Libya: Prostitution of Western journalism
The last two days have once again proved the obvious fact that there are no independent media and that Western news agencies, newspapers and magazines work out a political order. The lion's share of newspapers, magazines and news agencies reported the unprecedented success of the insurgents and predicted the imminent fall of Tripoli.
However, as reported to Pravda.Ru by Libyan Armed Forces captain Hasan D., "Tripoli is still in our hands. When early reports of the assault and landing of the enemy emerged, our leader Muammar Gaddafi arrived wearing his military uniform, and his appearance caused unprecedented enthusiasm among the soldiers and the people. He ordered us to beat the rats and their Western backers. By the morning we partially drove them out of the city, partially destroyed, despite the fact that NATO aircraft are almost constantly hanging in the air, bombing residential neighborhoods. Hospitals are overwhelmed with the wounded. The West is committing a heinous crime, murdering women and children. According to the information received, approximately two thousand civilians were killed. We were able to shot down a helicopter that crashed off the coast. Now the military and militias are killing off the "rats" and foreign fighters on the outskirts of Tripoli.
So what has happened? Some of the foreign newsmen were quick to announce that Gaddafi's security lay down their arms, the rebels already control 80-90 percent of the city and that they are about to take the bunker where the Colonel is hiding, and that the rebels took Breguet.
They also spread information that people took to the streets of the capital to celebrate the overthrow of the Libyan colonel. As early as in the morning of August 22 the media began reporting on the detention of Gaddafi's three sons (including Mohammad and Seyifa), as well as the death of Khamis, a commander of the elite brigade. However, none of these prisoners were shown to the public.
Then, the Internet showed the shots of the killed Jamahiriya leaders: Colonel himself, his close associates and relatives, including General Abdullah al-Senussi and Dr Aisha al-Qadhafi. However, very quickly it became clear that this is a lie and there images were fabricated using Photoshop.
For example, the image of the "corpse" of Gaddafi was based on a snapshot of the murdered Secretary of bin Laden, and the "remains" of Aisha materialized on the basis of the photographs of Benazir Bhutto deceased in the terrorist attack.
By the evening it became clear that the insurgents and foreign promoters were running into difficulties. First, the success of Gaddafi opponents stopped at seizing 80-90 percent of Tripoli, and channels like "Al-Jazeera" were broadcasting information about "fierce resistance" of the Colonel's security that "miraculously" revived.
Later sources have sadly reported that Mohammed fled. Following this, Seyif surrounded by his soldiers appeared in front of the audience and angrily denounced NATO and the rebels, calling on the Libyan people "to destroy the rats." Then Khamis appeared, whose arrival decisively changed the situation with the defense of the city.
Contradictory information came from Breguet. Western propagandists have reported that Mutassima group came from there to help Gaddafi that the city has surrendered. This information was immediately followed by the reports that, in fact, negated the former. According to the number of media outlets, the battle of Breguet went on. The latter seems to be true, because even if they wanted to, they would not be able to overcome a thousand miles to Tripoli with the opposition of NATO hanging in the air.
By the morning of August 23, even the Western media began to report that the progress of the rebels has stalled. This was accompanied by the speech of Muammar Gaddafi son's Seyifa, in which he urged journalists to visit all areas of Tripoli and see that everything is quiet in the capital and that the "rats are beaten", as people continue to hunt down those who escaped during the assault.
But what about the television broadcast of "the popular rejoicing" in the streets of Tripoli? Western journalists are encouraged to broadcast "from the field" showing how people who got rid of the tyrant are rejoicing and sending text messages and videos on the Internet. This could not but confuse some knowledgeable people. First, the Internet access has been an issue in Tripoli since February. Second, the coverage of the "places of events" was filmed against a background filled with electric light areas, while due to damage by bombing power supply in most areas of Tripoli was lacking.
Later, some bloggers have compared the photo from the "places of events" with the photographs of the town and found a strange discrepancy with the well-known paintings of the urban landscape. The urban landscapes are missing very important details such as lanterns light, bas-reliefs on the buildings, trees, etc.
A week ago, Qatari authorities were preparing decorations strikingly similar to the scenes of Tripoli. The meaning of these preparations remained unclear, although it was mentioned that it was necessary to train those who will storm the Libyan capital. With a high probability we can assume that the scene "of capturing the dictator's lair" was filmed in the Qatari "theater."
The question arises: why do we need this circus? First, in order to break the faithful and inspire the troops of the rebels. Second, the scenes with the "democrats" who rushed into the Libyan capital were to be a signal of NATO to help them disembark the marines.
In any case, the incident cast another shadow on the foreign journalism. Can one trust such media? In the West journalism has long been considered "the second oldest" profession. But is this comparison true? At the very least, a client that communicates with representatives of the first oldest profession can at least hope for some fun.