Circumstances and events in Libya have dramatically changed since my first blog. As of today the U.S along with NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organization), has started the bombing of major Libyan government locations since March 19th.Earlier yesterday,NATO's most recent airstrike hit one of Khadafy's villa in Tripoli but Moamar Khadafy escaped unharmed however, his youngest son,Seif al-Arab was killed .Along with Khadafy's oldest son, Khadafy's 3 grandchildren were also killed in the airstrike. The Strike supposedly was aimed for known “Command and Control Buildings" and even though the area was considered a residential area in Tripoli.
What really bugs me is whether if there is an international law on this? Is it really in our interest Or NATO's interest to bomb residential areas in major Libyan cities.Sure, you can say this is war, but did I mention the 3 grandchildren were all under the age of twelve? I mean at this point,it seems like NATO is targeting Khadafy himself.
Many claim that Khaday's son is not dead and that even if he is, Khadafy's regime will use his death to garner sympathy.Yes,sympahty is what I will give for his loss, but not for his government.
It is also reported by the NY Post that it is not the only time Khadafy has escaped a bombing like this.Last week Nato also bombed one of Khadafy's compund, where he also escaped unharmed.
The thing that bugs me the most is that the way this story was covered by the media,specifically between the coverage from the NY post and the Daily News.
In the Daily News,the coverage let readers know that hours before the airstrike,Moamar Khadafy had pleaded for a cease-fire between his regime and NATO.The cease-fire was dismissed and one NATO official said “We need see not words but actions.” Although Khadafy had preconditioned that he would not surrender but he did say he was willing to halt and talk it out; NATO still refused to acknowledge the plea. Now why would NATO not stop and just talk? Now I am not saying that they will just talk and this whole thing might settle in one piece but a little talk never hurt no one. No blood shed is better than any blood shed anyday .Here is the Daily News's coverage http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/04/30/2011-04-30_moammar_khadafy_survives_missile_strike_that_kills_youngest_son_and_three_grandc.html
Going back to the coverage,the NY Post's coverage was quite different from the Daily News's, as it left out the part about the proposed cease-fire by Moamar Khadafy. Now non-avid readers, can come away with very different views.With The Daily News coverage mentioning the ignored cease-fire,one reader might see Khadafy as wanting to end bloodshed,and see another way though; the NY Post totally disregards that notion.This is the NY Post's coverage of the same story, try and find a mention of the cease-fire,because if you do, this whole blog post has gone wrong. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/khadafy_son_killed_nbjmxMPPg5HxkGCtTogH3K
This we have seen time and time again,where the media fragments stories like this and leaves out certain information that can change the very perception of a story.The cease-fire I believe should have been mentioned in every context of this story because it shows the continuation of NATO's efforts after the dissmissal of the truce.Why exactly the NY Post set out to leave that part out while all the other major media outlets covered it, is still unknown to me but it seems they are just setting their own agenda,whatever it maybe.The other Major media outlets that I mentioned are The New York Times and the Huffington Post. If you are interested in the coverage from those outlets, here are their coverages on this story.
After doing the varying coverage project, the differences between certain media outlets' coverage of events have become very clear. It is very scary that those people reading the New York Post would have no idea that there was even an offer to handle the situation through peaceful means; although as you mentioned we cannot be naiive and think this could all be over if the U.S. agreed. There is definitely a lot going on between the Middle East and the United States that is beyond our comprehension because we only have access to incomplete stories or stories using "official sources" who have their own agendas.
ReplyDeleteThe news media coverage surrounding Libya has often left news information out I agree. However, it could be a decision on the part of the NY Post that at the time of the article they did not receive such information yet; Cuts in foreign bureaus in most news department means more news sources are constantly relying on the associated press for news release. Perhaps the NY Post will do a follow up story incorporating that crucial piece of information.
ReplyDeleteI like how you compare the coverage of the topic by different media outlets. Even though there really is not anything positive to say about Khadafy, I can’t help but notice how biased and emotionally laden the Daily News article is for calling Khadafy “crazed dictator”. This type of statement would never appear in The New York Times.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Post definitely has a different focus than Daily News. The article talks more about the Khadafy’s sons live who was killed in the bombing. Maybe the NY Post wanted to differ from other outlets who were zooming in on the same statement by covering the article from an entirely different angle. This type of coverage gives reader a clearer picture of those killed instead of just talking about them as if they were some faceless figures.