By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, June 1 -- When a grandstanding UN Security press statement goes down, how does it get reported?
If the draft was by the UK, and the report is by Reuters, it's a decidely one-sided affair.
On Saturday evening, after the UK tweeted the existence of its doomed proposal, Reuters dutifully not only blamed Russia for its blockage, but allowed an unnamed "Council diplomat" to "note that Russia continues to sell weapons to Assad's government."
Fine. But where is the mention of Qatar and Saudi Arabia providing weapons to rebels which include the Al Nusra Front? Not in Reuters' story.
Meanwhile on CNN's Amanpour, Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin said that the weapons now authorized by the European Union would surely end up in the hands of the strongest of the rebels, that is the Al Nusra Front.
He said Iran should participate in Geneva II, if and when it happens.
For the record, and on the record (unlike the Reuters UN bureau's descent into anonymous social media trolling), Inner City Press can respect the UK Mission trying to use Twitter to advocate. It's their job, to push positions.
But isn't Reuters supposed to be objective journalism, and not just an adjunct of UK foreign policy? Why not mention the other issues?
We have more, much more, to say about this worst of Reuters bureaux. But we've been asked to hold fire, on the issue of media workspace and access, until the impending reduction in access that existed in the past is confirmed. Which could be soon. Watch this site.