|
At UN, Mystery of
the Disappearing Myanmar Visit Story Remains Unresolved
Byline:
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at
the UN: Media Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, May 19 -- As the death toll mounts in Myanmar, clamor
grew for
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit the country. On May 18 at 6
p.m., the
UN News Service put online and e-mailed out a story that Ban's
spokesperson
Michele Montas "announced today that Mr. Ban is scheduled to
arrive
in Myanmar on Wednesday for a three-day visit" and quoting Ms. Montas,
with a question mark, that "the whole purpose of the trip? is to
accelerate the pace of disaster relief."
This story was later taken down from the UN's web
site. Sources tell
Inner City Press that the Spokesperson's office complained to its
affiliated UN
News Service around 8:30 p.m. on Sunday night about the story. But did
the UN
News Service make up the quote it used? That seems unlikely.
At Monday's
noon briefing, a hybrid journalist / blogger asked Ms. Montas why the
story was
taken down. "There was some uncertainty yesterday afternoon," she
replied. "That's why they took the story down." Video here,
from
Minute 14:30. Montas added that the
story was put back up on Monday
because things are going as scheduled. The blogger, taking
names in journalistic best practice, quoted a staffer in the
Spokesperson's Office "that
the UN took down the story because they were 'not in a position' to
confirm
whether the Secretary-General would be traveling to Myanmar."
The
on-off-and-on again publication raises a number of questions, three of
which
follow. First, as above, if UN News Service published a story with Ms.
Montas'
unequivocal quote about the trip Sunday at 6 p.m., did the
uncertainties arise
between 6 and 8:30 p.m.?
Cyclone survivors in monastery, while UN
story of visit goes up, down, and up
Second, is
it appropriate for the UN Secretariat to give exclusives -- in this
case, a
dubious exclusive -- to its own in-house News Service?
Third, is
it within the bounds of journalistic, or even public relations, best
practice
to simply "take down" a story that has already been posted?
Journalistic ethics aside, not only was it cached, other websites
picked up and continued to run the UN News quote, with the question
mark inside it, even after the UN took it down -- click here
for Google search of the quote. Rather than uncerimoniously try
to "take down" an already-posted article, most
outlets would run a correction, and ideally explain the correction as
well.
If an
explanation is given, it will be reported on this site.
* * *
These reports are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click
here for a Reuters
AlertNet piece by this correspondent
about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click
here
for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National
Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an
undefined trust fund. Video
Analysis here
Feedback: Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017 USA
Tel: 212-963-1439
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available
in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-08 Inner City Press, Inc. To request
reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com -
|
