedom as measured by Freedom House, they also indicate that there are discrepancies.

To identify those discrepancies, that is countries that were evaluated differently by RWB and FH, two procedures were followed. The first focused on the difference of deviation scores and is consistent with the computation of the Pearson r. The second focused on discrepancies in ranks, and is consistent with the computation of Spearman’s rho.

8 To identify the discrepant cases based on the means, deviation scores from the mean of all countries were created for each country for each year. These deviation scores were then converted to standard deviation units by dividing the deviation score for each country by the standard deviation of the respective distribution. Finally, the deviation score for a country for FH were subtracted from the deviation score of a country for RWB for each year. All deviations of 1 or greater were selected for analysis. In other words, countries which differed in evaluation by RWB and FH of more than one standard deviation unit were selected.

To identify the discrepant cases based on the ranks, a similar procedure was used. In both ratings, more than one country often receive the same score and are thus tied in the ranks. Both RWB and FH handle ties in the same way. All countries tied get the same rank, and that rank is set as the low value (rather than average) of the range represented by that rank. For example, in 2009, Freedom House assigned four countries (Finland, Iceland, Norway and ) the score of 10, giving them the rank of 1 in the index. got a score of 11 and was assigned the rank 5. FH uses a smaller range of scores (Table 1), and it has more ties than RWB. This confounds the comparison of ranks.

For each year, the rank assigned to a country by RWB was compared with the rank assigned to that same country by FH. Overall, these discrepancies were quite large, and this contributes to the view held by many that the RWB and FH ratings are quite different. Countries for which the discrepancies in the ranks were 50 or larger were selected for analysis.

Table 5 shows 31 countries that Freedom House rated higher (worse) in terms of press freedom than did RWB by at least one standard deviation unit for at least one year. It also shows 14 countries that RWB rated higher (worse) in terms of press freedom than did FH by one standard deviation unit at least one year. Two countries were listed worse sometimes and better sometimes.

Table 6 shows the 75 countries that Freedom House rated with a higher score (less press freedom) than did Reporters Without Borders across at least one of the nine years. It also shows the single case (Philippines) that RWB ranked with a higher score (worse) than did Freedom House.

9 The differences between the numbers in the two tables show the volatility of comparisons based on the ranks, particularly given the differences in the ways ties are used by RWB and FH. Since RSF ranked fewer countries in the earlier years, the comparison of ranks also is problematic. This volatility is reflected in Table 7 as well, which shows that 37 countries had differences of rank scores of 50 or greater at least one year but had a difference of less than one standard deviation unit.

Table 8 parallels Table 7 containing eight countries in which the deviation scores are 1 or greater but in which the rank differences are less than 50.

As a next step, the top 11 countries in Table 5 with differences across at least three years in which Freedom House assigned a higher score and the six countries in which RWB assigned a higher score for at least three years were selected out for analysis. Seven of these countries are in the top 10 in Table 6 as well. Five countries, Bosnia, Bhutan, Chad, Gambia, and Macedonia also were added to the list. All are in the top 10 in Table 6. Chad and Macedonia appear lower in Table 5. Bosnia is one of the countries in Table 7 that is most discrepant.

These 21 countries with discrepant cases in terms of difference scores (Table 5) or rankings (Table 6) were analyzed separately by looking at the country reports written to support their evaluations by RWB and FH. RWB does not publish updated essays each year. Where possible, essays from the same year were used for this comparison.

Analysis of Country Reports of Discrepant Cases

While Freedom House provides country reports for all countries evaluated each year, Reporters Without Borders makes available country reports more selectively. Since there is no country report by RWB available for Burundi, Tajikistan, Bosnia, Macedonia, Bhutan, Liberia and Chad, only 14 of the 21 countries identified by difference scores or differences in rankings were analyzed in detail.

The comparison of the RWB and FH country reports of the discrepant cases underscores the differences in the length and the content of the reports by the two organizations. In general, the Freedom House reports are longer and thus much more detailed. For example, the RWB country

10 report of for 2010 consists of 701 words, while the FH report of Iran for the same year is 1,608 words long. Furthermore, Freedom House’s country reports have a structure that remains the same across all countries for all years. The reports deal with the legal environment of a country first, then describe the political environment and, finally, the economic conditions. These are the three dimensions used in FH’s questionnaire as well. Each Freedom House essay indicates at its end the status of access to and freedom of the Internet in the respective country. This facilitates the analysis of the situation of one country across several years as well as the comparison of different countries. The essays written by Reporters Without Borders do not have a fixed structure, and some of them are updated, but not on a regular basis.

The analysis of the discrepant cases underlines the differences detected in the measurement systems used by RWB and FH, as a result of the differences in the conceptualization of media freedom. RWB focuses more on the journalists’ individual experiences and working conditions and on the challenges their media organizations are facing, while FH has a more institutional approach, examining the legal framework, and the political and economic environment that allow or restrict the ability of the media to operate.

There are some similarities and some differences that can be found in almost all country reports across the years. Both the RWB and the Freedom House essays normally contain details about different kinds of censorship, self-censorship, the situation of foreign journalists and media inside the country and especially about all kinds of harassment and intimidation of journalists. More variation occurs regarding legal restrictions, freedom of information legislation, advertising system and especially the situation of new media. These topics are mentioned regularly in the FH country reports, while they are rarely addressed in the RWB essays.

The section about direct attacks on journalists is very prominent and detailed in all RWB country reports, reflecting the organization’s focus on this aspect of press freedom. This can be seen clearly in the country reports for the Philippines, Nepal and Togo, for example. The essays on Gambia, the Central African Republic and the Philippines show that Freedom House, in contrast, gives more importance to the existence or absence of special laws. The FH reports describe the newest developments of legal bills and amendments. In the more recent RWB reports, however, special laws also are mentioned. The country reports on Paraguay, Nepal and Eritrea show that Freedom House focuses on the distribution of advertising as well as on the

11 situation of the new media in the respective countries. In the essay on Eritrea, for example, the monitoring of email communication is mentioned, and in the report on the , FH deals with the situation of mobile telephony. Furthermore, all Freedom House reports deal both with the freedom of and with the access to the Internet. Reporters Without Borders, in contrast, does not regularly take into account the Internet.

The country reports do not wholly explain the discrepancies between the ratings of Freedom House and those of Reporters Without Borders, but they affirm the differences in terms of the conceptualization of press freedom and thus the measurement instruments used by RWB and FH. Neither of the two organizations provides much detail about its conceptualization of press freedom. It is obvious from the measures used that that the two organizations concentrate on distinct aspects of press freedom. This different focus is reflected in the measurement system as well as in the country reports.

Conclusions

On the surface, the Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders measures of press freedom are quite similar. Both claim to be measuring that general concept. Both use elite evaluators to obtain their assessments of the media systems. Both ask those evaluators to complete questionnaires that score the media on a variety of characteristics.

On closer examination, differences in the measures emerge. Freedom House has a more institutional focus, looking at constraints on the media, mostly from institutional forces. Reporters Without Borders focuses more heavily on attacks on journalists coming from a variety of sources.

Despite these differences, analysis has shown that the two organizations produce evaluations that are more similar than different. The data presented here support that conclusion.

But that simple conclusion does mask some important differences. The distributions of scores across the countries are quite different. In neither case are they normally distributed. In the case of Reporters Without Borders, the distribution is heavily skewed, with countries concentrated at the high end of the scale (more press freedom). The Freedom House distribution is consistently bimodal, reflecting historical classifications of countries that seem to influence how the actual

12 100-point scale is used.

Countries in the real world are not necessarily normally distributed in terms of media freedom, so existence of flat distributions are even skewed ones is not an indicant of any flaw in the measurement. The differences between the distributions of the two indices, however, do suggest differences in the concepts being measured. The comparisons are contaminated by the differences in the numbers of countries evaluated by the two organizations. Freedom House has a more extensive list of countries than does Reporters Without Borders, though the difference has gotten smaller over time.

While the empirical comparisons have focused on similarities, which exist even with the differences in the underlying distributions, media freedom advocates seem to have focused more on the differences in ranks. Both Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders score many countries as tied in terms of ranks. Freedom House, with the larger number of countries and the more restricted range of scores, has more ties than does Reporters Without Borders. So the use of ranks is problematic.

To get around this problem, we identified a cluster of countries that differed in terms of standard deviation units. We then added to the cluster countries that differed greatly in terms of ranks. We looked at the essays, where they were available, to try to help understand the reasons why these cases are scored differently by the two organizations.

In the end, the analyses are consistent with the initial examination of the measures used by the two organizations. While there is overlap in terms of the concepts being measured, there also are differences. As noted, Freedom Houses has more focus on institutional constraints, while Reporters Without Borders focuses more on attacks on journalists.

The analyses here have implications for those working in the area of media advocacy as well as for those who use these indices for empirical analyses both of the antecedents of and consequences of media freedom. The former should recognize the different emphases of the two measures and use them accordingly. The latter should understand the same conceptual distinction. They also should be sensitive to the nature of the distributions and cautious about the appropriate statistical tools they use as a result.

13 References

Adnkrnonos (2010). Italy: Berlusconi's spokesman responds to media freedom report. Retrieved on April 10, 2012, from http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMedia/?id=3.0.3900135626

Becker, L.B., Vlad, T., & Nusser, N. (2007). An evaluation of press freedom indicators. The International Communication Gazette, 61 (1): 5-28.

Becker, L.B., & Vlad, T (2011). The conceptualization and operationalization of country-level measures of media freedom. In M. Price & S. Abbott (Eds.), Measures of press freedom and media contributions to development (pp. 23-46) New York: Peter Lang.

Freedom House (2011): Freedom of the Press 2011. Methodology. Retrieved on April 11, 2012, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press-2011/methodology

Grobmeier, D. (2012). US drops 27 places in international press freedom index. Retrieved on April

12, 2012, from http://www.statepress.com/2012/01/31/us-drops-27-places-in-international-press-freedom-index/

Holtz-Bacha, C. (2011). Freedom of the press: Is a worldwide comparison possible and what is it good for? In M. E. Price et. Al. (Eds.), Measures of Press Freedom and Media Contributions to Development. Evaluating the Evaluators (pp. 129-143). New York: Peter Lang.

Media Institute of Southern Africa (2012). Malawi: Nation rated poorest on press freedom index. Retrieved on April 12, 2012, from http://allafrica.com/stories/201202021297.html

Reporters Without Borders (2012): 2011-2012 Press freedom index. How the index is compiled. Retrieved on April 11, 2012, from: http://en.RWB.org/IMG/pdf/how_the_2011-2012_index_was_compiled.pdf

Reporters Without Borders (2012a): Press Freedom Index 2011-2012. Retrieved on May 31,

14 2012, from: http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

Spiegel Online (2006). Mehr Pressefreiheit in Bolivien als in Deutschland. Retrieved on April 10, 2012, from: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,444291,00.html

15 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

N of Std. Skewness Kurtosis Firm Year Countries Range Minimum Maximum MeanDeviation Median Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error 2002 139 97 0.5 97.5 27.42 23.21 23.5 1.39 0.21 1.71 0.41 2003 164 99 0.5 99.5 26.22 23.22 20.25 1.31 0.19 1.60 0.38 2004 164 107 0.5 107.5 29.45 25.30 23.5 1.10 0.19 0.80 0.38 2005 164 108.5 0.5 109 27.13 23.71 20.875 1.24 0.19 1.19 0.38 2006 164 108.5 0.5 109 27.15 23.75 19.085 1.36 0.19 1.46 0.38 2007 166 114 0.75 114.75 31.63 24.34 25.33 1.10 0.19 0.99 0.38 2008 170 96 1.5 97.5 26.36 22.88 19.5 1.26 0.19 1.07 0.37 2009 175 115.5 0 115.5 29.76 25.66 21.5 1.25 0.18 1.21 0.37

Reporters Without Borders Without Reporters 2010 177 105 0 105 31.13 24.33 23.75 1.03 0.18 0.49 0.36 2002 192 88 8 96 44.79 25.32 40.5 0.19 0.18 -1.29 0.35 2003 193 90 8 98 45.53 25.08 43 0.19 0.18 -1.23 0.35 2004 191 88 9 97 46.38 24.76 44 0.19 0.18 -1.22 0.35 2005 191 88 9 97 46.70 24.55 45 0.22 0.18 -1.14 0.35 2006 195 88 9 97 46.37 24.48 45 0.25 0.17 -1.13 0.35 2007 195 89 9 98 46.73 24.45 45 0.24 0.17 -1.14 0.35 2008 195 89 9 98 47.08 24.45 47 0.23 0.17 -1.13 0.35 Freedom House Freedom 2009 196 89 10 99 47.37 24.36 48 0.21 0.17 -1.14 0.35 2010 196 87 10 97 47.44 24.17 48 0.23 0.17 -1.11 0.35 Table 2. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients

FH02 FH03 FH04 FH05 FH06 FH07 FH08 FH09 FH10 RSF02 Pearson0.810.800.810.800.790.790.790.770.78 N 137 138 139 139 138 138 138 138 138 RSF03 Pearson0.830.840.840.840.830.830.830.810.81 N 162 163 164 164 163 163 163 163 163 RSF04 Pearson0.810.810.830.830.820.820.820.800.80 N 162 163 164 164 163 163 163 163 163 RSF05 Pearson0.810.810.830.840.840.830.820.820.82 N 161 162 163 163 162 162 163 163 163 RSF06 Pearson0.780.780.810.830.830.830.830.820.82 N 161 162 163 163 162 162 163 163 163 RSF07 Pearson0.800.810.830.850.860.860.860.850.86 N 161 162 163 163 165 165 166 166 166 RSF08 Pearson0.760.770.790.810.820.830.830.820.83 N 165 166 167 167 169 169 170 170 170 RSF09 Pearson0.770.790.810.820.840.840.850.860.86 N 167 168 169 169 171 171 172 172 172 RSF10 Pearson0.780.790.810.820.840.840.840.850.86 N 169 170 171 171 173 173 174 174 174 Table 3. Kendall's tau b Correlation Coefficients

FH02 FH03 FH04 FH05 FH06 FH07 FH08 FH09 FH10 RSF02 Kendall's0.730.730.730.720.700.700.700.690.69 N 137 138 139 139 138 138 138 138 138 RSF03 Kendall's0.730.740.740.740.730.730.720.700.70 N 162 163 164 164 163 163 163 163 163 RSF04 Kendall's0.690.690.710.710.710.710.700.680.68 N 162 163 164 164 163 163 163 163 163 RSF05 Kendall's0.720.710.730.750.740.750.730.720.72 N 161 162 163 163 162 162 163 163 163 RSF06 Kendall's0.700.690.720.740.760.760.750.740.73 N 161 162 163 163 162 162 163 163 163 RSF07 Kendall's0.670.680.700.720.740.730.730.720.73 N 161 162 163 163 165 165 166 166 166 RSF08 Kendall's0.670.670.700.720.730.740.740.740.74 N 165 166 167 167 169 169 170 170 170 RSF09 Kendall's0.670.680.710.720.730.740.750.760.76 N 167 168 169 169 171 171 172 172 172 RSF10 Kendall's0.650.660.680.690.700.700.710.720.73 N 169 170 171 171 173 173 174 174 174 Table 4. Spearman's rho Correlation Coefficients

FH02 FH03 FH04 FH05 FH06 FH07 FH08 FH09 FH10 RSF02 Spearman's 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.86 N 137 138 139 139 138 138 138 138 138 RSF03 Spearman's 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.87 0.87 N 162 163 164 164 163 163 163 163 163 RSF04 Spearman's 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 N 162 163 164 164 163 163 163 163 163 RSF05 Spearman's 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 N 161 162 163 163 162 162 163 163 163 RSF06 Spearman's 0.87 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.89 N 161 162 163 163 162 162 163 163 163 RSF07 Spearman's 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.89 N 161 162 163 163 165 165 166 166 166 RSF08 Spearman's 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.89 N 165 166 167 167 169 169 170 170 170 RSF09 Spearman's 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 N 167 168 169 169 171 171 172 172 172 RSF10 Spearman's 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90 N 169 170 171 171 173 173 174 174 174 Number of Years Average Country Discrepant (SD Unit Years Discrepant Discrepancy in SD Difference > or = 1) Units Freedom House Score Higher (Lower Freedom) Togo 8 All except 02 -1.57 Table 5. RSF and FH Discrepancies 2002 – 2010: Burundi 7 All exc. 06,07 -1.29 Tajikistan 7 All exc. 03,05 -1.16 Standard Deviation Units Moldova 5 04,05,06,07,08 -1.09 Paraguay 5 02,03,04,09,10 -1.14 United Arab Emirates 5 06,07,08,09,10 -1.32 Central African Republic 4 02,06,09,10 -1.06 Liberia 4 06,07,08,09 -1.15 Guinea 3 02,04,09 -1.17 Qatar 3 06,07,08 -1.10 Rwanda 3 03,04,05 -1.14 2 07,08 -1.07 Bahrain 2 02,08 -1.17 Chad 2 03,10 -1.14 2 09,10 -1.04 Sudan 2 02,04 -1.10 Swaziland 2 02,04 -1.17 Zambia 2 07,08 -1.17 Angola 1 05 -1.13 Cameroon 1 05 -1.03 Cote d’Ivoire 1 02 -1.28 1 02 -1.05 Equatorial Guinea 1 04 -1.02 Haiti 1 03 -1.13 IOT/PA 1 03 -1.05 Kenya 1 02 -1.03 Lebanon 1 02 -1.37 Macedonia 1 03 -1.01 1 06 -1.09 Mauritania 1 07 -1.04 Zimbabwe 1 10 -1.04 Reporters Without Boarders Score Higher (Lower Freedom) Eritrea 7 All exc. 02,04 1.22 North Korea 7 All exc. 08,10 1.15 5 02,03,04,06,08 1.28 Iran 5 03,05,06,07,09 1.18 Nepal 3 04,05,06 1.33 Philippines 3 05,06,10 1.17 Burma 2 02,03 1.03 2 03,04 1.06 2 02,03 1.38 2 08,09 1.04 2 03,08 1.20 1 08 1.76 1 06 1.14 1 08 1.32 Mixed Discrepancies The Gambia 4, 3x (-) & 1x (+) 02,03,04,10 -0.40 Bhutan 3, 1x (-) & 2x (+) 02,03,08 0.66 Number of Years Average Country Discrepant (Rank Years Discrepant Discrepancy in Difference > or = 50) Ranks Freedom House Rank Higher (Lower Freedom) Togo 9 All 90.44 Bosnia 8 All exc. 10 67.25 Burundi 7 All exc. 06,07 73.29 Tajikistan 7 All exc. 03,06 61.29 Macedonia 7 All exc. 02,10 59.00 Liberia 6 All exc. 03,04,10 65.00 Table 6. RSF and FH Discrepancies 2002 – 2010: Central African Republic 5 02,06,07, 09,10 64.00 United Arab Emirates 5 06,07,08,09,10 75.80 Paraguay 5 02,03,04,09,10 75.60 Chad 4 02,03,05,10 58.00 Ranks El Salvador 4 02,03,04,05 60.25 Palestinian Territory 4 02,03,04,05 66.25 Moldova 4 04,05,06,07 61.75 Qatar 4 06,07,08,09 59.75 Rwanda 4 02,03,04,06 64.25 Seychelles 4 05,08,09,10 53.50 Venezuela 4 02,03,04,05 65.00 Bhutan 3 08,09,10 56.33 3 07,08,09 53.33 Lebanon 3 02,08,09 67.67 Zambia 3 07,08,10 63.67 Cote d’Ivoire 2 02, 06 72.00 Guinea 2 02,04 78.00 Ecuador 2 02,03 65.00 Bahrain 2 02,08 70.00 Sudan 2 02,04 65.00 Haiti 2 02,03 67.50 2 02,10 54.50 Egypt 2 02,03 63.50 Swaziland 2 02,04 71.00 2 03,04 64.00 Congo (Kinshasa) 2 02,03 59.00 The Gambia 2 02,04 65.50 Armenia 2 04,07 59.00 Argentina 2 02,09 52.00 Angola 2 02,05 64.00 Equatorial Guinea 2 02,04 58.00 Guatemala 2 04,10 52.00 Cameroon 2 04,05 55.00 Gabon 2 02,06 56.00 Malawi 1 09 56.00 Guinea-Bissau 1 10 57.00 Tanzania 1 10 55.00 Bolivia 1 06 64.00 Kenya 1 02 68.00 Georgia 1 07 62.00 Malaysia 1 06 58.00 Honduras 1 04 54.00 Panama 1 06 58.00 Mauritania 1 07 69.00 Romania 1 07 52.00 Dominican Republic 1 04 54.00 Maldives 1 09 51.00 Zimbabwe 1 02 65.00 Uzbekistan 1 02 65.00 Nigeria 1 02 62.00 Cambodia 1 02 62.00 Iraq 1 02 62.00 Indonesia 1 02 61.00 Trinidad and Tobago 1 03 52.00 Sri Lanka 1 02 59.00 Libya 1 02 59.00 Niger 1 02 58.00 Brunei 1 02 57.00 Azerbaijan 1 02 56.00 1 02 56.00 1 02 56.00 Cuba 1 02 56.00 1 02 55.00 1 02 54.00 Burma 1 02 53.00 Turkmenistan 1 02 53.00 Vietnam 1 02 52.00 1 02 51.00 Reporters Without Boarders Rank Higher (Lower Freedom) Philippines 1 10 63.00 Years Discrepant 2002- Average Discrepancy in Country 2010 Ranks Table 7. Countries Different by Ecuador 02,03 65.00 Ranks (> or = 50) but Not by SD Venezuela 02,03,04,05 65.00 Congo (Kinshasa) 02,03 59.00 Units (< 1) Uzbekistan 02 65.00 Bosnia All exc. 10 67.25 Nigeria 02 62.00 Cambodia 02 62.00 Iraq 02 62.00 Indonesia 02 61.00 Gabon 02,06 56.00 Libya 02 59.00 Niger 02 58.00 Brunei 02 57.00 Azerbaijan 02 56.00 Afghanistan 02 56.00 Belarus 02 56.00 Namibia 02,10 54.50 Kyrgyzs tan 02 55.00 El Salvador 02,03,04,05 60.25 Sierra Leone 02 54.00 Uruguay 02 51.00 Argentina 02,09 52.00 Albania 03,04 64.00 Trinidad and Tobago 03 52.00 Dominican Republic 04 54.00 Honduras 04 54.00 Guatemala 04,10 52.00 Seychelles 05,08,09,10 53.50 Bolivia 06 64.00 Panama 06 58.00 Georgia 07 62.00 Romania 07 52.00 Kuwait 07,08,09 53.33 Malawi 09 56.00 Maldives 09 51.00 Tanzania 10 55.00 Guinea-Bissau 10 57.00 Table 8. Countries Different by SD Units (> or = 1) but Not by Ranks (< 50)

Years Discrepant 2002- Average Discrepancy in Country 2010 SD Units Djibouti 09,10 -1.04 Eritrea All exc. 02,04 1.22 North Korea All exc. 08,10 1.15 China 02,03,04,06,08 1.28 Iran 03,05,06,07,09 1.18 Nepal 04,05,06 1.33 Loas 02,03 1.38 Isreal 08 1.76 Chart 1. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2002 Chart 2. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2003 Chart 3. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2004 Chart 4. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2005 Chart 5. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2006 Chart 6. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2007 Chart 7. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2008 Chart 8. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2009 Chart 9. Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Ratings 2010