But
they now
impose new
obstacles on
new media
coverage of
the Security
Council, and
are social in
only a
selective way.
Before
the Security
Council was
relocated from
2010 to June
1, 2013 and
during the
relocation,
there was a
media
worktable in
front of the
Council where
the press
could file
stories and
tweets while
speaking with
diplomats
entering and
leaving even
closed door
consultations.
At
times, three
to six
blog-style
pieces could
be filed in
the course of
a Council
meeting. This
relied on
being able to
remain
physically
present in
front of the
Council, and
having a table
or surface to
work on.
The UN
apparently
didn't
appreciate
this coverage:
when the
Security
Council
returned to
the second
floor this
week, there
was no table.
With its
partner the
old UN
Correspondents
Association,
the UN's
Department of
Public
Information
cooked up a
rule that
"f.
The Security
Council
stakeout area,
including the
Turkish
Lounge, is not
to be used as
a permanent
workspace for
the media.
When the
Council is not
in session,
correspondents
should
minimize the
amount of time
in the area,
unless
interviewing
or conversing
with a U.N.
delegate or
official."
This
rule hinders
blog-style or
new media
coverage of
the Security
Council, to
put it mildly.
That the
president of
UNCA Pamela
Falk of CBS
uses the word
"blog" as an
insult, as if
to mean "not a
journalist,"
may not be
unrelated to
UNCA's role in
the
above-quoted
rule.
June's
Security
Council
president is
Mark Lyall
Grant of the
UK, who along
with many in
the UK Foreign
and
Commonwealth
Office is
doggedly
entering the
world of
social media,
Twitter,
Tumblr, all
under the
heading
#DigitalDiplomacy.
So one
might expect
them to be
supportive of
blog-style,
new media,
even Twitter
coverage of
Council
meetings. But
when Inner
City Press, on
behalf of the
new Free
UN Coalition
for Access
which has
opposed the
above-quoted
rule, asked
Lyall Grant on
June 4 for the
UK's position,
he essentially
punted. Video
here, from
Minute 18:10.
Lyall
Grant said
this is up to
the UN's
Department of
Public
Information
and "the
journalists
directly to
sort out." Which
journalists?
Well, on the
UK Mission to
the UN's
website is a "World Press Freedom Day" video; the
interviews
are all big
media and two
of them have
filed stealth
complaints
with the UN
against the
Press.
Agence
France Presse's
Tim Witcher
explicitly
complained to
the UN about
how Inner City
Press asked a
question at
the Security
Council
stakeout about
the 135 rapes
by the
Congolese Army
at Minova -- a
topic Inner
City Press
also asked
Lyall Grant
about on June
4. Video
here from
Minute 17:32.
Reuters'
Michelle
Nichols filed
a related
complaint,
which was
immediately
piled on by Reuters'
bureau chief
Louis
Charbonneau,
who has
previous told
the UN's
accreditation
boss that he
might leave
the UN if
Inner City
Press were not
thrown out.
Both are
associated
with anonymous
social media
accounts which
throughout
June 4, until
past 9 pm,
were engaged
in trolling
Inner City
Press for
pushing for
UNSC media
workspace, use as
their
"argument"
photos taken
during DPI's
March 18, 2013
non-consensual raid on Inner City
Press' office.
World
Press Freedom
Day? Indeed.
(At Lyall
Grant's June 4
press
conference, ended
with an
apology that
only one last
question was
possible,
Reuters was
given two
questions
because it
sent two
correspondents;
some noted
that a third,
ex-Reuters
reported was
also called
on. When is
enough,
enough?)
The
issue is not
to turn away
from the
Western wire
services that
have served UK
diplomacy so
well. But to
allow such
corporate
scribes to
work with some
in the UN to
try to ban
blog-style
coverage of
the Security
Council is a
strange
position for
the UK and its
#DigitalDiplomacy.
We'll be
covering this,
as an
experiment in
this
way. Watch
this
video edit
-- explicitly
credited to
the UK Mission
to the UN,
added
commentary
identified as
such. And
watch this
site.
, 
