U.N. not impartial

[mcqueen625]

Has anyone read the article in Canada Free Press regarding the United Nations funding a bumper-sticker campaign in the Middle East.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover081905.htm

I read yesterday where the United nations apparently funded the manufacture and distribution of bumper stickers, mugs, banners,and T-Shirts bearing the slogan "Today-Gaza-Tomorrow-The-West-Bank and Jerusalem. These were widely distributed by the U.N. to Palentinian Arabs in the Gaza strip. All this at the exact time that Israel was in the process of evacuating Israeli citizens from the settlements. If this is not meant to incite more violence against Israeli's, what is it's purpose?

My understanding of the United Nations was theat they were supposed to politically impartial, but obviously they are anything but impartial. The Canadian government rings the praises of the U.N. and now we find out that this organization is simply a puppet of the Palistinian Authority's propaganda machine. I question why the Canadian government would send one more cent to this organization until whoever made the decision to fund this project is removed from office. In fact it seems to me that one of Palistine's biggest fans is Koffi himself.

No wonder the United States is accusing the U.N. of being irrelevant, and total waste of taxpayer's money, and after this I tend to agree with that statement. This is an organization that would have us believe that they should be in control of world affairs, and in effect to be some sort of world governing body. I don't believe that our government should be funding this organization, and in fact any representation we have attached to this organization should be withdrawn.

[B. Max]

The UN is a cesspool of corruption. I've said for years that we should have gotten out of it.

[August1991]

Despite the current investigations into his brother, his son, his son's best friend, his former chief of staff, his procurement officer and the executive director of the UN's biggest ever programme, the Secretary-General insists he remains committed to staying on and tackling the important work of "reforming" the UN.

Unfortunately, his Executive Co-Ordinator for United Nations Reform has also had to resign. Officially, Maurice Strong, Under-Secretary-General, godfather of the Kyoto treaty and chief UN negotiator on North Korea, resigned because he'd put his step-daughter on the payroll - she's also quit - and because of his ties to Tongsun Park, a Korean businessman charged by the US Attorney's office with taking millions of dollars from Saddam to act as an unregistered foreign agent for Iraq.

Mark Steyn - Daily Telegraph

One of the best pieces I've ever read about the UN. It contains specifics.

[Guest eureka]

Unfortunately, August, the Telegraph is no longer the great paper it once was. Long ago, it was my daily read and crossword. Today, it has the Steyn's to spoil its balance.

[Argus]

Unfortunately, August, the Telegraph is no longer the great paper it once was. Long ago, it was my daily read and crossword. Today, it has the Steyn's to spoil its balance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Meaning, it doesn't agree with you. So it's no longer a "great paper". To be a "great paper" it has to be ultra left, anti-American and anti-capitalist.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Unfortunately, August, the Telegraph is no longer the great paper it once was. Long ago, it was my daily read and crossword. Today, it has the Steyn's to spoil its balance.

Meaning, it doesn't agree with you. So it's no longer a "great paper". To be a "great paper" it has to be ultra left, anti-American and anti-capitalist.

I have to side with eureka on this, a 'great paper' shouldn't be blatantly biased. In fact, reporting just an event without putting a positive or negative, left or right 'spin' on it, would simply be called 'news'. But that wouldn't sell, nor could it be influenced or have an agenda. I should say that eureka's comment is not a disparaging comment on how far right (or left) the paper has gone, but rather a lament on how far it has gone away from being a 'newspaper'.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Unfortunately, August, the Telegraph is no longer the great paper it once was. Long ago, it was my daily read and crossword. Today, it has the Steyn's to spoil its balance.

Meaning, it doesn't agree with you. So it's no longer a "great paper". To be a "great paper" it has to be ultra left, anti-American and anti-capitalist.

I have to side with eureka on this, a 'great paper' shouldn't be blatantly biased.

What then, do we call a "great" paper today? What paper is not blatantly biased? None in Canada, that's for sure. The New York Times? I hear a lot about their bias. How many "great" papers are there in the world? And if we reserve this term for the select few can we still, as eureka has done, snidely dismiss anything and everything which is printed in some other paper?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

What then, do we call a "great" paper today? What paper is not blatantly biased?

Not too many, they are almost all owned by just a few people. There are a few that at least will run both left and right op-ed pieces, even the Calgary Sun on occasion. Most of the news I get is off the internet, but again, stuff without an agenda is hard to find, and the place is filled with kooks from both sides, as well as those from 'outer space'. I am given to the notion that the bias can hardly be avoided, so I have to read from multiple sources (for international news) and try to have the 'spins' negate each other. A good, purely info 'news site' is globalsecurity.org, where you get a sterile analysis of events, plus info overlooked (or not biased enough to slant the story) by regular news.

Truth doesn't need adjectives and adverbs, nor innuendo, so the less the better. Al Jazeera is another good news source for not 'colouring' articles, though the service itself has an overall bias. Not as much as people think, though. Reading a news bit from there, one can read a report on an event, most often without rhetoric or slant.

[newbie]

theloniusfleabag, let the "right" have their little biased newspapers (Canada Free Press and The Telegraph), since they claim practically every other news source is left slanted.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

What then, do we call a "great" paper today? What paper is not blatantly biased?

Not too many, they are almost all owned by just a few people. There are a few that at least will run both left and right op-ed pieces, even the Calgary Sun on occasion. Most of the news I get is off the internet, but again, stuff without an agenda is hard to find, and the place is filled with kooks from both sides, as well as those from 'outer space'. I am given to the notion that the bias can hardly be avoided, so I have to read from multiple sources (for international news) and try to have the 'spins' negate each other. A good, purely info 'news site' is globalsecurity.org, where you get a sterile analysis of events, plus info overlooked (or not biased enough to slant the story) by regular news.

Truth doesn't need adjectives and adverbs, nor innuendo, so the less the better. Al Jazeera is another good news source for not 'colouring' articles, though the service itself has an overall bias. Not as much as people think, though. Reading a news bit from there, one can read a report on an event, most often without rhetoric or slant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Al-Jazeera's bias is not unlike many of the other networks in that it is demonstrated more in what they choose to cover, than how they cover it. I would think CNN is about as unbiased. At least, their stories are less openly biased than the CBC's often are. Though again, the CBC can be good. It really depends on what kind of story you're dealing with, in what the biases are of the news organization you're reading or viewing. You know that any coverage of the middle east by the Asper media, for example, is going to be biased. That doesn't mean it's necessarily dishonest, just that they've chosen to present a particular side of things - the side that will make Israel look good.

Given bias exists virtually everywhere I'd say that good media is media which delivers accurate, timely news and presents it in a relatively complete and intelligent fashion. Biased or not. And again, as long as you're aware of bias this need not influence you. As far back as when I was a teenager I would read the Toronto Sun and Toronto Star to balance each other off. They never really contradicted each other in their news coverage. But you'd get pieces of the story in the Sun you didn't find in the Star, and vice versa. Or sometimes the coverage would focus on different sides. Ie, during a labour civil service labour strike the focus of the Star's news might be on police violence against demonstrators and witnesses would speak of how the police were at fault. the Sun would show the same demonstration as being violent, and depict violent incidents the Star er, neglected to mention. Their witnesses, of course, would defend the police action.

It would be nice to have a neutral accounting of such things, but at least if you check multiple news stories you generally get a more complete picture.

[SirSpanky]

It would be nice to have a neutral accounting of such things, but at least if you check multiple news stories you generally get a more complete picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think thats a good policy when gathering any type of information. Either due to author bias, or half-ass research regarding historical info, the picture will never be quite complete.

If the news delivered just the facts, with no commentary, I think most of the viewership/readership would look elsewhere, as most are interested in the news purely for entertainment. Personally I would love it, but thats just me.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear SirSpanky,

If the news delivered just the facts, with no commentary, I think most of the viewership/readership would look elsewhere, as most are interested in the news purely for entertainment. Personally I would love it, but thats just me.

I agree with you, but since providing news is 'a business', it's sole allegience is to profit.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Telegraph is a great alternative to the UK's far-left BBC, Guardian, and Independent.

Mark Steyn is a great witty intelligent pundit. He makes me proud to be Canadian.

[cybercoma]

Number of Jewish Countries: 1

Number of Arab Countries: 19

tough vote.

[mcqueen625]

It would be nice to have a neutral accounting of such things, but at least if you check multiple news stories you generally get a more complete picture.

That is a great suggestion, but what if we wind up with the situation we have say in my province of New Brunswick where virtually every newspaper and periodical is owned by one family, the Irving's. How then can you get unbiased news reporting, especially if the controversy surrounds the dealings of that family, or the dealings of the politicians favoured by this family? My contention is that you cannot get accurate reporting unless the ownership of the media is limited by legislation.

Besides that, is the topic of this forum, not about the U.N. being biased against Israel by funding Palistinian propaganda material?

[moderateamericain]

maybe the can make bumber stickers for ex soilders that say "I got my aids from a 13 year old congo girl that was pimped out to me"

[B. Max]

These were probably the first folks to expose the UN for what it was, and for what it was to become.

http://www.getusout.org/index.html

[Montgomery Burns]

McQueen, check out this tabulation of UN actions critical of the human rights policies of member states. Guess which country has been criticized more than any other from 2003 to the present?

Okay, that was too easy.

How about this one: What country has been criticized more often than such bastions of human rights as Myanmar, Indonesia, China, Russia, Haiti, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Syria, Cuba, and - believe it or not - North Korea?