Say you’re an international organisation with a lot of skeletons in the closet. Say you know that your reputation will be damaged when news of these skeletons gradually filters into the public mind, as it must.
I suppose under such circumstances everything would come down to PR- you’d probably admit that bad news was going to come out and so suggest to a friendly party to conduct an “investigation” which would spread the blame nice and thinly, and then release the news through a friendly organ. It would be a little painless bloodletting, and then… back to work. The organ would probably begin its main article something like this:
“Children as young as six are being sexually abused by peacekeepers and aid workers, says a leading UK charity.
Children in post-conflict areas are being abused by the very people drafted into such zones to help look after them, says Save the Children.
After research in Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity proposed an international watchdog be set up.”
Sounds like a good idea. A watchdog. Sounds like a job for the UN- they’d be perfectly placed considering their clean hands and incorruptibility.
As a child I really believed in the righteousness and purity of the United Nations. This was based, I think, on two things: UNICEF helped a lot of children after WW2; the Korean War against communist aggression was a ‘United Nations police action’ (though it was mainly the US military). But as I got older, disillusionment set in, esp. as it became the mouthpiece of anti-Israel and other leftist sentiment (often spearheaded by Cuba and the so-called ‘non-aligned’ nations). I wonder if the BBC’s love for the UN stems from post-war internationalist nostalgia (I even used to read ‘New Internationalist’!) among older types – or maybe it’s just reflexive anti-Americanism among them…
The Telegraph article that either Bryan or David Preiser deconstructed as an example of left wing bias – thinking they were viewing a BBC article – is another example.
Ben | 28.05.08 – 1:14 pm
Nope, not guilty. ‘Twas David Preiser, as he pointed out at 6:07 pm.
But I admit to once scornfully attacking Channel 4 on this site, thinking it was part of the BBC. I ruefully acknowledged the error once it was gently pointed out to me by fellow commenters.
Yes, we do make mistakes here, but in terms of admitting them, and also giving credit where it is due, we are streets ahead of the BBC. And they are apparently the “professionals.”