MSM Still Ignoring UN Sex Scandal
Associated Press moved a story on the UN sex abuse case in Congo but it's still not being picked up by MSM -- or anyone else for that matter. A Nexis search yields fewer hits than a search for "Nixon AND greatness" would -- 16 hits worldwide in English-language pubs. Not all those are directly on subject, and none are in leading papers like the New York Times.
A reader suggests that it's just the continuing lack of interest in Africa by our media. But the media has shown it can cover Africa when it suits their agenda. It covered the continent when it helped knock down the diseased system of Apartheid in South Africa and its coverage encouraged Clinton's withdrawl from Somalia. Sudan? No, that's another story.
The same reader excused Annan's temerity in attacking us for the Abu Ghreib scandal even as he knew his troops were raping 12 year olds. Sorry, you've missed the point. There is such a massive difference on the scale of evil between sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl and making a grown man strip for a photo. Of course Abu Ghraib was inexcusable, but it wasn't torture. It was cruel prank that hurt our standing in a very sensitive situation. Annan could have helped the U.S. by putting some necessary perspective on vicious Arab media coverage of the event, but he chose to feed the flames, no doubt relieved that his incomparably worse scandal was being swept under the rugs.
It's Come Down to This has an excellent critique of this subject, employing a 1-5 scale from "mean" to "abhorent" for rating these incidents.
The media is ignoring this story, there is no doubt about it. In Congo, 150 young girls are carrying the psychological and physical scars of their abuse at then hands of the U.N. staff and soldiers. Knowledge of this kind of reprehensible behavior by U.N. troops is so common in the international community that some countries refuse U.N. troops that haven't had an AIDs test.
The media covers AIDs endlessly, but apparently not when it's caused by U.N. troops. It covers every rare incident where a single U.S. soldier rapes a girl overseas, but is ignoring a story of systematic child abuse by the soldiers in Baby Blue. And it's trying to make a new Abu Ghraib out of the possibly wrong, but certainly forgivable, mosque shooting ... but protecting the U.N.
The U.N., because of its opposition to the war in Iraq and all things Bush, has earned "don't touch" status in the Liberal media, joining gay activists, environmentalists, the ACLU, separation-of-church-and-state fanatics and pro-abortionists. They now enjoy full protection from criticism by media. If you need further proof, just consider how oil-for-food remains a mere shadow of Halliburton in MSM coverage.
A reader suggests that it's just the continuing lack of interest in Africa by our media. But the media has shown it can cover Africa when it suits their agenda. It covered the continent when it helped knock down the diseased system of Apartheid in South Africa and its coverage encouraged Clinton's withdrawl from Somalia. Sudan? No, that's another story.
The same reader excused Annan's temerity in attacking us for the Abu Ghreib scandal even as he knew his troops were raping 12 year olds. Sorry, you've missed the point. There is such a massive difference on the scale of evil between sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl and making a grown man strip for a photo. Of course Abu Ghraib was inexcusable, but it wasn't torture. It was cruel prank that hurt our standing in a very sensitive situation. Annan could have helped the U.S. by putting some necessary perspective on vicious Arab media coverage of the event, but he chose to feed the flames, no doubt relieved that his incomparably worse scandal was being swept under the rugs.
It's Come Down to This has an excellent critique of this subject, employing a 1-5 scale from "mean" to "abhorent" for rating these incidents.
The media is ignoring this story, there is no doubt about it. In Congo, 150 young girls are carrying the psychological and physical scars of their abuse at then hands of the U.N. staff and soldiers. Knowledge of this kind of reprehensible behavior by U.N. troops is so common in the international community that some countries refuse U.N. troops that haven't had an AIDs test.
The media covers AIDs endlessly, but apparently not when it's caused by U.N. troops. It covers every rare incident where a single U.S. soldier rapes a girl overseas, but is ignoring a story of systematic child abuse by the soldiers in Baby Blue. And it's trying to make a new Abu Ghraib out of the possibly wrong, but certainly forgivable, mosque shooting ... but protecting the U.N.
The U.N., because of its opposition to the war in Iraq and all things Bush, has earned "don't touch" status in the Liberal media, joining gay activists, environmentalists, the ACLU, separation-of-church-and-state fanatics and pro-abortionists. They now enjoy full protection from criticism by media. If you need further proof, just consider how oil-for-food remains a mere shadow of Halliburton in MSM coverage.
posted by Laer at 10:19 AM
<< Home