I'm sure if I can dig it up eventually.  I've read the full report before.... the US pretty much always seems to score lower because some journalist was in jail or some journalist was threatened because of their opinion or something.

Actually, the methodology says that EXACTLY.  Did you read the full methodology?  When they get to what they ask it's all questions about the press.

Look at questions

1 & 2  under section A

2 under section B

Both of those deal mostly with press shield laws... and the fact that if you get a report that says "an unnamed source says the president killed someone"  The DA's office is allowed to arrest you to get at that source so they can use him to prosecute the president.

Not to mention... some of these questions are just silly.

4) Do journalists self edit themselves?   Well yeah, in the US they do, because if they don't and say something dumb and or racist they probably will lose their TV show, due to peoples right to express their freedom of choice.

It's soley based on freedom of the press... where the US got points marked off is two main areas i could tell you right away. 

The before mentioned "Press shield" laws vs anonomous sources and whistleblowers and the rules and regulations around running and who is running the press.

I can sympathize with the OP in having concerns with individual political entities, but I think people are making the Tea Party movement more than it is.

Funny in universities such blatantly racist individuals such as Malcolm X and Mumia Abu Jamal are revered as almost sub-culture idols, but any political movement containing a majority of Whites is made out to be racist, reactionary and xenophobic. Talk about White Guilt and double standards....

That being said, the Tea Party movement is this decade's equivalence in power to the hippies of the 1960s, the Christian Right in 1980s, and the Ross Perot voters in the 1990s.

Or as Newton's Law of Motion states, "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction."

Conservative Democrats such as myself expected this type of reaction (Tea Party movement) to Democrats controlling all three branches of the US Government from 2008-2010.

Yes, the US House of Representatives will go Republican in less than a week and I surmise it will be close to a 50 seat gain for Republicans. I will be relieved by this because now our politicians will have to engage in politics and compromise reflecting a larger view of the US to get policies passed rather than having Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts stomp on the minority (Republicans) in Congress and ram their stuff reflecting San Francisco values through with no Republican input.

If you keep the People scared, lazy and stupid, they are easier to control.  The Tea Party Movement should not be taken lightly.

Oh, maybe I have a misunderstanding of shield laws. I thought shield laws protected sources from being prosecuted or the journalist forced to give them up? In which case they would be considered to increase the freedom of press under these questions.

Also that question you pointed out I believe is mostly to deal with people self censoring for political reasons, rather than to avoid saying something offensive.

No, that's basically what shield laws are... baiscally what they don't like is this...

"In Riley v. City of Chester, the Court held that a reporter's right to protect his sources from disclosure could be overcome by a party who, by a preponderance of the evidence, demonstrated that he has made an effort to obtain the information elsewhere, that the only access to the information sought is through the journalist and his or her source, and that the information sought is crucial to the case."

The most recent "big" issue being when a reporter was jailed because she gave up the identity of a CIA agent and refused to give up the source of the informant who was thought to have been in the Bush whitehouse, giving away info because of a grudge Bush had with her husband.

Could you imagine what would of happened to a regular citizen if they compromised a CIA agent?

Ahh. Yeah I see why that drops the rankings, it probably should do to. I don't think a journalist should be arrested for refusing to name a source.

Edit: For clarification, I believe this because otherwise the government can prevent the freedom of the press through making people afraid to be a source. Probably the same way Freedom House feels about it.

Uhh, no he wasn't. Jefferson was Minister to France from 1785 to 1789. He didn't even sign the Constitution, much less write it. Of course, the Constitution was influenced by Jefferson and Madison was largely his protege, but I find it pretty shocking that more people don't know this.

You aren't really arrested, so much as imprisoned as a matieral witness.

Like how if a regular person for example, knew who released the leak... they could be imprisoned until they turn him in.

It's really a tough thing to balance though, since what if they aren't even telling the truth?

In general a reporters right is protected, but not when it's a VERY serious crime.

Like the above which would be like... treason.

They tried getting Republican input. Why do you think we have this watered-down wishy-washy health care bill, instead of something with some teeth to it?

Because there were too many Dems who wouldn't vote for a public option.