UNITED
NATIONS,
February 9, updated
below*
– When UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon doled
out lunch and
some quotes
Thursday to 13
pre-selected
people who are
on the
Executive
Committee of
the UN
Correspondents
Association,
at
first it
seemed like
just a sloppy
anachronism.
As
some UN
officials have
been pointing
out more and
more
frequently
since the Free
UN Coalition
for Access was
launched on
December 7,
2012, UNCA has
been around
“since the
League of
Nations” and
so
it has a
special, even
monopolistic,
position in
the UN system.
FUNCA
wasn't formed
for a free
lunch, or for
a $250 a plate
ball like the
one that is
UNCA's main
focus each
year.
And so FUNCA
intended to
let
this
anachronistic
lunch pass,
and remain
focused on
issues of fair
treatment in
accreditation,
freedom of
expression and
due process
for
journalists.
But
then it became
clear that not
only did Ban
Ki-moon dole
out quotes to
the 13 UNCA
Executive
Committee
members
present – even
the summary
or
“highlights”
of what he
said wasn't
sent because
those 13
until after 6
pm.
(Nesirky tells
Inner City
Press it took
that long to
prepare the
four paragraph
highlights,
and thus that
the resulting
headstart to
AFP and Xinhua
was
unintentional.)
And even then,
at least one
major wire
service, a
FUNCA member,
wasn't sent
even the
highlights.
(Nesirky tells
Inner City
Press this was
just a
"technical
glitch.)
After
receiving
complaints
from members
of FUNCA, UNCA
and both,
Inner City
Press on
February 8
decided to ask
Ban's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
for
an on the
record
explanation,
before asking
the other
questions it
had for the
day,
concerning
Sudan, Congo,
Haiti and
other
countries
with UN
Missions.
But
in an exchange
from which the
UNTV webcast
abruptly cut
away,
Nesirky
insisted that
Ban Ki-moon
“does not have
to justify or
explain his
social
calendar,” and
refused to
provide even
on a delay the
transcript of
what Ban doled
out to the
UNCA Executive
Committee,
saying some
was off the
record. See
here, at
Minute 13.
Inner
City Press had
just rushed to
the UN and its
noon briefing
from an
off the record
briefing at a
Security
Council
member's
mission.
Does
Ban believe
that only the
13 he met
with, at least
five of whom
took
their post
with no
competition or
vetting, can
abide by off
the
record rules?
Are all other
UN
correspondents
other than
these
untrustworthy?
Here
as shown in
the UN's own
photograph,
re-tweeted by
UNCA president
Pamela Falk,
is a list of
the UNCA (now
Ban Ki-moon)
thirteen:
Tim
Witcher of
Agence France
Presse; Pamela
S. Falk of
CBS; Lou
Charbonneau of
Reuters; Ali
Barada of
An-Nahar;
Denis
Fitzgerald of
Saudi Press
Agency*;
Melissa Kent
of CBC;
Sylviane Zehil
of L'Orient
le Jour;
Kahraman
Halicelik of
Turkish Radio
& TV;
Bouchra
Benyoussef of
Maghreb Arab
Press; Yasuomi
Sawa of Kyodo
News; Zhenqiu
Gu of Xinhua
and Masood
Haider of Dawn
(as noted, see
video
here from
Minute 16:45).
Nesirky
in
a response he
called
carefully
worded
acknowledged
that none of
the UNCA 13
had raised any
Haiti
question,
despite the
UN's role in
bringing
cholera there.
There was a
discussion of
the Democratic
Republic of
Congo, Nesirky
said, but none
of it was in
the summary,
and no
transcript was
provided. Was
it like the UN's
previous
anonymous
declaration of
war in the
Congo, through
many of these
same
correspondents?
It is to many,
including the
UNCA members
who did not
get any
transcript but
saw their
Executive
Committee's
stories, a
stretch to
characterize
this as just
an item on Ban
Ki-moon's
"social
calendar."
Sudan,
tellingly,
came up “only
in passing.”
These are Ban
Ki-moon's 13,
who later on
Friday mocked
an alleged
victim of
sexual abuse
on their
anonymous
social media
account.*
These
are the Ban
Ki-moon 13 –
apostles, but
apostles of
what?
Certainly not
of
transparency.
* --
update of Feb.
9, 11:11 am:
after
publication of
the above, one
of the 13,
Denis
Fitzgerald,
wrote in at
10:55 am to
say he was not
at the
referenced off
the record
briefing and
that "I am not
part of a
false social
media
account."
Noted, though
given that
account's
content, it is
attributable to
the group.
Certain formal
requests were
made by the
Free UN
Coalition for
Access to
Fitzgerald,
regarding his
claim to not
be a "part" of
the anonymous
social media
account and
anti-free
speech
campaign, and
to "release
any
and all
recordings of
the February 7
session with
Ban Ki-moon to
all reporters
accredited at
the UN."
On that,
it appears
there are
still 13, and
not the
claimed 12,
apostles of
opacity.
Watch
this site.
Here
is a
transcription,
the last part
in brackets
was not shown
on UNTV:
Inner
City Press:
Some people
have had
questions:
yesterday
around 6:00
p.m., there
was an e-mail
sent out by
your office
containing
highlights for
answers about
apparently
what was a
discussion
earlier
in the day
with a select
group of
correspondents.
And I wanted
to
know, and I
believe a
major wire
service,
actually a
member of the
Free UN
Coalition for
Access, has
asked you as
well, what was
the
basis of
selecting
those 13
journalists,
and what was
the
arrangement?
Were they
under some
embargo until
you put it
out, or
was this
giving to 13
media outlets
a jump-start
on the
answers? And
I also want to
know whether
he said
anything in
this session
with the
UNCA Executive
Committee
concerning
either Sudan,
the Democratic
Republic of
Congo or
Haiti, and if
so, if we can
get a
transcript of
it?
Spokesman
Martin
Nesirky: I’m
going to
choose my
words very
carefully,
Matthew.
Inner
City Press: I
did, as well.
Spokesperson:
I know you
did. That’s
why I’m trying
to
reciprocate.
The
first thing is
that the
Secretary-General
does not have
to justify or
explain his
social
calendar. Full
stop.
Secondly, the
information
that was
provided — the
highlights, as
you put it,
that were
provided —
were not
somehow
embargoed or
held back. My
colleagues
in my office
worked
extremely hard
to transcribe
that
information.
As soon as it
was
transcribed,
it was put
out. And there
was no
question of
waiting until
someone had
filed a story.
So you should
understand
that. The
third point is
that this
information
that was
provided was
an attempt to
provide all
correspondents,
all
correspondents,
who receive
our e-mails,
to cover those
aspects which
were evidently
newsworthy.
And was there
some
discussion of
[Democratic
Republic of
the Congo]?
Yes, there
was. Was there
discussion of
Haiti? No,
there was not.
Was there
discussion of
Sudan? In
passing. And,
finally, no,
we will not
provide a full
transcript.
Part of the
conversation
was on the
record, part
of the
conversation
was off the
record. And I
would also
want to say
that,
just to
reiterate what
I said at the
beginning, we
don’t have to
justify or
explain the
Secretary-General’s
social
calendar.
Okay?
Inner
City Press:
Then I’m going
to ask one
follow-up --
Spokesman
Nesirky:
One thing, one
thing I
forgot. There
appears to be
a
technical
glitch: two
people did not
receive the
e-mail, to our
knowledge,
that contained
that
information.
One of the
people was
the person who
came and spoke
to you, it
would seem.
Inner
City Press:
Okay. Here’s
what I wanted
to ask you,
and we’ve had
this
discussion
once before,
maybe more
than once.
But, in one
discussion,
you’d said
your office
doesn’t play
favorites,
that
you simply
announce UNCA
events as a
courtesy. But,
this is an
event, as you
may know,
there’s some
controversy
here, whether
there’s only
one
organization
representing
journalists or
more. Social
calendar’s one
thing; the
Department of
Public
Information,
at the highest
levels, has
said it’s
looking at
this issue of
whether
there’s a need
to be
responsive to
more than one
organization.
So, it is a
choice, so my
question to
you is--
Spokesman
Nesirky:
Matthew,
Matthew, what
is your
question?
Inner
City Press:
basically,
you’re
creating a
situation in
which wire
services are
encouraged to
join UNCA in
order to get
this
head-start,
or this
information
off the
record, and if
they don’t,
they don’t
get the
information,
even in
summary
fashion, [and
it’s
not fair.
That’s my
question.
Spokesman
Nesirky:
Here’s an
interesting
thing,
Matthew: one
of the key
global wire
services was
not at the
lunch. And, if
you look at
the
coverage of
the comments
that were
made, a lot of
the stories
were by
that wire
service. And I
don’t recall
getting a
complaint by
that
wire service.
But, rather
than belabor
the point
here, I do
just
want to
underscore
that these two
things are not
mutually
exclusive. The
Secretary-General’s
social
calendar does
not need to be
explained. Any
efforts there
may be to be
even more
embracing
beyond
taking many
questions from
you, here,
every day, for
example, there
may be efforts
under way to
do that. The
two things are
not mutually
exclusive.
Other
questions? No?
Thanks very
much. Have a
good
afternoon.
Thank you very
much.]
Actually,
there
were more
questions, but
Nesirky ended
the briefing
and walked
out.
The last
minute, in
brackets and
italics, were
not included
in
the UNTV
archive – the
video was cut
off. See
here, at
Minute 13.
The wire
service
Nesirky
referred to,
that same day,
mis-identified
UK Ambassador
to the UN
Mark Lyall
Grant as “Mary”
Lyall Grant.
Perhaps they
were too
focused on
retyping the
late-provided
Ban summary.
Some system.
Watch
this site.
