Retreating loyalists of Moammar Gadhafi killed scores of detainees and arbitrarily shot civilians over the past week, as rebel forces extended their control over the Libyan capital, survivors and a human rights group said Sunday.
[… more than halfway through the article …]
It remains unclear who is responsible for some of the other killings, including of dozens of dark-skinned men whose bodies were found in two areas of Tripoli.
- Gadhafi forces killed detainees, survivors say
(Associated Press, 8/28/2011)
Meanwhile, from an unaffiliated human rights watchdog report:
Warning: Graphic violence, corpse desecration (perpetrated by the rebels, not the regime)
Contact news organisations to demand they cover this story and to contact politicians to ensure that the rebels, amongst whom are clearly a significant faction equivalent to Al Qaeda /the Ku Klux Klan, are not supported in taking control of any further population centres.
- Lynching in Benghazi
The Associated Press is covering all its bases – while it can deflect any charges of outright lying, (it explicitly states some things “remain unclear”) it can enable as many who stop at the title or first few paragraphs to lie to themselves: “well, it’s a good thing the Qadhafi regime was ousted by those freedom-hungry rebels” – never mind that they’re Al Qaeda sympathizers and genocidal opportunists.
So, why not present the Libyan rebels as they are, lynchings and all? (If you watched the video, you know that there’s plenty of footage given the number of electronic eyes on the carnage)
News has become an outreach of popular culture: the news you are presented with is primarily intended to sculpt your opinion of yourself – what you represent, (good guys? that’s U.S.) why “concerned citizens” like yourself are paying attention, (social proof also makes a great excuse for voyeurism) – vis-à-vis the associations you are presumed to have internalized (“I am an American, therefore I support freedom, therefore I support the Libyan rebels – just like my government”).
You can have your choice of opinions so long as none reflect poorly upon the carefully-crafted pre-fab self-image you purchase when you plunk down $1.50 for a Sunday edition or three minutes of your time for an internet article. The stories you consume – and the things you believe about the world and yourself as a result – are typically as relevant to your life as the color of your fingernails, but you’ll trot them out in conversation because there aren’t many things you feel so surely of, (Democrat/Republican/papal/evangelical/atheist scandal: “I was right all along!”) and there’s precious little else to relate with your co-workers over.
Where mainstream news providers prevaricate speaks as deeply to whom you, the consumer (and member of the aggregate product) of their service, are supposed to be as where they pontificate: why you need to care about sexting (but you needn’t pay attention to “conspiracy theories”), why Hollywood’s box office figures are terribly important (but you shouldn’t worry about financial industry malfeasance), why Louis Chen is newsworthy (but who cares about Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen).
How does a single-source news consumer/silent partner in Libya’s burgeoning new democracy (okay, let’s be realistic: it’ll be a bloodbath of un-televised tribal warfare with a few well-televised elections) view and interact with the world as opposed to a multiple-source news consumer with reservations about fueling genocide?
… and, more importantly given present trends, does it matter?