From Roger L. Simon: UN-Balanced Blogging on the UN Dispatch blog:
0% of Roger L. Simon's blog entries during April make reference to the following UN-related issues:[followed by self-promotion of good works of which the US is the major funder]0% of posts on the UN Dispatch make reference to the following UN-related issues:
UN sex scandals in various African countries
UN failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda
UN oil-for-food scandal
Is Simon's hyper-focus on a single UN-related issue based on deep convictions?Does the UN Dispatch have any justification for using the term "hyper-focus"? Could it be that they consider any attention afforded that issue to be too much? Is UN Dispatch ignoring any of the other above issues an oversight? Maybe. Or is it indicative that they just don't give a damn?
From Roger L. Simon: UN-Balanced Blogging, Part II
1. UN Dispatch is the UN's blog, and the post in question represents the UN's displeasure with Roger Simon.You use the UN name, you're paid by them, they own you.
False. Here's a brief quote from the 'About' section of this blog: "UN Dispatch is sponsored by the United Nations Foundation, though the views expressed herein do not represent the official views of the United Nations Foundation, or the UN."
And not unexpectedly, the responses were largely dismissive, derisive, and betrayed a shallow reading of the original post.And not unexpectedly, the responses posted on the UN Dispatch were dismissive and betrayed a desire to sweep problems under the rug.
an unfortunate reaction from some bloggers is their willingness to simply shrug off the examples of UN-related issues listed in the original post. It's clear that many of these bloggers have become accustomed to knee-jerk attacks and are unwilling (or unable) to engage in a reasoned debate.An unfortunate reaction from UN Dispatch is their willingness to simply shrug off the examples of UN problems referred to by anyone. It's clear that the UN has become accustomed to simply talk about fixing these problems and to resort to a knee-jerk attack on the messenger because its bureaucrats are too cowardly and lazy to address the problems and actually fix them.