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.
, 
