Talk:Freedom House

Contradiction

It says "Freedom House is a U.S.-based[4] 501(c)(3) U.S. government-funded[5] non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy ...." If government funded, it is a government organisation which will follow government policy line. I do not think that a government funded organisation can be described as an NGO. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:CCE0:242:2718:14DC (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur. This is a government-funded foreign policy actor mascarading as a non-governmental organization. Nobody would call a Chinese "NGO" a non-governmental organization if it were majority funded by the Chinese government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2491:3F00:139D:AEBA:1D01:FF69 (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Condemns conduct akin to that of “Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan [which] use military forces and tactics to silence the voices of legitimate dissent”:

[1] Doug Weller talk 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrectly cited source

The quotes in the "Overemphasis on formal aspects of democracy" section do not appear anywhere in the actual cited study. The study you actually want is cited here: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2014.0054 204.77.151.204 (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This reads like a brochure for freedom house

In contrast, here is what Chomsky and Herman have to say about Freedom House:

Freedom House, which dates back to the early 1940s, has had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League, Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the government and international right wing. It sent election monitors to the Rhodesian elections staged by Ian Smith in 1979 and found them “fair,” whereas the 1980 elections won by Mugabe under British supervision it found dubious. Its election monitors also found the Salvadoran elections of 1982 admirable.106 It has expended substantial resources in criticizing the media for insufficient sympathy with U.S. foreign-policy ventures and excessively harsh criticism of U.S. client states. Its most notable publication of this genre was Peter Braestrup’s Big Story, which contended that the media’s negative portrayal of the Tet offensive helped lose the war. The work is a travesty of scholarship, but more interesting is its premise: that the mass media not only should support any national venture abroad, but should do so with enthusiasm, such enterprises being by definition noble (see the extensive review of the Freedom House study in chapter 5 and appendix 3). In 1982, when the Reagan administration was having trouble containing media reporting of the systematic killing of civilians by the Salvadoran army, Freedom House came through with a denunciation of the “imbalance” in media reporting from El Salvador.107

DMH223344 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"Other activities" needs sources

There's no sources under "other activities" at all, despite it making bold statements about the Uzbek government. I'm new here, so please let me know if there's a better way i could've handled this :) Tofuuunoodlesoup (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

Not sure how notable some of the criticism is, especially countries who've been given bad scores complaining. Of course they criticise their poor scores, they're hardly likely to welcome them.--Shimbo (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)