By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 26 --
While the UN
claims to be
for freedom of
the
press, it has
required
journalists
seeking
accreditation
to show that
they have the
support of
their
governments.
Under this
system,
opposition
media is
banned.
Beyond
requiring and
processing
letters of
support from
governments
for
reporters'
accreditation,
the UN's Media
Access
Guidelines say
that
applicants
must be
affiliated
with a media
"formally
registered" in
a
state
recognized by
the UN.
In
tortured
language
complete with
brackets, the
UN's
Accreditation
Requirements
state that
"The
Department of
Public
Information
(DPI) must be
satisfied that
the
individuals
applying for
accreditation
are bona fide
media
professionals
and represent
bona
fide media
organizations
[formally
registered as
a media
organization
in a country
recognized by
the United
Nations
General
Assembly]."
Truly
opposition
media does not
get licensed;
under the
First
Amendment in
the US no
license is
required.
So
why is this in
the UN's
rules, in
which the
decaying UN
Correspondents
Association is
a formal
party?
It
allows the UN
to
unilaterally
bar some
journalists.
Why require
that
it be a "
country
recognized by
the United
Nations
General
Assembly"?
Until
November 29,
2012, did this
include
Palestine?
Does it not
include
the Turkish
Republic of
Northern
Cyprus?
Is is
the bracketed
clause
only invoked
to the benefit
of Permanent
Five members
of the
Security
Council, which
maintain seats
on the UNCA
Executive
Committee for
their state
media like Voice of
America,
Xinhua and Agence
France
Presse
(41% funded by
the French
government)?
In those
cases, UNCA
has not fought
at all.
In
fact in 2012 UNCA
"met with UN
officials
(very
quietly)"
to
try to get
Inner City
Press
dis-accredited.
The official
UNCA move
to
dis-accredit
Inner City
Press was made by US
state media
Voice of
America.
When that
failed, the
VOA bureau
chief dropped
off the UNCA
Executive
Committee, to
be replaced by
another State
Department
subsidiary of
the
Broadcasting
Board of
Governors.
Consider
Reuters,
Agence France
Presse and the
BBC, whose
representatives
voted
every time in
2012 to expel
Inner City
Press. (Reuters
and AFP
went further,
supporting Voice of
America's bid
to get
Inner City
Press dis-accredited
from the UN as
a whole.)
On January 25,
2013 the BBC,
Reuters and
AFP at the UN
allowed a UN
official to
remain unnamed
while
declaring war
in the
Democratic
Republic of
Congo. Click
here for that
story and
links.
Anonymity
should
be reserved
for
whistleblowers.
But here the
BCC, Reuters
and
AFP follow in
the footsteps
of Judith
Miller of the
New York
Times,
allowing a
powerful
person
anonymity.
Isn't the UN
owned and
supposedly
controlled by
its member
states?
Why
does the UN
allow a
decaying and
now challenged
organization,
UNCA,
to be a formal
party to its
Media Access
Guidelines?
These
guidelines are
limited to
where
reporters can
go - nothing
about the
UN's refusal
to answer
questions or
make basic
financial
information
publicly
available.
Click
here
to see for
example new
UNCA President
Pamela Falk's
January 24
letter to UN
DPI, which
by its terms
said it was
being made
public. (Where,
was not
clear.)
Note that the
lack of TV
booths was
acquiesced
to by the UNCA
committee
"negotiating"
with the UN
Capital
Master Plan,
and the issue
of Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
closing
his speech to
the GA was
first raised,
to Ban himself,
by the Free
UN Coalition
for
Access,
after Inner
City Press
alone tried
to enter the
meeting.
None of UNCA's
Executive
Committee
members was
there. So for
whom is UNCA
pretending to
complain? UNCA
has become a
copycat.
Perhaps this lack of advocacy and imagination by UNCA is why some in the UN like it so much. But the new Free UN Coalition for Access hears and sees things different. Watch this site.
