On #FreeAJstaff, UN's Ban Ki-moon Belatedly Recalls His Previous Statements, FUNCA UNconvinced

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 29 -- Amid news that Egypt imposed prison sentences on Al Jazeera journalists Mohammed Fahmy, Baher Mohamed and Peter Greste, at 5 pm in New York while the UN had still said nothing at all, the US State Department said it was disappointed, see below.

  At 10:30 pm in New York, 5 and a half hours after the US, the UN's Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a canned statement, "recalling" his own earlier canned statement - this from an organization which allowed its head of Peacekeeping to use Ban's guards to eject the Press from an open meeting, and refused to answer this week about the torching of a radio station in Burkina Faso. Here's what Ban belatedly said:

"The Secretary-General deeply regrets the decision by the Egyptian court of Cassation today to uphold the sentencing of Al Jazeera journalists Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy, and Peter Greste (in absentia), as well as others.

"The Secretary-General recalls his earlier appeals for their cases to be resolved expeditiously and in accordance with Egypt’s international obligations to protect freedom of expression and association and in full observance of due process guarantees.

"The Secretary-General underscores once again the importance of pluralism and respect for fundamental freedoms for the long-term prosperity and stability of Egypt."

  The US's 5 pm statement:

"The United States is deeply disappointed and concerned by the verdict handed down by an Egyptian court to the three Al-Jazeera journalists - Mohamed Fahmy, Baher Mohamed, and Peter Greste. The freedom of the press to investigate, report, and comment – even when its perspective is unpopular or disputed – is fundamental to any free society and essential to democratic development.

"We urge the Government of Egypt to take all available measures to redress this verdict, which undermines the very freedom of expression necessary for stability and development."

  But what will the US actually DO about this? And the UN? It remained silent, just as it refused to answer Press questions about the burning-down of a radio station in Burkina Faso, as raised by the Free UN Coalition for Access (FUNCA).

  Back on February 13, 2015, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said:

"The Secretary-General welcomes the decision by the Egyptian authorities to release on bail the journalists Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. He hopes that their cases, as well as those of other journalists in detention, will be resolved expeditiously and in accordance with Egypt’s international obligations to protect the freedoms of expression and association."

   Ban Ki-moon didn't explain his silence while in Ethiopia for the recent African Union summit about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Peter Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  On February 12, 2015 across First Avenue from the UN there was a panel discussion on protection of journalists at the International Peace Institute. Al Jazeera's Gabriel Elizondo spoke.

 Inner City Press ran across First Avenue and posed a question: does the UN system do for independent journalists and bloggers what it does for corporate or state media?

  The panelist who answered was David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Kaye said, "As an independent journalist, it's good to see you here. From different perspectives, I think that's right. Sometimes the UN can do so loudly and publicly. Some situation might call for a little bit more of a quieter engagement."
 
  Rapporteur Kaye said that "from the OHCHR perspective, we have different tools. Our first tool is to communicate with governments on the quiet side, send them allegation letters or urgent appeals, Zone 9 Bloggers being a good exampe of that.
If we don't get a response, to issue press releases, to call out bad behavior. I agree with the tenor or your comment -- we should be out there calling out the bad behavior at the moment that it happens, quietly or more publicly. Article 19 is not written to protect only journalists, it protects everyone's right to seek, receive and impart information."
 
  The other panelists were Bård Glad Pedersen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Agnes Callamard, Director of the Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project at Columbia University and former Executive Director of Article 19, Matthew Rosenberg, Foreign Correspondent of the New York Times (with interesting stories of Afghanistan but who declined to discuss the NYT's coverage of Iraq before the US invasion) and Judith Matloff of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. There will be video.

   

As de Mistura Starts Syria Stress Test, Inner City Press Asks Him of Yemen, Criticism

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 -- When the UN's Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura came to the UN Security Council stakeout on April 24, Inner City Press asked him if the Saudi-led airstrikes on Yemen changed any of the dynamics on Syria. 

  In reply, de Mistura told Inner City Press that "everything in the region these days is connected." He added that he is focused on Syria.

 Inner City Press also asked de Mistura about criticism made by his former adviser Mouin Rabbani on Qatar's Al Jazeera TV, that Mistura is out of his depth and not up for the task.

 De Mistura replied, I will not respond, you would do the same, if one of your ex-colleagues...

  Inner City Press asked the question because it hadn't been asked, tellingly. 

 Dina Kawar said Mistura “mentioned what he will do next month in Geneva, holding separate meetings with the Syrian parties, representatives of the civil society and regional and international actors. He will provide his assessment to the Secretary General and keep the Security Council informed,” Kawar said, taking no questions.

  Staffan de Mistura emerged, saying he would take two or three questions. He said, “the only way is to test, a stress test,” a phrase like his previous “freeze.” He said, “by end of June we should be in the position to reassess whether any convergence on substance and report to the Secretary General.”

  De Mistura said, “This is not Geneva Three, this is a series of consultation, one to one. We can convene and ask everyone to come and not exclude anyone.. Iran is a member country of the UN, it is a major play in the region, it has influence in Syria. The UN has the right, and will be inviting everyone.”

  Unlike Montreux, it was observed by... one wag.

  Back on April 16, that the Syrian chemical weapons victim and doctor who briefed the UN Security Council did so behind closed doors, with no UN Television coverage, was a product of the Council's rules.

  It was an “Arria formula” meeting, which was not be listed in the UN Journal or even on the blue electronic signs outside it. (The sign said the meeting was about "nutrition.")

  Afterward chemical weapons victim Qusai Zakarya took some questions in the hall, before again going behind closed doors of the UN Censorship Alliance, see below.

  Inner City Press in this public space asked Qusai Zakarya what he thought of UN envoy on Syria Staffan de Mistura.

Qusai Zakarya said replied to Inner City Press, "I think Staffan de Mistura is a hypocrite. I think his very disgusting attempt to shine up the image of the regime is exposed to the Syrian poeple and to a nlot of members of the international community. His offer on freezes was a joke. If he really cared about saving lives he would have convinced the regime to stop using its fire power. We have a lot of outrage against his attempts, the deal he was trying to offer, it's just another false attempt to shine up the image of the regime."

   Inner City Press asked him if he would meet with any UN official. “I can't answer that questio right now,” he said. Then the convoy went to the clubhouse of the UN Censorship Alliance, which had sent notice only to those who pay it money: "They will have just presented their accounts in front of the UN Security Council at an Arria-formula meeting on Syria Chemical Weapons."

     But why would the doctors, in holding a supposed press conference afterward, not do so in the UN Press Briefing Room on UNTV, as can be done by any NGO or individual as long as sponsored by a member state? 

    Instead, the sequel  show was also behind closed door, in the UN Censorship Alliance (UNCA), not on UNTV. This is the same UNCA which hosted former Syrian Coalition head Ahmad al Jarba, allowing him to claim he had a “UN press briefing.”  It is a scam.

  And so on April 24 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Dujarric if Jarba's successor, after Hadi al Bahra, Khaled Khoja will hold a Q&A session in the open UN Press Briefing Room. We'll see.

    UNCA and its board members have, for example, sought to get other journalists thrown out of the UN, for reporting on the financial relationship of UNCA's then and now president Giampaolo Pioli with an alleged war criminal, accepting rent money from him and later agree to screen his war crimes denial film inside the UN, under the UNCA banner.  If one has a case to make, this is not the place to make it.

  Even since its outright censorship bid, the way UNCA is run gives less and less confidence. On April 10, the UN Spokesperson's Office announced over its public address system that "in a few short moments in the UNCA room there will be a press conference by a State Department official."

   But as Inner City Press immediately reported, it wasn't any "press conference" -- it was off the record spin, typical of this UNCA now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance (the invitation they send to those who pay UNCA money is below.)

  Just before 5 pm, the UN Spokesperson's Office made a second public address system announcement: it was NOT a press conference, but rather an off the record presentation by the US State Department.

  All this in the big room the UN gives to UNCA, its Censorship Alliance. Why is the UN involved in this in any way at all?

  The announcement by UNCA president Giampaolo Pioli, sent only to those who pay UNCA money (then forwarded to Inner City Press along with messages of shock and disgust) said

"For correspondents interested in an informal off-the-record meeting with [the] Deputy Director, Media Hub of the Americas, U.S. Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs, please join us in the UNCA Meeting Room, Friday, April 10th at 3:30pm.

"The meeting will be to explain the work of the State Department Public Affairs bureau that works with international media, to provide assistance in gaining better access to State Department officials and information, in addition to presenting the work done in the Media Hub of the Americas where the Director is the State Department spokesperson in Spanish and Portuguese for regional media and Spain and Portugal.

Thank you,

Giampaolo Pioli
UNCA President"

  
 Pioli's invite linked to a self-description of this US Bureau of Public Affairs, that “PA/IME works in close collaboration with State Department and interagency colleagues to create and manage tools to ensure accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy by major international media.”

    UNCA represents only part of the UN press corps. This writer, for example, quit the group after 2012.  UNCA is said by UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to receive the first question in the UN Press Briefing Room “by tradition,” even after UNCA's Executive Board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN for itsreporting about Sri Lanka, UN Peacekeeping and colonialism (Herve Ladsous) among other topics.

 UNCA did nothing when Ladsous adopted the policy of refusing to answer any questions from the investigative Press, and having his spokespeople physically grab the UNTV microphone to try to avoid the questions being heard.

  Now UNCA wants to facilitate “accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy.” Does it perform this service for other countries?

    Inner City Press, like the new Free UN Coalition for Access which it co-founded after quitting UNCA, is not against "accurate coverage of US foreign policy." Last month, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Yemen (including the decision not to evacuate Yemeni Americans from the country), Cuba (the US restrictions on its diplomats at the UN), the Maldives,Middle East and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In each case, Inner City Press reported the answers in full, where possible with video.

  But why provide this platform for one country and not others? Earlier on April 10 UNCA will have a presentation by a former US CIA employee who served in Saipan, Korea, Vietnam and "Burma," as the UNCA notice puts it.

  What has happened to this UNCA under Pioli and presumably current Executive Committee members fromReuters, the US Broadcast Board of Governors and ANSA? And how now can the UN continue to “partner” with UNCA, exclusively, using this partial group as a proxy for the wider press corps? 

 Earlier on April 9, when the UN with little notice canceled its question and answer noon briefing in deference to a"press encounter" with Ban Ki-moon at which Dujarric handpicked the questioners and Ban notably did not call for a halt or even pause in airstrikes on Yemen, UNCA said nothing. (They will, however, have a "Prosecco toast" with Ban later in the month.)

 The Free UN Coalition spoke up in criticism, as here. We'll have more on and of this.

   

As Ban Ki-moon Speaks on Al Jazeera Bail, He's Still Silent on Zone 9 Bloggers in Ethiopia, FUNCA Asks, Why?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 13 -- Amid news that Egypt has released two Al Jazeera journalists Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed on bail, statements are churned out from all corners. 

  Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has one:

"The Secretary-General welcomes the decision by the Egyptian authorities to release on bail the journalists Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. He hopes that their cases, as well as those of other journalists in detention, will be resolved expeditiously and in accordance with Egypt’s international obligations to protect the freedoms of expression and association."

   Ban Ki-moon should still explain his silence while in Ethiopia for the recent African Union summit about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Peter Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  But the UN in New York, and the UN in Addis Ababa, have been silent.

  On February 12 across First Avenue from the UN there was a panel discussion on protection of journalists at the International Peace Institute. Al Jazeera's Gabriel Elizondo spoke.

 Inner City Press ran across First Avenue and posed a question: does the UN system do for independent journalists and bloggers what it does for corporate or state media?

  The panelist who answered was David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Kaye said, "As an independent journalist, it's good to see you here. From different perspectives, I think that's right. Sometimes the UN can do so loudly and publicly. Some situation might call for a little bit more of a quieter engagement."
 
  Rapporteur Kaye said that "from the OHCHR perspective, we have different tools. Our first tool is to communicate with governments on the quiet side, send them allegation letters or urgent appeals, Zone 9 Bloggers being a good exampe of that.
If we don't get a response, to issue press releases, to call out bad behavior. I agree with the tenor or your comment -- we should be out there calling out the bad behavior at the moment that it happens, quietly or more publicly. Article 19 is not written to protect only journalists, it protects everyone's right to seek, receive and impart information."
 
  The other panelists were Bård Glad Pedersen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Agnes Callamard, Director of the Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project at Columbia University and former Executive Director of Article 19, Matthew Rosenberg, Foreign Correspondent of the New York Times (with interesting stories of Afghanistan but who declined to discuss the NYT's coverage of Iraq before the US invasion) and Judith Matloff of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. There will be video.

   

Amid UN Free Press Talk, Ban Ki-moon Stays Silent on Zone 9 Bloggers, UN Rapporteur Kaye at IPI

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 12 -- Amid news that Egypt has released two Al Jazeera journalists Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed on bail, statements are churned out from all corners. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon may have one -- but he should still explain his silence while in Ethiopia for the recent African Union summit about the terrorism trial of that country's Zone 9 Bloggers.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been asking Ban's UN, and those who pass through it, about #FreeZone9Bloggers, as it asked about Peter Greste and his colleagues, for example here.

  But the UN in New York, and the UN in Addis Ababa, have been silent.

  On February 12 across First Avenue from the UN there was a panel discussion on protection of journalists at the International Peace Institute. Al Jazeera's Gabriel Elizondo spoke.

 Inner City Press ran across First Avenue and posed a question: does the UN system do for independent journalists and bloggers what it does for corporate or state media?

  The panelist who answered was David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Kaye said, "As an independent journalist, it's good to see you here. From different perspectives, I think that's right. Sometimes the UN can do so loudly and publicly. Some situation might call for a little bit more of a quieter engagement."
 
  Rapporteur Kaye said that "from the OHCHR perspective, we have different tools. Our first tool is to communicate with governments on the quiet side, send them allegation letters or urgent appeals, Zone 9 Bloggers being a good exampe of that.
If we don't get a response, to issue press releases, to call out bad behavior. I agree with the tenor or your comment -- we should be out there calling out the bad behavior at the moment that it happens, quietly or more publicly. Article 19 is not written to protect only journalists, it protects everyone's right to seek, receive and impart information."
 
  The other panelists were Bård Glad Pedersen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Agnes Callamard, Director of the Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project at Columbia University and former Executive Director of Article 19, Matthew Rosenberg, Foreign Correspondent of the New York Times (with interesting stories of Afghanistan but who declined to discuss the NYT's coverage of Iraq before the US invasion) and Judith Matloff of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. There will be video.

   

Saudi King, Now Deceased, Is Praised on Freedom of Expression by (ex?) Human Rights Watch on Al Jazeera, Flogging of Blogger Raif Badawi Not Shown

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 22, updated twice -- .With the death of Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud being eulogized by US President Barack Obama and, apparently from Davos, by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, it is striking how the issue of striking, or flogging, blogger Raif Badawi has simply disappeared. 

  For diplomats, perhaps it's one thing. But on the evening of January 22, Al Jazeera English ran footage of a person they identified as being with Human Rights Watch praising the King as a reforming, including on freedom of expression.

  Here's the quote, memorialized online: 

"'During King Abdullah's reign, he has inspired a greater openness in two particular areas: role of women and freedom of expression. And there is [an] outburst of criticism, social criticism and of government policy that happened in Saudi Arabia with the tolerance to some degree of the Saudi government,' Christoph Wilcke, former Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera."

  The quote was given earlier this year, but Al Jazeera rebroadcast it on the night of the King's death. As to being "formerly" with HRW, online Wilcke is still listed with them, here:

"Christoph Wilcke is senior researcher in Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa Division for Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. He joined the organization in 2005, and has more than 15 years of experience in the Middle East. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, Wilcke worked with the International Crisis Group, the International Peace Academy (now Institute), and Save the Children UK. A native German, Wilcke obtained a Master of Philosophy degree in Modern Middle East Studies at St. Antony's College, Oxford University, in 2001."

 His Twitter account now lists him at Transparency International. To not speak ill of the dead, we're asking about this, what was said and who broadcast it. 

Update of January 23, 5:30 am -- Human Rights Watch writes that the quote attributed to HRW about the King "is very old reflecting early days of the King's rule and sadly not at all our current assessment. We have an obituary out or soon out that reflects current view. Christoph has not worked for HRW in two years, was former researcher."

  We're happy to add the above, and link to any HRW obituary. The interview / quote was broadcast on Al Jazeera English on January 22, 2015 after being published online by Al Jazeera on January 5, 2015 ("Christoph Wilcke, former Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera"). Will those, and this, be corrected or amended?

Update of January 23, 7:38 am -- Human Rights Watch, noting that the Wilcke quote that Al Jazeera ran in 2015 was from 2010, has forwarded its obituary of the King. It's long (full version online here), but says in pertinent part:

"The government continues to control the appointment of newspaper editors and punish Saudis who criticize members of the royal family, government policies, or senior clerics. Under King Abdullah, Saudi authorities prosecuted human rights, civil society, and pro-reform activists for nothing more than exercising their right to freedom of expression. After 2011, Saudi courts began imposing prison sentences of over 10 years for speech-related crimes."

  How did a video clip from 2010 re-appear in 2015, without notation of when it was from? How many other such clips exist, and by whom? Finally, for now, we note that the IMF's Christine Lagarde, in Davos today, is quoted that King Abdullah was strong advocate of women "in a very discreet way." Yeah.

  On January 8, Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Saudi Arabia preparing to flog a blogger, video here:

Inner City Press / FUNCA:  There’s a blogger in Saudi Arabia called Raif Badawi, he’s been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for his blogs.  And according to Amnesty International, he’s going to be receiving 50 flogs a week for the next 20 weeks and it begins Friday.  So I wanted to know… this seems pretty extreme.

Spokesman:  Listen, I have… I have not seen that report.  I will take look at it. 

  Seven hours later, there was nothing, even as others have commented on the impending flogging of this blogger.

  On January 6, Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about attacks by Turkey on Dutch journalist Frederike Geerdink whose home in Diyarbakir was searched amid dark self-serving of terrorism.

  UN Spokesman Dujarric replied he hadn't heard of the case. Video here.

  Also on January 6, FUNCA asked UN Spokesman Dujarric about Kuwait sentencing to one year and eight months in jail Saqr Al-Hashash for insulting - Tweeting against -- the Emir. The UN's response was a platitude. But FUNCA will continue.

   

Alongside Ban Ki-moon's Relief at Killing of Terrorists, Al Jazeera on "Insultism," If True, Echoes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 10 -- Shortly after police raids in Paris in connection with the attack on the publication Charlie Hebdo, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government.” Video here.

  Analysis of this is below, and here. But now we note reports of leaked e-mails from within Al Jazeera, whose call #JournalismIsNotACrime both Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access supports, now to the effect that "insultism is not journalism." 

  But who defines "insultism"?

 Inner City Press' own experience at the UN is that the UN Correspondents Association's Executive Committee, with Al Jazeera on it, questioned it about running a satiric photograph of a UN Ambassador in a tuxedo, ultimately leading to a demand that the photograph be removed from the Internet, along with reporting about Sri Lanka. (Nothing since makes up for this.)

  Was that photograph "insultism"? Was this article about UNCA's president's conflict of interest on Sri Lanka? 

  More recently, long after the call for global solidarity for Peter Greste - with whom Inner City Press conversed before his arrest, and the freedom of whom and his colleagues Inner City Press and FUNCA unequivocally support -- Al Jazeera at the UN in New York was happy to run upstairs to film Palestine's hand over of ICC documents, leaving other media waiting below. Is that solidarity?

  That's one thing. But it is contradictory to request global solidarity for #FreeAJstaff while, it seems, internally trashing other maligned and attacked journalists. Which is it? We'd love to hear, and would publish any response. Watch this site.

  As to Ban's relief at the killing of "terrorists" in Paris, it was transcribed by the UN as a Press Encounter at France's Mission to the UN, though the UN did not provide notice to journalists who cover the UN through its UN Media Alert.

Now the UN has told Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access that it allowed the French Mission to choose which journalists could be there. Notably, these journalists after Ban's statement asked only for "a word in French?" See transcript below.

  Here is what UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq replied to Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access:

"As I think my colleague Vannina explained, we do not handle the press arrangements for the French Mission. We do not as a practice list in the Media Alerts when the SG signs condolence books.  Those are normally a courtesy at which he does not speak. This was an exceptional circumstance in which he decided to make some remarks to media who were there, which we quickly transcribed and put out."

   Is it appropriate for the UN Secretariat to defer entirely to a country as to who can ask the Secretary General questions, a couple of blocks from the UN? Would this Secretariat similarly to defer to other member states?

  Concretely, which media happened to be in the French mission? Amid so much talk about freedom of the press, even or especially the controversial press, how was it decided which press could be there? 

  Back on September 23, the Press was ordered out of the UN Briefing Room for an encounter by President Francois Hollande, video here. The UN Spokesman played a role, and later told Inner City Press and FUNCA that other countries got this service -- but never named them.

  While Parisians -- at least according to France 24 - are "relieved," isn't it news- and noteworthy that the Secretary General of the UN, which says it has a position against the death penalty, expresses "relief" that these two brother were killed by the authorities?

  Earlier, about that lack of notice, or selective notice, and the substance of Ban Ki-moon's quote, Inner City Press went as part of a Free UN Coalition for Access delegation to the UN Spokesperson's Office to ask. But the lead spokesman was said to be on his way to India with Ban Ki-moon; the deputy was out to lunch. So this was sent to these two UN spokespeople:

"Please explain why when the Secretary General held a “Press Encounter” at the French Mission it was not listed in the day's UN Media Alert or any update thereto. I asked in MALU and was told it had been only UNTV and UN Photo. But there are two questions, presumably from two correspondents, in the read-out.

"Given the similar omission earlier this week, please explain how the correspondents permitted to accompany the SG and ask the two questions were selected.

"On substance, on the SG's line that “I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government” please state the SG's understanding at the time he said it of how the decedents died and were killed, and the consistency of this statement with UN positions on the death penalty, human rights while combating terrorism and extra-judicial executions."

  Apparently, none of the scribes who were invited asked a follow up about Ban Ki-moon's relief, the next question was simply to repeat it in French.

  How many governments, like that of the just voted-out Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka, will like and use what Ban said, that it is a relief to kill terrorists? What will the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid, Special Repporteurs like Ben Emmerson and those on extra-judicial executions, have to say? We'll follow this.  UN sent this out:

PRESS ENCOUNTER AT THE SIGNING OF THE CONDOLENCES BOOK AT THE PERMANENT MISSION OF FRANCE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

New York, 9 January 2015

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, could you tell us what you wrote and what your feelings are now that there have been reports that the perpetrators have been killed?

SG: I have expressed on behalf of the United Nations my most sincere condolences to the families of the victims and to the people and Government of France on this unacceptable terrorist attack against the magazine Charlie Hebdo. Yesterday, I telephoned President Hollande and conveyed my messages again, expressing our condolences and also encouraging him to show courage in overcoming this tragedy and difficult situation. As you may remember yesterday when I had the press stakeout, I emphasized that this is not a country, a war against religion or between religions – it is not anything on religion or belief by somebody or some country. This is a purely unacceptable terrorist attack – criminality. This kind of criminality must be brought to justice, in the name of humanity. I am relieved that these terrorists have been killed by the authorities of the French government.

  How and to whom is news doled out at the UN, when something big, and bad in the case of today's Charlie Hebdo murders in France, happens in the wider world? 

  And why does the UN dole out Ban Ki-moon's quotes this way? Inner City Press asked, video here.

  On January 7 the UN did not announce even to all journalists inside the UN, much less to reporters in New York and around the world, or to the public, that Ban Ki-moon would read a statement about Charlie Hebdo. It was not put live on UNTV. Only those who paid money were notified in writing of Ban's "remarks," and after they were read out, they rushed to file this news.

  Some filed only one or two lines, like the Kuwait News Agency. (Ironic, because Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access had asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric just the day before about Kuwait imposing a year and eight months sentence for insulting the Emir). But KUNA in its short piece included the venue Ban had gift his remarks to, the UN Correspondents Association, now the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  That's the larger irony or absurdity: that Ban would make remarks against censorship in the clubhouse of a group whose board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, whose then and now president demanded that an article about him and a financial link to Sri Lanka's ambassador be taken off the Internet. Ils ne sont pas Charlie.Or, #IlsNeSontPasCharlie

  Mostly, Ban's line or two were worked into larger stories, without any analysis much less critique of the UN -- that's the deal. Voice of America (see here and here), Agence France Presse (see here and here), Reuters (see here, hereand straight up censorship, here).

  A photographic wire service sold a shot of Ban and UNCA's president Giampaolo Pioli looking like he was asleep - this while Pioli has said no one could be a member of UNCA and of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, thereby excluding FUNCA's hard-working photographic media. This is how it works.

  Ban Ki-moon's online public schedule for January 7 listed, and still at 2:45 pm only lists, two appointments: “12:00 p.m. Meeting with Mr. Mehdi Jomaa, Prime Minister of Tunisia and 3:30 p.m. Meeting with Mr. Jack Rosen, Chief Executive, Rosen Partners, LLC.”

    But UN correspondents who had paid money to UNCA,now the UN's Censorship Alliance, had been sent an e-mail that Ban would make remarks in the clubhouse the UN gives them, sometime after 10:15 am.

   There at 10 am, UN Television was putting cameras in -- but still, nothing in the UN Media Alert or even UNTV Pool report. It became clear, while standing in front of the UN Censorship Alliance's clubhouse, that Ban would be using this private event to make his remarks on Charlie Hebdo, and predictable take no questions.

   What is the relationship between Ban's UN and UNCA? Journalists accredited to cover the UN are told, if they ask, that they are not required to join UNCA - and Inner City Press is not a member, having quit the group after being elected to its Executive Committee for 2011-12 and before, and then co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access. 

   At noon on January 7, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric why it was not in the Media Alert. Click here for video of that Q&A, and one on Sri Lanka, and from outside the private event, here.

   But the UN was using UNCA as a proxy for the whole press corps - trying, as more than one correspondent put it, to make them join UNCA to not “miss news” such as this.

  The past and returned president of UNCA, Giampaolo Pioli, has said that no correspondent who is a member of the Free UN Coalition for Access can be a member of UNCA. And the notification of and invitation to Ban's “remarks” was sent only to UNCA members, who pay dues money to UNCA.

  Is this appropriate?

  Inner City Press, after doing its best to cover Ban's short - and yes, questionless - remarks from the space outside the UN Censorship Alliance's clubhouse, Tweeted photo here,audio from source here, went to the day's UN noon briefing and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Ban's prepared remarks on the Charlie Hebdo killings had not been in the Media Alert.

  Dujarric replied that it was too short notice and said that it had been “squawked” -- only to in-house journalists who were inside the UN building -- at 9:45 am.  But that left a full hour to e-mail a Media Alert update to the wider list of journalists accredited to cover the UN. It wasn't done: it's the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Dujarric why it wasn't listed on Ban's public schedule, while Rosen Partners was (Inner City Press asked what that meeting was about but was not told.)

  Dujarric replied that speaking to UNCA -- ostensibly wishing happy New Year to the journalists covering the UN, in an event publicized only to the subset which pays money to UNCA -- was an in-house event. Correspondents can, it seems, become too embedded.

  When asked why he would hold a Ban Ki-moon news event without making sure it was in the Media Alert, Pioli said “we have nothing to do with the Media Alert.” And that is one of the problems, or reality: UNCA is not ABOUT wider access to news at the UN.

  In fact, UNCA board members including Pioli tried to get Inner City Press thrown out in 2012, after demanding thatarticles and even photographs be taken down. #WeAreCharlie, as they say.

  At the end of the day's UN noon briefing, in which another journalist reminded Dujarric that not all UN correspondents are members of UNCA and the UNCA only sends notices to its dues paying members, Dujarric said he would look into that. That is not enough.

  Tellingly, from the Twitter feed of UNCA, which Dujarric claims can be relied on as a middleman to reach the UN press corps, Inner City Press is blocked. Any particular media could do it - but with UNCA doing it, the UN must cease using UNCA as a middle-man, as its Censorship Alliance.

 Notices should be sent to all UN accredited media. There is no reason to use UNCA as a middle-man. That Ban should not partner in this way with censors is another question. Prepared remarks should be in the Media Alert.  This is basic - and the Free UN Coalition for Access will remain on the case.