UNITED
NATIONS,
January 28 --
The US is
required by international
law and its
Host Country
agreement with
the UN to
allow in
nation's
ambassador to
the UN.
How then is
Reuters
claiming --
and compensating
-- an "exclusive"
for today reporting
that the US
may comply
with the law
and agreement
and allow in
Gholamali
Khoshrou as
Iran's new
ambassador to
the UN? The
article
doesn't even
mention the
Host Country
agreement. The
author,
engaged in
censorship,
here, has
already been cut
off by one
Permanent Five
Security Council
member,
however much
Reuters tries
to conceal it.
Is this new faux
exclusive a
way to try to
counter that
and this?
UNreal.
Back
on November 23
as the Iran
P5+1 talks
continued on
the eve of the
then-deadline,
who is
bragging about
having
predicted
their failure?
Western wire
service
Reuters,
crowing that
"Other media
now coming
around to
@reuters
consistent
reporting on
how final Iran
atomic deal
unlikely."
While
false
exclusives
have
proliferated
at Reuters
under Stephen
J. Adler,
there a
second,
separate trend
at work here.
On another UN
sanctions
regime,
Somalia and
Eritrea, even
when former
Reuters
reporter
turned
sanctions
monitor Dinesh
Mahtani was
forced to
resign for
having championed
a new leader
for the
country he was
supposed to
monitor, Reuters
entirely
omitted his
removal
from its
claimed
exclusives on
the sanctions
report.
Some of this
goes beyond a
desire, compensated
by editor
Adler, to
claim
exclusives
even where not
merited
(including by
adopted a policy
of not
crediting
others'
exclusives).
At the UN,
Reuters has
gone so far as
to try
to censor and
remove from
Google's
Search as
"copyrighted"
copies of
Reuters
complaints
against other
media filed
with the UN, click here
for that.
At
what point
does this
become more
(or less) that
journalism?
What about
"other media
now coming
around to
@reuters
consistent"
refusal to
credit smaller
media,
attempts to
get them
kicked out,
then censoring
the Internet?
We'll have
more on this.
Back on
October 27
when the UN's
special
rapporteur on
human rights
in Iran Ahmed
Shaheed held a
press
conference at
the UN, Inner
City Press
asked him for
an update on
what he had
said about the
effect of
sanctions and
banning of
Iran from the
SWIFT payments
system which
Inner City
Press asked
him about one
year and three
days earlier,
2013 here
from
Minute 12:29.
On
October 24,
2013, Shaheed
had
acknowledged
that the
banning of
Iran from the
SWIFT payments
system had had
an impact. On
October 27,
2014, Shaheed
said he
believes Iran
is still
banned from
SWIFT, but he
had no update.
Instead he
said that
humanitarian
exemptions to
sanctions are
having
successes. 2014 video here.
But
banning from
SWIFT or
"de-SWIFT-ing"
is not a
targeted
sanction at
all, and he
did not
mention any
exemptions to
it.
Overall, Inner
City Press
asked Shaheed
what impact he
thought "the
nuclear issue"
and the P5 + 1
talks have on
human rights
in Iran.
Shaheed said
he doesn't
like linkage,
but added that
when there's
focus on the
nuclear issue,
it takes away
from the focus
on human
rights.
Last
year Inner
City Press
obtained and
exclusively
published an
internal OHCHR
plan to take
over the "rule
of law"
functions of
the rest of
the UN system,
and the
staffing of
the Special
Representatives
on Children
and Armed
Conflict,
Sexual
Violence and
Conflict, R2P
and the
Prevention of
Genocide.What
has happened
on that? Are
rapporteurs,
like sanctions
monitors,
still not
given any
training or
orientation by
the UN?
Footnote:
on October 27,
the UN
Correspondents
Association
which so often
demands the
first question
be set-aside
for it didn't
even send
anyone to
Shaheed's
press
conference.
One attendee
said, it's
defUNCA-ed, as
in defunct, or
de-UNCA-ed,
like
de-SWIFT-ed.
The new Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
present, did
not try to
brand the
press
conference,
because there
was no need.
Watch this
site.
, 
