Talk:Freedom House

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)

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)

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)

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)

This one is interesting. It describes the attitude, the philosophy at Freedom House. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3336002/freedom-house-erases-armenian-victims-rankings-global-democracy/ "The situation in the occupied Armenian region has not improved, but alas, in its newly released 2025 report, Freedom House simply erased Nagorno-Karabakh entirely; it has disappeared from the report, rankings, and map. This is a bizarre move on Freedom House’s part: Rather than stand up for democracy in the face of dictatorship, it accepted Azerbaijan’s erasure of Nagorno-Karabakh’s identity and population. Even for Freedom House, this is an exception rather than the rule: 75 years after Chinese communists conquered Tibet, the organization rightly continues to assess its lack of freedom separately. Tibet rightly ranks at zero, even worse than the rest of communist China." Should a section be added about this? Vmelkon (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Since the foreign assistance review the number of Freedom House staff shrunk from around 260 to approximately 50-60. There was also a significant drop in how much business it does with the organization losing all but a handful of its DoS and USAID grants. 69.197.200.69 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)