jimbob

The media reported this as a senior UN official singling out the US for criticism, which is not what happened, whatever the logic. And whether or not the US gives less than 0.2% is debatable, as you can see from this thread. I don't know how the costs figure as a % of GDP but if funding Israel, NATO and the war "on terror" etc should be included, as some seem to suggest in the thread, then the US may give more than 0.2% in which case there is no problem.

The UN's viewpoint is that 1% of GDP should be donated, in which case about 3 countries are not stingy. Mr Egeland is more forgiving.

As pointed out in the Wikipedia article, Egeland's comments spurred countries into action and he seemed to have been humbled by the response, but it wasn't widely reported and it didn't figure in the article. If only there were a fair and balanced approach in the media then we wouldn't still be having this discussion more than a year on. It really is a storm in a tea cup.

I've always been good at logic and analysis so I'll analyze that. First, you misquote him. He didn't refer to the citizens of any nation except to say that they thought their governments should do more: "People say we should give what we give now or more"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309924/posts
Second, you put words in his mouth that he never even tried to say. Perhaps you should put 'FACT:' before the 0.017% bit, as without that it suggests those are Egeland's words. He didn't single out any country.
So what can we deduce about his views on the citizens of the United States from his statement? Well all he says is that they want the government to give at least as much as they do now. If 0.017% is true then the word 'stingy' can be used to describe Egeland's view of the US government in this case, following the logic you describe.
So to demonise the UN as much as possible the article could have had Egeland asserting "Americans want their government to be less stingy". (I still wouldn't be happy with that as it implies that Egeland thinks his view of stinginess is shared by those Americans who tell him their government should give more, and he's not suggested that in his statement. It also suggests he thinks there is a consensus when he may percieve those views as belonging only to a majority.) This could be twisted into a report on how a UN official is out of touch (I suspect) with the bulk of US public opinion but as such I'm sure it's unlikely to have been published.

It's very hard to make a bad headline out of this and stick to the truth of the statement.