UNITED
NATIONS, April
11 -- In the
stand-off
between Syria
and Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's UN
on whether to
start a
chemical
weapons probe
with one site
or agree on
more before
beginning, the
use of who
leaks
to whom, and
why, has come
to the fore.
Reuters
brags
that Syrian
foreign
minister Walid
al “Moualem
also
complained
about the leak
of previous
letters
exchanged
between Syria
and the United
Nations to
Reuters,
saying it
'left the
impression of
a lack of
seriousness on
the part of
the (UN)
secretariat on
cooperation in
good faith.'”
Beyond
the bragging,
a question
being asked is
who leaks to
whom, and why?
How does a
negotiation
letter from
Syria to Ban
Ki-moon and
his
German
negotiator
Angela Kane
get leaked to
Reuters, in
Reuters own
description?
Either
Ban's UN
Secretariat
gives it to
Reuters, or
there is a
middle man.
Some surmise
that Ban's UN
gives the
letter to the
Missions of
the UK
or France,
which in turn
give it to
Reuters.
(This
is not unlike,
at a lower
level, the
UN's photos of
its raid on
Inner
City Press'
office on
March 18 being
leaked to
BuzzFeed on
March 21,
through an
anonymous
“Concerned UN
Reporter”
-- not
unrelated to
Reuters, not
unrelated at
all.)
Journalists
general
like leaks,
and Inner City
Press is no
exception. But
there
are different
kinds of
“leaks.” When
the Bush
Administration
gave
material about
Iraq to Judith
Miller, and
she gave them
anonymous,
was that a
good leak? An
honorable
leak? A
“scoop”?
While
an angry
individual
whistleblower
in the UN
Secretariat
might be one
thing, for the
Ban Ki-moon
administration
to intentional
leak the
negotiating
document
submitted to
it be a member
state would be
a
problem. Since
the UN is
owned by all
193 member
states, who
would
authorize such
a leak?
But
perhaps Ban's
UN would think
it fine to
share Syria's
letter with
France and the
UK (one
wonders if
this would go
the other
way). One
would expect a
“no leaking”
commitment be
sought and
obtained,
but who knows?
While
one is for
some reason
not supposed
to say so,
Reuters is
often used
by the UK,
French and
other other
missions for
intentional
leaks.
This makes
Reuters' UN
bureau and its
bureau chief
valuable to
these
important
Permanent Five
members of the
UN Security
Council.
(Again
turning to the
smaller press
freedom
picture, this
is what makes
it
so outrageous
that Reuters
UN bureau
chief
threatened
that if the UN
did not throw
Inner City
Press out, he
would have no
choice but to
ask about
transferring
out of the UN
to another
beat at
Reuters.
Given
the functions
he and Reuters
serve at the
UN, at least
for some
important
Missions, was
that an
appropriate
threat? Did he
inform the
big wigs at
Reuters about
it, and do
they stand
behind it?
They
have
been urged
to inquire
into their UN
bureau's
anti-Press
moves, in
their own
names and as
anonymous
trolls.
(Which has continued.)
Those
asked include,
so far,
Stephen J.
Adler, Editor
in Chief, Paul
Ingrassia,
Deputy Editor
in Chief,
Walden Siew,
Top News
Editor, Greg
McCune,
“Ethics,” and
one other. But
despite the
issues raised,
twice
now, this mega
corporation
will not
respond
or more
importantly
reform.
Kingdom
of trolls?
Watch this
site.
, 
