UNITED
NATIONS, June
4 -- The UK at
the UN are an
idealistic
lot, but in a
conflicted
way.
As
they revive
the Security
Council "horizon
scanning"
briefing for
their
Presidency in
June, we
too will scan
their
horizon,
through the
first week of
their month.
They
say they want
to be open:
but only so
far, and only
in their way.
They provide
information,
but often only
those friendly
to them, in a
way that is
controlling.
We
begin as we
must by noting
that Monday
they presided
over the
first
day in years
in which a
media
worktable was
not only not
present,
but
was actively
discouraged
and seized,
in front of
the Council.
The
Mission saw
this coming,
even talked
with members
of the press
corps
on both sides
of the issue
-- shocking
that there is
an
"anti-access"
side among the
media, but
that's another
story, one
that we will
tell
this week as
well -- but
still it
happened.
As
the UK began
its bilateral
meetings with
other Missions
on June 3,
for the first
time in years
there was no
table. Various
Missions, to
the level of
Permanent
Representative,
commented on
it and said it
should not
stand.
But the
UK
seemed to
think it was
funny. Even
after
a small
replacement
table bought
and brought by
the new Free
UN Coalition
for Access
was seized
and taken away
by the UN
Department of
Public
Information,
there was levity.
Later
on Monday
Inner City
Press was told
not to engage
in
"personalization"
in articles.
But who to
report without
naming names?
And with the
UK so savvy
now in social
media, how not
to name the
handles?
So this
is how we'll
do it, setting
the deadline
of the week:
we'll cover
the UK in
precisely the
way they have
decided to
make
themselves
available: not
with media
workspace
presence in
front of the
Council, but
through social
media. And it
will, as it
must, be
personal. One
new name per
story.
Mark
Lyall Grant
rather than
the ritual
12:30 press
conference has
moved
it, and is
having one
online from
2:30 to 3,
complete with
hashtag.
We'll be
there, via
hashtag. Can
you spell
#UNfreePress?
Even
over the
weekend, the
UK went public
with a press
statement it
proposed about
Qusayr in
Syria, then
selectively blamed
one Mission
for blocking
it. (Inner
City Press
spoke with
that Mission
on Monday
and heard
their side of
things: in
person, not
online.)
The
UK told some
resident
correspondents
perceived as
friendly the
minister Alistair
Burt would go
do a stakeout
about the Arms
Trade
Treaty.
The goal, it
seems, was to
not have to
answer the
obvious
contradiction:
it was the UK
that sought
the
"flexibility"
to arm the
Syrian rebels,
while trumpeting
the ATT.
The ICRC calls
it
inconsistent,
but who's
counting?
Control Arms apparently
doesn't.
Back
in May, for
Press Freedom
Day, the UK
put on its
Tumblr page
the
statements of
favored
correspondents,
presumably
though it
thought
represent free
press.
But as
we'll show
this week, at
least two of
them have
openly been
quite
anti-press,
trying to get
others thrown
out of the UN,
trolling and
accusing
journalist
which whom
they don't
agree of being
funded by
Assad or,
pertinent to
the UK, by the
defunct Tamil
Tigers of Sri
Lanka.
The UK
Mission knows
or should
have known
about this:
but friends
are friends,
useful
pass-throughs
are just that.
Press Freedom
Day indeed.
The
issue of the
table is
telling. It
was there
before the
Council moved,
and during the
relocation.
The UK has
presided,
literally,
over its
elimination.
It's a week of
moves and
getting
settled in,
Inner City
Press is told.
A week? We'll
see. Watch
this site.
, 
