As UN
Cites Sandy
& To Delay
Media
Move-Back,
UNCA's
Counterfeit
Rejected
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 12 --
One impact
of Hurricane
Sandy on the
UN was
disclosed to
Inner City
Press on
Friday: the
high pay for
construction
workers for
post-storm
repairs is the
UN's excuse
for delaying
the press
corps'
move-back into
the UN's 38
story tower
from February
until April.
The
delay was
announced
Friday
afternoon,
without any
explanation,
that "the
press will now
move in April"
and "UN phone,
we will no
longer be able
to provide
such lines."
Inner
City Press,
also on behalf
of the Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
immediately
protested to
the UN's
Department of
Public
Information,
"please
provide an
explanation of
the further
delay to April
of the move
back to the
renovated
building" and
"FUNCA objects
to the
elimination of
the UN phone
lines."
On the
delay of the
move back,
Inner City
Press was told
to ask the UN
Capital Master
Plan and did,
again on
behalf of
FUNCA. This
answer came
back from the
Public
Information
Officer of the
CMP, Werner
Schmidt:
"Hi
Matthew, The
decision to
change the
move-back date
to April was
caused by
collateral
impacts of
Hurricane
Sandy,
especially by
a lack of
adequate labor
due to
increased
demand for
overtime-paying
construction
repair jobs.
This affects
the new
Permanent
Broadcast
Facility in
the Conference
Building,
whose
completion is
necessary for
the new press
offices to
function."
The UN
now cites
Hurricane
Sandy's impact
on
construction
worker pay to
explain delay;
the UN
has been much
less
forthcoming
about Sandy's
direct impact
on the
building,
especially its
still damaged
(and some say
moldy) third
sub basement.
Speaking
of
moldy, the
decaying UN
Correspondents
Association
which in 2012
allowed the UN
to reduce
media space by
40% in the
move-back has
done nothing
to oppose or
even explain
this new
delay, and the
elimination of
UN phones and
phone numbers
for the media.
Rather,
responding
to FUNCA's
critique of
its overdue
elections with
no competition
for the top
six spots,
which saw a
14% decline in
turn-out after
a year of
attempted
censorship and
dis-accreditation,
an
UNCA official
on January 11
posted a
counterfeit
flier
pretending
that FUNCA
"congratulates"
UNCA.
Nothing
could
be further
from the
truth. Not
only did the
2012 UNCA
Executive
Committee try
to expel Inner
City Press and
get it thrown
out of the UN
for its
investigative
coverage,
including of UNCA
conflicts of
interest
-- they also
encouraged the
involuntary
reduction of
other
correspondents
to "emeritus"
status with
reduced
rights.
This
followed them
allowing a cameraman to be
thrown out of
the UN for a
single mistake,
and an UNCA
official
piling one
with an
inaccurate
wire story
written
without even
trying to speak to the
expelled
journalist.
Despite
this,
UNCA's
counterfeit
flier purports
to have FUNCA
members saying
they "will no
longer attack
UNCA members
on our
websites and
in our
Tweets."
Is it
"attacking" to
publish US
government
records
obtained under
the Freedom of
Information
Act that show
that Lou
Charbonneau of
Reuters,
re "elected"
as UNCA First
Vice President
with
no
competition
but with 30%
fewer votes
that the
previous year,
along with Tim
Witcher of
Agence
France-Presse
told Voice
of America
that Reuters
and AFP
would support
throwing
Inner City
Press out
of the UN?
Or is
the
counterfeit
flier an
attempt, as
before, to
stop truthful
coverage which
calls into
question the
free press
credibility of
these two and
any
organization
they "lead" or
control?
There
has been no
coverage much
less attack on
the majority
of UNCA
members. But
these two, and
other involved
in the
attempted
censorship and
dis-accreditation,
try to use the
others
figuratively
as human
shields.
Will they
succeed in
this with the
new president,
who has said
nothing about
the 2012
censorship and
dis-accreditation
bids? It is
not yet known.
It was
these
restriction on
coverage and
media critique
that Inner
City Press
rejected when
demanded by
the UNCA
Executive
Committee in
2012, and it
rejects it
still. It is
pathetic that
a supposed
media freedom
organization
would think it
appropriate to
tell
journalists
what they can
and cannot
cover. Watch
this site.
, 
