Journalism is made of two parts.
There is the part that reports on the events which happen
in the community that a publication covers, be they events which are open for
all to see, or events that need to be uncovered by investigation and revealed
to the public.
As to the other part of journalism, it is one that offers
opinions of the sort generated by the editors of the publication or its regular
and occasional contributors or its readers.
What journalism is not about is the deliberate disregarding
of the proverbial 600-pound gorilla in the room. This can happen when the
publication means to deceive the audience by practicing the sin of omission,
whether the omitted facts turn out to be known to the general public or not.
Except for the last category, it is easy to see why a
publication might sometimes go astray and commit an infraction in one of those
categories deliberately, by error or by ignorance. As to why a publication
would cover an event while ignoring particulars that are well known to the
general public — it remains a puzzle. Still, this
happens at times, and the question is why?
To try answering that question, we study a piece that
came under the title: “What good is the United Nations?” and the subtitle:
“Russia’s veto power at the Security Council is untenable.” The piece is
actually an editorial of The Washington Times, published on March 3, 2022.
As shown in the subtitle, the editorial is constructed
around Russia’s use of the veto. This happened when the Security Council took
up the subject of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and voted overwhelmingly to
condemn Russia, but the vote was nullified by Russia’s own veto. Apparently,
this move so infuriated the editors of the Washington Times, they were motivated
to give a lesson on the veto. They did so while omitting the salient parts of
the lesson. In fact, the gutting was so thorough, it had the effect of trivializing
the history, meaning and uses of the veto power.
The following is a condensed version of the way that the
editors of the Washington Times introduced the subject of the veto, used at the
Security Council of the United Nations:
“Russia used its veto power to
overrule a resolution compelling Moscow to halt its invasion of Ukraine.
Some have argued that Russia’s permanent member status should be revoked.
We agree, but since this is not legally possible, the Ukraine crisis
raises an important question: What good is the UN if it is powerless
to stop its own leadership from breaking international law, committing war
crimes and murdering innocent civilians?”
The editors went on to explain that a resolution passed
by the General Assembly of the United Nations would be declaratory and
nonbinding, whereas a resolution passed by the Security Council would be
binding unless, of course, it is vetoed by one or more of the permanent
members.
It was at this point that the editors of the Washington Times
should have started to discuss the salient points they chose to omit instead. Mentioning
those points would have led to the exposure of the 600-pound gorilla. Unfortunately,
the editors ignored this approach in favor of taking one that is as useful as
teaching a student ancient Gaelic to prepare him or her for a math exam. It is
that the lesson given by the editors turned out to be meaningless and useless.
What the editors should have explained was that the veto
power was created at the same time that the victors of the Second World War,
were designated to be the permanent 5 at the Security Council. Being the big
powers at the time, they were given the veto to make certain that a
disagreement between two or more of them will not escalate and lead to another
world war. The right was not extended to the smaller powers because they could
not start a world war, especially that they were watched by the big powers.
And so, when Russia used the veto to reject the
resolution condemning it, Russia used the right granted it for the purpose that
the veto was created. Lamenting its use in this case, as did the editors of the
Washington Times, says that they don’t know what they are talking about or
worse, they know something ominous they are hiding from their readers.
The sad part is that the editors are hiding something
that is common knowledge. It is that America has been using the veto like the
nymphomaniac who regularly leaves the redlight district to wander into the turf
of criminal gangs looking for an all-night deluxe treatment. The fact is that America
did not use the veto to protect itself; it used the veto time after time after
time, to shield and help perpetuate the genocidal activities of Israel.
Just imagine yourself a Palestinian being bombarded from
the sky by American warplanes given free to Israel, and then hearing that
America has again shielded Israel from condemnation by the veto that was
granted it to protect itself and humanity from a third world war, but used it
instead to protect Israel’s genocidal practices.
What would you think of an America that repeatedly claims
there is no daylight between it and Israel? Would you not think of America as
being the hot to trot maniac that’s perpetually looking to be served by the
political Epsteins and Weinsteins who run the Jewish lobby of America?
This is what the editors of the Washington Times should
have lamented, but they chose to completely disregard the subject. They can
blather all they want about practicing investigative journalism, but what they
are doing is practice deceptive journalism, with the victims of their deception
being their American readers who remain in the dark while the rest of the world
is being enlightened.