Ingrates at the UN do it again!!!!!!

[Sir Degrader]

Why all the ad hominemattacks Because MagiK quotes a blog automatically his statement is discounted? Anyway, from the CBC and other news agencies, I haven't heard of ANY un forces giving out aid, just soldiers, charities and government forces. All I've heard from the CBC is that "UN demands that payments come through", and CNN doesn't even mention what they do.

[ 01-07-2005, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Sir Degrader ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: As for relying on blogs, you may as well look to Stalin's memoirs for a reliable interpretation of the cold war, as anyone who has done any history at school must know, all sources have bias, and diarys can be the most biased of all, especially when the author has strong veiws on the matter.

Well said Aragorn1 - a blog or a diary is not held to any journalistic standard of integrity. It has no need to be factual and it typically is fiction. Some writers go to extrordinary lengths to twist the fictions to any extent to achieve their own goals and display theor own biases. Some objective gems may be found amongst the dross, but in general terms to quote and believe any of these blogs is to have us believe we are not in Kansas anymore.

PS - yes, I know I don't live in Kansas nor have I ever been there in my life [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[Davros]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Why all the ad hominemattacks Because MagiK quotes a blog automatically his statement is discounted? Anyway, from the CBC and other news agencies, I haven't heard of ANY un forces giving out aid, just soldiers, charities and government forces. All I've heard from the CBC is that "UN demands that payments come through", and CNN doesn't even mention what they do.

1) Ad hominem - LOL - did you read the blogs? If it looks like poop and stinks like poop it is poop. Blogs are opinions not facts, and in this case let's not read that tripe and believe that Diplomad doesn't have a very singular view of where he wants to grind his axe. Some people want to believe that a herbal tea will make you lose weight, some people want to believe some scheme will make them rich, and some poeple hate the UN and want to believe this blogger. Nuff said.

2) You make the statement about not seeing it reported in papers, but do you honestly believe there are no UN personnel at any ground zero's helping out. If you do then I feel sorry for you - you are letting bias and feelings block out the sun.

There are many UN personnel on the ground working away at solving problems. To give you the merest taste of the edge of what they are doing, Unicef has been establishing (and staffing and supplying) child care centres - mostly in Sumatra but also in Sri lanka aimed at housing and caring for the orphans. The World Health Organisation (another UN body) has been getting vaccines in place and started immunisationsagainst eth diseases that are expected to kill thousands more.

When quizzed 48 hours ago about whey there weren't more UN people on the ground yet, the United Nations Emergency Relief Co-ordinator readily admitted that the effort needed to be stronger on the ground. The United Nations was doing an enormous job already, with hundreds of people working, but it needed to build up more and it could and would do so dramatically in next few days. Compared to the immediate deployment possibilities of a military force, the UN build-up was slower, but it would continue to grow.

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Davros: Hmm - Well JD I just surveyed about 20 stories on the web sites of our news services. Not one of them had anything disparaging to say about the UN so that either means that we tend respect the UN organisation a hell of a lot more than that Diplomad tosser, or they couldn't be arsed writing disparaging articles when there were positive articles of what was being done to write about instead. Either way it is a huge sprain on the imagination that Diplomad is trying to get us to make when he tries to paint the picture that the only good being done is by our 2 countries. I just think that's a huge pile of smelly dog turds - lots of people all over the world are trying to help.

Thats the point Silly, the news media are getting their info from the UN PR department and covering their "coordination meetings" in the 5 star hotels...how can they have a negative thing to say about them? They are well fed, comfortable and happy. And there are STILL no UN forces distributing food or water or clothing....or anything else except press kits and cocktail weenies.
[/QUOTE]This is pure nonsense. Many of the media insist on paying for everything themselves. Which includes (for instance) tickets to sport events they are reviewing AND stays at Five Star Hotels. The last 'and' is more of an 'if', actually, I know of few journalists who are put in Five Star Hotels. I also doubt that press briefings are held in such accomodations. Most governments and large organisations have press centres for that purpose. I also had the pleasure of meeting plenty of Dutch journalists who serve abroad. They're not for sale and none of them blindly copy press releases. That's not even considered to be journalism here. Besides, non-critical articles aren't interesting. I doubt the person who writes them gets to keep his job very long. Foreign press jobs are in high demand.

[ 01-07-2005, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Sir Degrader]

Actually, in Gulf War 1 Dharan International Hotel was overbooked with reporters (that hotel was 5 stars).

[Chewbacca]

Gotta love wild false assertions with nothing to back them up but hot-air. Here's a few:

Yellow cake? yep it was real after all Spy outed...nope a lie on the witness stand

No proof that the 16 words concerning yellowcake in that SOTU speech were actually true. In fact, it has been officially admitted that was a false report. Scapegoat named and case closed. I would love to see objective, fact-based proof that shows otherwise.

And the investigation of who leaked Valerie Plame's identify as a CIA operative is not yet over. No verdict has been reached and the case is not closed. An unnamed senior Whitehouse official is still the alleged source AFAIK.

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Actually, in Gulf War 1 Dharan International Hotel was overbooked with reporters (that hotel was 5 stars).

They had little choice, as the Dharan International was the headquarters for the news media at that time. That was were you could find the liasons of the US Army, who largely controlled the flow of information. I don't think they gave press briefings at scheduled times either, so you had to be available 24/7.

[ 01-08-2005, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Sir Degrader]

They had no choice? Couldn't they have gone to Iraq or Kuwait? Couldn't they have gone out in range rover to see for themselves? Instead of staying in a five star hotel and rehashing the same articles, couldn't they have been, well, journalists?

[Dreamer128]

Journalists aren't trained to tour warzones. They're trained to be critical and to write articles. Plenty of examples of this in the second Gulf War. I recall several occasions on which journalists got lost after venturing out themselves and got their brains blown out by friendly fire. Besides, venturing into a warzone isn't always allowed (by their employer or the militairy). Although it did happen, as stated below. To quote an article:

The most controversial requirement [for journalists]was the obligation to stay with a public affairs escort on Saudi bases and at the discretion of the commander on U.S. bases. This severely restricted access by reporters to the combat area and to troops. The escorts quality varied greatly. Some escorts became known for getting reporters lost in transit between bases. Others took upon themselves the authority to censor reporters' interviews. In one case, the escort quibbled over whether returning pilots could be characterized as "giddy", the reporter's phrase, or "proud", the escort's. One escort would attempt to intimidate soldiers being interviewed by holding out a turned-on tape recorder behind the reporter.

Press coverage in the Gulf was divided into several different pools, each of which assigned specialists from the four media specialties: print, photography, radio, and television. Pool reports would be brought back from the report site to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia and from there distributed to the other media participants in the pool. Only a limited number of slots were available, and this promoted dissension in the ranks of the press. Journalists from each of the specialty branches handled assignments to the pools, while the Defense Department assigned the areas to be covered by the pools. The limited numbers of slots allowed only one journalist from the major media to be assigned to pools. Those not assigned were reduced to receiving the daily press briefing in Dhahran, or striking out on their own to find the news in the desert. The latter were known as "unilaterals". The pool approach was designed to limit access to the troops by unilaterals by giving the pool reporters a vested interest in keeping unilaterals out.

The pools also served to limit the access by non-American reporters. Central Command gave one pool slot to the Saudis, and one for the entire international contingent of the press. The result was international coverage that depended heavily on U.S. sources for video. Even Jordan's news coverage was primarily U.S.-based. However, enterprising journalists from Sweden and other countries did manage to cover the war in Saudi Arabia from the U.S. side without using the pool system.

Initially, the pools were intended to operate only until the logistical support had been developed in the theater of operations to allow unilateral coverage. In practice, the DoD kept the pool system in operation until after the cease-fire had been signed. The DoD intended the pool system to simplify its job of allowing press access without being buried under the avalanche of press that were in the theater.

(http://web1.duc.auburn.edu/~benjadp/gulf/gulf.html)

[Aragorn1]

Some do go out, at least our correspondants do, not subtle difference between correspondants and desk journalist. And you don't have to be a journalist to attract friendly fire...