The New York Times has the uncanny ability to write an article that is completely based on false premises. Today they have one about the genocide in Darfur (or as the like to say "the events that the Bush Administration has labeled genocide." You see, if the UN called it that they would have to act.)
Anyway, the article, due to an "editing error" in which the editors obviously drastically change the article in question, originally claimed that the rebels in Sudan were committing the murderous acts, not the government - which is in fact the case. Yes, the government is murdering its own citizens en mass in Sudan and the rebels are fighting to preserve life. Oopsie there NYT!
The all-powerful editors (those guys must change a lot, huh?) also stated this correction:
While the [UN Security] council has agreed to begin planning for a possible peacekeeping force, it has not yet taken up a resolution authorizing such a force.
That's what bloggers and non-idiots call a "big difference." Currently the UN is planning on doing a lot of things: rebuild its headquarters, start a new Human Rights commission, stop North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons, define terrorism, stop genocide in Darfur, etc, etc. The "big difference" is that the UN is actually doing none of these things.
I guess the editors at the Times assumed that when the UN plans to do something that means it will actually soon do something. This premise would be incorrect.
The Times and the UN: a winning combination of doing nothing and the incompetence to incorrectly report it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment