It’s puzzling why the BBC’s coverage of the Iraqi foreign minister slamming the UN has omitted the harshest words he had for the supranational organisation. In case you missed it, the New York Times — unlike the BBC — did find it fit to print:
“Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people,” Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council table.
“Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold,” he said.
Taking a harsh view of the inability of quarreling members of the Security Council to endorse military action in Iraq, Mr. Zebari said, “One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.
“The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure.”
Now, exactly why would the BBC find these quotes irrelevant and not worth reporting?
Betcha anything that this story will be stealth-edited if it hasn’t been already. I don’t know if the following words were present when you wrote the post:
“Mr Zebari said he wanted to see an expanded role for the UN in Iraq that could not be delivered from outside the country.
“The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again,” he warned.
…they do include a brief mention of the UN having failed (in an unspecified way). But the selection is such as to leave out the pointed criticism of appeasement and the criticism of settling scores with the US-led coalition. However the request for a greater UN presence is left in.
Exactly, Natalie. I would bet anything that had the Iraqi foreign minister been condemning the US and/or Britain, those quotes not only would have made the story, but they would have headlined it — and the story would have sat on the front page of the BBC News site for an awfully long time.
Ah, well, the BBC is anxious to preserve its reputation for impartiality, you see.
Witness the BBC Director of News yesterday, on why Humphrys and others won’t be writing columns in newspapers anymore:
“Richard Sambrook, the BBC director of news, said: “Impartiality is an essential element to the BBC’s reputation and to our journalism.
“When our journalists write in papers, it is seen as an extension of their work for the BBC. Yet columns and newspaper articles on controversial issues depend on expressing opinions to an extent that is often incompatible with the BBC’s impartiality.
“The audience’s trust in the independence of the BBC’s journalism on all subjects is something we cannot afford to compromise.”
Sambrook wouldn’t know impartiality if it bit him—but I suppose (to mix species metaphors) fish don’t know they are wet.
Sambrook’s days are numbered. Hutton’s report will see him depart, even if the pompous pair above him escape.