U.N. Fair and U.N. Balanced (In process?)
Redacted from an original article by Matthew Continetti that should be absorbed in its entirety. It describes, in spades, the duplicity, in fact, the un-Americanism of The New York Times!
Somini Sengupta, who covers the United Nations for the New York Times, recently tweeted about the new U.S. ambassador there. “I find Nikki Haley unusual among diplomats here,” she wrote, “in that she speaks often without notes, she’s confident about what she needs to say.” Imagine: a prepared, competent, and spirited representative of U.S. interests at the world body. How novel.
Sengupta appears puzzled by her subject. For not only is Ambassador Haley self-assured and capable of extemporaneous speech, she is unlike her immediate predecessors in that she is a conservative willing to defend her country’s ideals and interests before others.
Moreover, Haley does not reflexively criticize the government and people of our ally Israel. So trapped within the liberal bubble is the Times that such behavior comes across to the paper as aberrant, freakish, worthy of incredulity. The coverage that results is almost funny when it is not outright embarrassing.
… The article is thin as profiles go. What the reader comes away with is a feeling of wonderment that the piece was written at all. A more apt but less eye-catching headline might have been, “Haley Hires Aide Who Shares Her Views.” The gist is that conservatives exist. This is news to the New York Times.
The detached style of the copy fails to conceal the spirit of adversarial condescension in which it is written. This article is not labeled opinion or analysis or fact check. It purports to be a dispassionate retelling of Haley’s speech. It therefore misleads the reader by juxtaposing Haley’s statements with Sengupta’s barely disguised commentary. In the following excerpts the emphasis is my own:
1 “Ms. Haley said the United States would never close its doors to foreigners who flee persecution, even as she defended the Trump administration’s travel ban, which closed the door to refugees from six war-torn, mainly Muslim nations.”
2 “She insisted that American taxpayers should get value for the money they contribute to the United Nations. She said nothing about whether the United States would help head off a potential humanitarian disaster from famine that the United Nations has warned is looming over 20 million people abroad.”
3 “She cited what she called a ‘ridiculously biased report attacking Israel,’ and criticized the Security Council for holding monthly meetings about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (The council also discusses Yemen every month and Syria three times a month.)”
The measure of Sengupta’s disingenuousness and bad faith can be taken by examining the above sentences.
… Moral equivalence between Israel and its adversaries might as well be part of the New York Times style guide, I suppose. What’s remarkable about Sengupta’s piece is that even as she clumsily attempts to provide left-wing “context” to Haley’s appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, she can’t bring herself to mention that the charge of corruption against the UN Human Rights Council is a long-standing bipartisan element of U.S. foreign policy.
Haley’s charge is obviously true. The council exists only because its ancestor, the UN Human Rights Commission, had become so monopolized by autocrats, dictators, anti-Semites, anti-Americans, and chronic human-rights violators that it was dissolved upon American withdrawal in 2006.
Its replacement is little better, since any human-rights body whose members do not recognize rights within their own borders is not worthy of the name. Nikki Haley has the clarity of vision and political gumption to call corruption by its name. No wonder the Times finds her so unusual.
Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Powered by Facebook Comments