The New York Sun's blog It Shines for All notices a certain item in the UN's Morning Headlines publication, in which the Democrats' victory is (to its eye) almost celebrated.

Why is the U.N. commenting on member state elections? We're told that this isn't normally done. So why is the Republican loss worthy? It's almost celebratory. Does the U.N. think they'll get more support now?

And look who the U.N. quotes. Largely leftwing press. AP, BBC, NYT ... And the one editorial they quote? The New York Times. Go figure. (Why anyway is an editorial worth including? It's certainly not "morning headlines" it's "morning opinion.")

To my eyes, the language used barely stays within the realm of the defensible. But violating usual practices by choosing to cover this event and the choice of sources to quote form a pattern along with the subtleties of linguistic tone. This edition of Morning News is a pretty clear indicator of official UN hostility to President Bush.

Because it unintentionally reveals a negative attitude, I think it is fair to call this issue of Morning Headlines a "botched publication."

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson   11 9 06