How can the UN take on issues of Justice when they can’t hold themselves accountable?
A counterspin interview with Jake Johnston on Haiti by Janice Jackson. (www.fair.org)
The criticism was a fair one. This is because though in every calamity we have seen the UN taking an active role to help Haiti and large amounts of money have also been assigned for that cause as well, it’s not the Justice under scrutiny but accountability under watch. The UN role took up a role to support the police against gangs terrorizing particular areas but the result has been the death of various civilians. The UN has defended themselves that it was outside their scope, the matter at hand, and although they had privileged information, yet they failed to act upon it. It is clear that the UN has had a challenge, that failure cycles have repeated themselves since 2004, and solutions to root causes are not being found resulting in the same mistakes over time. The UN has been poor at admitting their own mistakes and has done little to avert their own mistakes. In the question of funds, the problem arises because there are no visible results of where the money is going. Yes, there has been transparency in the amounts of money set aside for particular causes, the results are never put to table and thus gets people wondering where the funds are really going. What Haitians really need is support for local organizations not outside governance, if money was put in for that cause then maybe the ‘assistance’ will really mean something.
I do not have any criticism for the watchdog group because I feel they are doing a great job for what they believe in. They are here to watch out for the people that do not have a voice and being their voice to expose what they suffer from. They may be the only hope of getting the right thing done.
How can the UN take on issues of Justice
Fox News is the most trusted News Source in America. By Don Irvine (www.aim.org)
I do not agree with the criticism. The criticism is not fair. This is because just because surveys are done all the time, they are not always accurate. The number of respondents interviewed has never been a true representation of any entire country and thus the results may not necessarily be the view of a greater part of the population.
Fake news has not helped the situation either because the most implicated media suffers most from ignorant ‘reporters’ seeking to pass on propaganda. So many other factors come into play when one is investigating a respondent’s trust in a particular news station that I feel were not all considered in the survey. The breakdown according to party affiliation may be ideal but so many other factors ought to be considered to make a difference.
I have a criticism for this watchdog especially concerning this report. This is because what they have merely done is tell us the results of a survey that was carried out. I feel they failed their consumers because they did not discuss the findings but presented them just as they are. The essence of a watchdog is to not only inform people of what is going on but breaking the survey down would have shed some light on if the results were justified or not. A watchdog also needs to have a criticism point of view that I felt was lacking in this report. A watchdog also needs to have a ground on whether they support something or not. I am of the opinion that the watchdog remained neutral in this case.