Ever wonder why the East River Debating and Terrorist Cheerleading Society gets such indulgent treatment in the media? Here's an example of what happens on the rare occasion when a UN reporter gets tough.
Last week, Benny Avni of the New York Sun broke the story of how Kofi Annan's chief of staff Mark Malloch Brown has a stinks-to-high-heaven landlord-tenant arrangement with George Soros. Brown makes $125,000 a year and the rent he supposedly pays to his buddy Soros, though still below market (he pays less than another tenant paid in 2001), is $120,000.
Supposedly he pays for his rent from "savings." Yeah, right. And I'm Santa Claus.
The Sun has been the only mainstream media outlet to cover this story, needless to say. It wasn't picked up by the wire services at the UN or, naturally, the New York Times or any of the other hacks who comprise the spineless UN press corps. NewsMax ran an item on its website, but that was about it.
According to a transcript of the daily UN press briefing yesterday, available online, Brown went ballistic over the New York Sun's effrontery. Asked about his links with Soros, Brown launched into a rant about what a non-story it was and demanded to know the identity of the leaker before answering any further questions:
"So my challenge to you, James, and to Benny, is who gave you this story? What was their motive? What is it that now gives free rein to any amount of bile, unproven but still publishable, with no questioning of the motives of those who provided it? Perhaps when you are ready to answer that question, I'll be ready to answer a few more." He went on to duck and weave and growl in response to follow-up questions from a single reporter. The rest of the hacks just sat there, trembling, upset that one of their number had dared to embarrass the chief of staff to their beloved Kofi Annan!
At the White House or Pentagon, such bullying would not have been tolerated by the media, and an official who behaved like that would be roasted alive. However, this was the UN press corps, whose main responsibility, with rare exceptions like Avni, is to defend the UN. As we reported a few weeks ago, when Shashi Tharoor's role in hosting an anti-Semite at a UN conference was publicized, Reuters UN Bureau Chief Evelyn Leopold dashed off an email in his defense.
The other reporters in attendance nodded in agreement with Brown as he ranted yesterday, leading him to observe:
"Get back to the plenty of real stories that are around here. I see enough nodding heads in this room to know that I am not alone in saying that there are enough real stories for you to pursue that you can stop dragging down everyone you touch, particularly yourself, by the way you are behaving." He then stalked out.
One of the "nodding heads" apparently belonged to Sarah Baxter of the Sunday Times, who produced a piece that sided with Brown. The headline: "UN backstabbing would make Shakespeare wince, says Annan aide." Baxter's story mentions the Sun expose'--but only in the context of the "scheming and skulduggery" and "poisonous atmosphere" at the UN. She just blandly accepts Brown's self-serving explanation for this fishy setup, and lets it go at that.
Isn't it horrible and "poisonous" that there are actually one or two UN correspondents who aren't shills for the UN?
When you see disgusting displays of media obsequiousness at the UN, it is not hard to understand why the only hard-hitting reporting about the UN--with rare exceptions like the Sun--would come from off-premises reporters at the Wall Street Journal or Judith Miller at the Times. The latter, as was reported yesterday, was rewarded for her tough work with a vicious personal attack by The Nation's UN correspondent Ian Williams.
Williams exemplifies the kind of ideological rigidity, UN cheerleading and ethical anorexia that characterizes the UN press corps. He broke every rule in journalism by working as a paid UN media consultant while covering the UN. Hacks like him despise the little good reporting that comes out of the UN--and those "nodding heads" are further proof of that. tOR
copyright 2005 Mediacrity
Last week, Benny Avni of the New York Sun broke the story of how Kofi Annan's chief of staff Mark Malloch Brown has a stinks-to-high-heaven landlord-tenant arrangement with George Soros. Brown makes $125,000 a year and the rent he supposedly pays to his buddy Soros, though still below market (he pays less than another tenant paid in 2001), is $120,000.
Supposedly he pays for his rent from "savings." Yeah, right. And I'm Santa Claus.
The Sun has been the only mainstream media outlet to cover this story, needless to say. It wasn't picked up by the wire services at the UN or, naturally, the New York Times or any of the other hacks who comprise the spineless UN press corps. NewsMax ran an item on its website, but that was about it.
According to a transcript of the daily UN press briefing yesterday, available online, Brown went ballistic over the New York Sun's effrontery. Asked about his links with Soros, Brown launched into a rant about what a non-story it was and demanded to know the identity of the leaker before answering any further questions:
"So my challenge to you, James, and to Benny, is who gave you this story? What was their motive? What is it that now gives free rein to any amount of bile, unproven but still publishable, with no questioning of the motives of those who provided it? Perhaps when you are ready to answer that question, I'll be ready to answer a few more." He went on to duck and weave and growl in response to follow-up questions from a single reporter. The rest of the hacks just sat there, trembling, upset that one of their number had dared to embarrass the chief of staff to their beloved Kofi Annan!
At the White House or Pentagon, such bullying would not have been tolerated by the media, and an official who behaved like that would be roasted alive. However, this was the UN press corps, whose main responsibility, with rare exceptions like Avni, is to defend the UN. As we reported a few weeks ago, when Shashi Tharoor's role in hosting an anti-Semite at a UN conference was publicized, Reuters UN Bureau Chief Evelyn Leopold dashed off an email in his defense.
The other reporters in attendance nodded in agreement with Brown as he ranted yesterday, leading him to observe:
"Get back to the plenty of real stories that are around here. I see enough nodding heads in this room to know that I am not alone in saying that there are enough real stories for you to pursue that you can stop dragging down everyone you touch, particularly yourself, by the way you are behaving." He then stalked out.
One of the "nodding heads" apparently belonged to Sarah Baxter of the Sunday Times, who produced a piece that sided with Brown. The headline: "UN backstabbing would make Shakespeare wince, says Annan aide." Baxter's story mentions the Sun expose'--but only in the context of the "scheming and skulduggery" and "poisonous atmosphere" at the UN. She just blandly accepts Brown's self-serving explanation for this fishy setup, and lets it go at that.
Isn't it horrible and "poisonous" that there are actually one or two UN correspondents who aren't shills for the UN?
When you see disgusting displays of media obsequiousness at the UN, it is not hard to understand why the only hard-hitting reporting about the UN--with rare exceptions like the Sun--would come from off-premises reporters at the Wall Street Journal or Judith Miller at the Times. The latter, as was reported yesterday, was rewarded for her tough work with a vicious personal attack by The Nation's UN correspondent Ian Williams.
Williams exemplifies the kind of ideological rigidity, UN cheerleading and ethical anorexia that characterizes the UN press corps. He broke every rule in journalism by working as a paid UN media consultant while covering the UN. Hacks like him despise the little good reporting that comes out of the UN--and those "nodding heads" are further proof of that. tOR
copyright 2005 Mediacrity