Following the police-involved death of George Floyd, and the subsequent protests across the world, the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement declaring that racial injustice must be heard and addressed. The reports claiming the UN condemned the US for racism are UNBIASED, but lack proper context.
Context
On June 3, 2020 the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, said in a statement “[A] country needs its leaders to condemn racism unequivocally; for them to reflect on what has driven people to boiling point; to listen and learn; and to take actions that truly tackle inequalities.”
Many news outlets and independent journalists considered this to be an official United Nations condemnation of racism in the United States. It is clear the UN meant to express deep concern for the racial injustices and police brutality that has occurred in the United States. However, they did not officially condemn the US. This mis-contextualization could have occurred due to a separate, UN-linked statement. For instance, civil rights experts for the United Nations and the Organization of American States informally condemned the use of force by American police on journalists covering protests.
A United Nations condemnation requires a formal resolution, and a vote of disapproval, from one or more of the UN’s councils or assemblies (e.g. United Nations’ Human Rights Council or General Assembly).
Who Reported It?
The initial statement was released on June 3 and was intermittently reported over the following seven days. As of June 13, here is a list of media outlets that have reported or confirmed the story:
How Biased Is This Report?
Stipulation deems this report to be UNBIASED for two reasons. The first reason is due to the level of international coverage of this story. International news agencies seemed to report the story at a greater frequency than US news outlets. This gives the report an additional level of objective assessment. Secondly, the United States outlets that did report of this story came from multiple “sides” of the political bias spectrum. With the proper context, this story could be considered Fair and Unbiased.