UN in DC Tweets Out Below the Belt, Doesn't Reply to FUNCA Question, Just Deletes: UNsocial Media

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 1, updated -- The UN Information Center in Washington DC sent out a tweet on Monday morning, “Interested in learning more about #UN events taking place in #WashingtonDC? The #UNIC calendar is your one-stop shop: http://bit.ly/1aV3IR.”

There was only one problem: the link was not to any UN calendar, but rather to a web site called penis-health-blog.com. We have saved the @UNICDC twitter page, here in case as is likely they change it. For now it's at https://twitter.com/unicdc/status/351672513547337728

Update: immediately after publication of this article UNICDC deleted its tweet, without sending any explanation to FUNCA. UNsocial media.

Update 2: after the above, UNIC DC tweeted this. 

"We've deleted a suspicious tweet form this morning. Don't click on any links from past 4 hours"

                    

  The Free UN Coalition for Access, which since its founding in late 2012 has engaged with and tested UN social media -- increasingly so after the Department of Public Information which runs the UNICs tried to order the censorship of even a single FUNCA sign on the office door of Inner City Press -- immediately replied to @UNICDC: “Please explain this link, even if you take it down: MT “@unicdc calendar is your one-stop shop:http://bit.ly/1aV3IR”

  But even an hour later, there had been no reply. This is how the UNIC's, and other UN social media accounts, work: they pump out information one-way, but don't respond to questions. This is UNsocial media.

   The "staff" page of UNIC-DC lists as director the ironically named Rodney Bent, and also one Liam Murphy (pictured here with Ban Ki-moon.)

  The UN's “Greening the Blue” twitter account did not respond on the carbon impact of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's travel, when asked by the Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info.

  UNDP's Olav Kjorven didn't answer on his carbon footprint, nor on whether the UN system favors an Oceans SDG.

  UNDP is pitching the #Post2015 tumult in “194 countries,” because a video they paid for said it involved Rwanda and 193 countries. But when asked by FUNCA what the 194th country is -- Somaliland? -- they did not respond, but justdropped the 194 country claim for 750,000 people. (Then it returned, again unexplained.)

 It's a one way mirror, throughout the UN system. Watch this site.

  

UN Population Fund Pays PR Agency Portland Communication to Serve Up Its Praise of UN Report on Post-2015 Goals: Waste?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 30 -- This UN found a way to waste money and fool people even amid the hoopla about the release of its anti-poverty Post-2015 High Level Panel report on May 30.

Inner City Press dutifully covered the 12:30 John Podesta press conference on the report, and published on its right at the 3 pm embargo. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued statements as did many of the Panel's members and their governments.

Then just before 5 pm an e-mail came in headed "PRESS RELEASE: UN RESPONSE TO NEW REPORT BY PANEL LED BY DAVID CAMERON."

It seemed a bit strange, the UN responding to what is in a sense a UN report. The sender was not the UN or one of its agencies but rather a corporate public relations firm, Portland Communications. Their clients include Medicapital Bank, CBS and Maersk.

In this case, they were paid to put out a press release for a UN agency, the UN Population Fund or UNFPA. This agency, of course, has its own paid public relations staff, one of whom is listed on the bottom of the press release. So why pay an outside firm?

Perhaps because of this, the header is misleading. UNFPA knows or should know it cannot speak for "the UN." What if another agency -- UNDP, or the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, say -- has another view?

So why waste this money, on the UN praising itself? 

 This on the same day when the chief of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who has at least three spokespeople, chose for the first time not to put out a transcript of his press conference of May 29, when he outright refused to answer a question from Inner City Press about mass rape in the Congo by the UN's partners in the Congolese Army. Video here.

Instead, as if it couldn't afford to do a transcript despite the three spokespeople, DPKO used only a "summary," which did not mention Minova, the rapes, the question or that Ladsous refused to answer. Where is this UN going? Watch this site.

At UN, Post-2015 Plan Asks Less Consumption from Developed World, Embargoed Podesta

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 30 -- When the UN "launched" its report on Post-2015 development goals, it promoted an embargoed press conference, emphasizing that John Podesta would be here. In fact, the UN press releases listed only Podesta.

  When Inner City Press was called on, third, it thanked the four panelist on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, and asked Podesta if the new plan requires developed countries to do more than contribute aid. How about reducing consumption?

  Podesta referred the question to another panelist - whose name was not listed in the UN's press releases - who said that twice in the plan there are calls on the developed world to limit consumption, "low carbon."

  What about transparency, accountability, and poor people's participation? There was no time for this. The press conference was embargoed -- so much for live tweeting -- and the panelists had to leave less than a half hour after it was scheduled to begin.

  The report was given to member states well before the deadline. Were they pledged to secrecy? Was this an attempt to hit the airwaves or satellite TV all at one time? We'll see, literally. Watch this site.

At UN, As Hague Opposes Aid to M23, Cameron Asked Not of Aid but Mitchell

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 25 -- When UK foreign secretary William Hague spoke Tuesday about the importance of the Sexual Violence and Conflict issue to his country, Inner City Press asked him about the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, when the UN Peacekeeping mission has admitted flying the army to a meeting seeking support in the fight against the M23 from Mai Mai militia, themselves reportedly involved in sexual violence.

 Hague was fast with an answer about the M23 -- he said "it is very important that any external support to rebel groups in Eastern DRC come to end," taken as a code word for Rwanda and perhaps Uganda -- but did not address why a UN mission created and supervised by the Security Council, on which the UK has one of five permanent seats, is simultaneously claiming to get trainings to combat sexual violence, while facilitating it with the Mai Mai militia.

  Perhaps naively, some continue to expect the UK to use its permanent seat on the Security Council to oversee at least the human rights related performance of UN authorized or supported missions, for example the shelling of Kismayo in Somalia by the Kenyan Navy, working in conjunction with the UN funded AMISOM mission. But the UK is generally loath to criticize the UN.

 Later on Tuesday UK Prime Minister David Cameron took questions in the same acoustically challenged stakeout, ostensibly on Post-2015 Development. 

  The two UK questions, however, concerned former international aid minister Andrew Mitchell: how can he not fully resign if the police say he calls them plebs?

At least the Australia-centric questions to that country's Julia Gillard had a UN angle, how much was spent on the run for Security Council seat? (Gillard answered Inner City Press that "twenty four million dollars were allocated," but would not say much much was spent.)

  Some countries' media identify closely with their governments, asking the Press for example, "how did we do?" BBC and ITV from the UK prepared and asked a harder question, but didn't link it to the UN. 

   Mitchell back on June 28, 2010 took ten minutes of questions from Inner City Press; coming full circle, his answers included praise of Rwanda. And so it goes with the UN - and the UK. Watch this site.