Bahrain protests banned as military tightens grip

[everlastinglove_MJ]

Op-Ed: Something is going horribly wrong with news reporting from Libya

Massacres, tank battles, murderous bombings, we've seen a flood of news describing these and other events in Libya recently but even a cursory study of the content shows that it consists mostly of second or third-hand accounts which cannot be verified.

I have had an uneasy feeling about the coverage coming out of Libya ever since the fighting began in earnest two weeks ago. Much of it seems to lack solidity and substance and the modus operandi seems to be something between a mix of hyperbole, inappropriate descriptions and unverifiable sources to describe conflicting claims from both sides.

Today's coverage has followed this pattern and here is a look at what has been happening.

The Guardian reported this on its Libya Live feed at 2:53. “Reuters correspondent Mohammed Abbas is within sight of the battlefield in Ras Lanuf. He said: ‘There are lots of flames, thuds and bangs. There is the wailing of sirens and puffs of smoke in the air. More and more rebels with heavy artillery are streaming by to the front-line.’ One could be forgiven that Abbas was describing a WWII battle, complete with battalions of troops and artillery and a flak barrage targeting swarms of fighter planes. But he wasn’t. This was Libya, and he completed his dispatch with the rather more modest assertion that “ ...an anti-aircraft gun mounted on a truck and an anti-tank gun were the latest to go by.” There's a world of difference between the lead-in and the conclusion.

Reuters also filed this today. “rebels trying to retake Ras Lanuf have been firing their assault rifles at helicopters overhead which fired machine guns at the rebel positions.” Or at least that's what the rebels said had happened, because Reuters didn't actually see it. Other reports on that live feed include a claim that one of Gaddafi’s sons was leading an attack on a heavily-defended Zawiyah at the head of a “brigade” of troops. A "pitched battle" was said to be going on. And if one knows that a military brigade comprises anything between 4 and 12 thousand men, had this been the case we would have been seeing hundreds of casualties this evening. But we are not. Fighting was said to have gone on throughout last night too, but there were apparently “no casualties.” "Battles" are said to be "raging" in several places and "bombing raids" have also gone on apparently. I even read somewhere about "random bombardments."

Over in France at Le Figaro we learn that there have been "bombardments" over several days, and there is a video filmed by a French crew in which they interview rebels who have been combating Mig and Mirage fighter-bombers. Meanwhile, The Washington Post says that "Brega was hit Thursday by at least three powerful air-strikes" although the paper does not say where it got that information from. The New York Times quotes someone saying that there had been "a massacre."
France24 carries an interesting story which is also typical of what we've been seeing. The headline reads 'Air Force carries out fresh raids on rebel-held east'. Fine. Except that the reporter says in his video report that he is 'confirming' air raids which were related to him by a member of the site's personnel who had not seen them himself but had heard eye-witness reports from others! And, of course, there's "no damage" because the weapons are said to have fallen outside the compound. Not a bomb or missile crater was to be seen.

There are many other examples of this sort of reporting, which is almost entirely based on second or even third-hand accounts of alleged events which have rarely been filmed or photographed by anyone. One of the only videos I was able to find on the Internet with footage of a bombing was said to have been filmed by an Al-Jazeera crew, but it turns out that is the same one that is at the top of this page, which is by CNN and was brought to my attention by Digital Journal's David Silverberg. There is precious little evidence which bears out the rest of the reports and many of the stories have come to the press from Twitter, FaceBook or email sources which are impossible to verify. Yet they are published in their dozens. Total death tolls in Libya have been put at anything between just a few hundred according to the Libyan government and as many as 6000 by The Libyan Human Rights League.

But there is more than the credibility of press reports at stake here. Moreover, the world's press is hardly to blame for this state of affairs seeing as it has been put under a high degree of controlled surveillance by the regime and seems to be doing the best it can in very difficult circumstances. But because the press's freedom is being abused all we have is a kind of "it is reported that..." journalism which is helping to shape public opinion and even government policy.

How can we know if a no-fly zone should be declared or not, given the paucity of verifiable information? How do we know that our governments are making the right decisions based on corroborated versions of events? Should we trust most of these reports, most of which are either from Libyan rebel or government sources? Who are 'the rebels' exactly? And who are the mercenaries? I ask that last question because at the moment I am about to put this online the BBC quotes (at 18:31) Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, as saying that many of the claims [concerning their numbers and origin} have been overplayed and that ""Since the beginning, we have been investigating reports of African mercenaries and most of these reports have been untrue."

I simply don't know enough about what is going on in Libya to make up my mind about what should be done, but if you think you do I would be grateful if you could tell me below the comment line where you found the hard and corroborated facts which helped you decide, because I am still waiting to see them.

This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com

Read more: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"Massacres, tank battles, murderous bombings, we've seen a flood of news describing these and other events in Libya recently but even a cursory study of the content shows that it consists mostly of second or third-hand accounts which cannot be verified." ->which cannot be verified, so not reliable

"seems to be something between a mix of hyperbole, inappropriate descriptions and unverifiable sources to describe conflicting claims from both sides. -> does make you wonder what is REALLY happening there, doesn't it?

"There's a world of difference between the lead-in and the conclusion." -> very well described

claims [concerning their numbers and origin} have been overplayed and that ""Since the beginning, we have been investigating reports of African mercenaries and most of these reports have been untrue."  :!:

I simply don't know enough about what is going on in Libya to make up my mind about what should be done -> :?  same here

[youtube:1ar3sjrv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yndS5VOWz7U[/youtube:1ar3sjrv]

[paula-c]

[diggyon]

That explains it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MissG]

@supervision,
Regarding what lybia is, that is why i made the comment about "tribes fighting".

I read all the posts. To find some "truth" may be one should talk to a Lybian to see if this is really happening in the level is being promoted.

My gosh! a man burned himself in Tunisia and that lead to all this revolutions in a domino effect?  :|

[Supervision]

by everlastinglove_MJ » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:08 am
As an open minded person, it's good to read the story behind the story. This background/profile info gives a better view on the man and his acts. Though he IS a dictator and I condemn his acts concerning human rights.

Gema wrote:
@supervision,
Regarding what lybia is, that is why i made the comment about "tribes fighting".
To find some "truth" may be one should talk to a Lybian to see if this is really happening in the level is being promoted.

Sorry guys, Not much time to post a lengthy one as usual ..but pls check out this vid if you have not seen it,  about how the Libyans are responding to this “dictator” who supposedly has  violated their  human rights...The news is obviously very biased.And the constant vilification of the Colonel,by the mainstream media, is really wearing too thin,and these folks read need a new writer or something to freshen up the same old lies and lines they told in IRAQ about SADDAM. :roll: imo.

in the vid , pls. check out the fact that these people in Libya , are quite far from poor and ragged like the rest of most African countries,
and......Basically they have even enjoy a  higher standard of living than even some European countries.  

Raw Video: Gadhafi Supporters Pour Into Streets ..in YT

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

As for the “revolution” .
Comment:
This is a fake revolution. Every Libyan should think carefully and protect the country from its enemies. Libya will be the next Iraq if all Libyans dont stop and think as one. The West has already started stealing Libyan money. This is not a revolution. Wake up Libyan people.


..My take is, that the "revolution"  may / has been heavily funded by some “folks” , who are intent on their  aim to break up the country in two or more pieces,to better exploit it, and weaken it. Gadhafi is what is holding it all  together and that is why they zero in on getting rid of him. And I think the Libyans know that too, and they have true love for their leader as he does love  them too , (well, not the 'protesters" obviously.. :lol: )

That is what I understand about this issue so far, plus the grudge of the King Idris tribe (east Libya), though Gadhafi’s wife herself, his childrens mother, is from Baida , from the east.

Talk to you guys later...nice posts , but ,I really have to go back an reread later.
one thing though,before I go,  the way the British officers got “caught” got me wondering wht the heck is going on over there in "the new Libyan provisional gov" ..the one that the rebels set up, with so much a hurry, with the defector Justice Min sister no less, who was just with the Colonel two weeks ago, (a real shameful clown of a character, if you ask me  :lol: )

.well, anyway, .hmmmm..I am  thinking hard,  lol never ever trust a Brit to save YOUR LIFE :lol:
. . .

Sooo, the British officers(special forces)
 The Rebels got them and under custody, and they say, they only just went to Bengazi just to talk to the opposition,to ask them what they wanted.. :? ?
I smell a big , big rat. [/b] :lol:
British special forces. Hmmmmm...wonders never cease.
well check out the vid .. and see ya later...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Peace

[NightOwl]

As for the “revolution” .
Comment:
This is a fake revolution. Every Libyan should think carefully and protect the country from its enemies. Libya will be the next Iraq if all Libyans dont stop and think as one. The West has already started stealing Libyan money. This is not a revolution. Wake up Libyan people.

My money is on that there will be an intervention.
I'm in the midst of reading the book "The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein. A very interesting read itself, but she has quoted another writer, Stephen Kinzer and his book "Overthrow". Can't quote either book here directly, but I found an interview where Kinzer explaines the same thing. It is quite interesting now that we're all looking at Libya:

"...Guernica: Your book traces a long tradition of preemptive regime change in United States foreign policy. Is there much difference between what we've seen in Iraq and the thirteen prior examples you examine in your book?

Stephen Kinzer: In telling the story of each of these 14 times that the U.S. overthrew a foreign government, I asked three questions about each episode. First, what happened? How did we overthrow the government of this country? Secondly, why did we do it? And third, from the perspective of history and from the perspective of today, what has been the long-term effect of these interventions? I studied these overthrows of foreign governments not as isolated unrelated incidents but as part of a long continuum. By doing that, you begin to pick out certain patterns. You also begin to realize that it's wrong to think of our invasion of Iraq as a great departure in American history.

Guernica: Tell me about that pattern. For instance, who are some of the recurring players?

Stephen Kinzer: The first thing that happens is a foreign government begins to bother or harass or restrict or regulate or nationalize some big foreign company. Usually, an American company. That's what starts the trouble. If governments do not become nationalist and do not try to control their own natural resources, they do not even come into the crosshairs of American leaders. The directors of these companies, outraged at attempts of some foreign government to regulate them, come to the White House and complain. That's the first phase.

The second phase is what happens to the intervention process while it's in the White House. American leaders do not intervene in foreign countries in order to protect foreign companies. They transform the motivation from an economic one to one that they call "political" or "geo-strategic." They allow themselves to become convinced that any government that would be bothering, harassing, restricting or taxing an American company must be anti-American, anti-capitalist, evil, repressive, and probably the tool of some outside interest that's trying to subvert American power in the world. That's the way the motivation morphs in the political process.

It then morphs one more time when American leaders have to explain to American citizens and others around the world why we carried out a particular intervention. At that point, we usually do not use the economic, or even the political, motivations to explain our actions. Instead, we say that we are intervening out of charity—that we are doing it to help an oppressed people who are being brutalized by an evil regime. This rationale works very well in the United States for two reasons. First of all, because Americans are compassionate people. We truly hate the idea that people in other areas are suffering. We want to help them. And, the second aspect of our character that allows us to embrace this argument is that we're actually very innocent and naive and, in many cases, ignorant about history and culture. This leads us to believe that anything we want to do is also possible. Generations of American leaders have played on this sense of American exceptionalism—the sense that the United States has a gift to give to the rest of the world in order to justify interventions abroad that have actually been planned for very different reasons. "
(You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login)

Brings some interesting perspective to the current situation.

Someone here wrote that there's been western business in Libya - could there be phase one as explained above that triggered this?

[Grace]

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Matthew 7,3

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[everlastinglove_MJ]

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Matthew 7,3

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thanks for the link with love from the 156 countries. LOVE from everyone to everyone without judgments upon others, united in one message, that's how it should be.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Matthew 7,3

As a reaction to your quote I found You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Great care should be taken when passing judgment upon others. Jesus is telling us to look at our own lives first: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (vss. 3-5). As Spurgeon comments: "The judging faculty is best employed at home."[2] Jesus here expresses the importance of clearness of vision when judging others. If there is a plank in your own eye, you may very well be mis-seeing the speck in your brother's. "Casting out the [plank] will make us more clear-sighted, more sympathetic, and more skillful, in casting out the [speck]."[3] And, note well, that Jesus does not say to ignore the speck in your brother's eye. He says "first" take the plank out of your own eye, "then" you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. "The would-be helper's first priority must be to remove the obstacle to clearsightedness from his own eye. That done, he is equipped to bring aid to his brother. We should not overlook the point that the speck is to be removed... It is not unimportant that even this small defect be rectified."[4]

Jesus is telling us to look at our own lives first

look in the mirror

The would-be helper's first priority must be to remove the obstacle to clearsightedness from his own eye

Michael's quote: "If you wanna make the world a better place… Start with your mirror."

Wise words, sooo true.