The Killing of Gaddafi

By: Courtney O'Donnell, Taylor Smith, Erin Haws, Hailey Johnson, Lynn Bielski, and Melanie Harincar

Accurate information is hard to come by these days. There are so many news outlets out there, all with different authors, writers, producers, etc., all trying to prove their viewpoint on a certain issue is the right one. This can make it extremely hard to decide what we actually believe about an issue or story. For our News/Journalism Project, we decided to focus on the killing of Gaddafi (also spelled Gadaffi, Qaddafi, Kaddafi, Gadhafi) in Libya. Because there are so many spellings of his name, we all decided to go with the spelling our news source used. We each chose a media outlet to analyze: a blog post from The Guardian, The Daily Show, a blog post from ScientificAmerican.com, an Arabic online news posting website, a YouTube video, and news articles from CNN. We then compared how our sources and authors present the information differently or similarly and why that would be. Because we had six people in our group, our project is quite a bit longer than the recommended length, but we felt it was necessary to get an accurate view of each of our sources.

Analysis

Melanie Harincar

I found a blog posting on Gaddafi’s death from the The Guardian, a UK newspaper, titled “Gadaffi died as Sirte falls.” The blog was posted by Adam Gabbatt on Thursday, October 20th, the day Gaddafi died. This blog was written as the news of Gadaffi’s convoy was attacked to the announcement of his death, which is a span of five hours according to the times of the post. It is mainly other testimonies, images, videos and interviews rather than the authors own words that make up the bulk of the post. I found it extremely interesting that the author didn’t have much to write himself, considering he is the author, but yet he used other sources to portray the story. All of the images and video clips used were the same ones that were found on CNN, NBCs, or YouTubes sites. Granted, there isn’t much video footage of the event, but Gabbatt didn’t add any of his own input on the matter at all. It’s almost like Gabbat wants to stay away from the idea of ownership. He compiles many ideas and interviews from many sources, which seems a little repetitive and unorganized. We as an audience are receiving the same information that the New York Times and CNN are feeding the audience, but in a more brief format. Gabbatt decided what information the viewer will take in and what information is left out. The information is extremely selective and shapes an interpretation for the reader rather than having the reader interpret the information how they want. No background information leading up to the killing of Gadaffi was shared so the reader would have to be aware or up to date on the story in order to truly understand the severity of the situation. The story is so one-sided. Although there are interviews from Libyans, there were all about how they are relieved and excited that Gadaffi is dead. But this is not the way everyone in Libya felt. There were absolutely no testimonies stating that they were disappointed and upset at the fact that their leader was killed. But, I did find it extremely effective that the post was being written as the story was unfolding. I think it gives the reader an excited feeling knowing that they are reading the story first hand before the nightly news gets ahold of it and shares it with the world. When I went to find out more about the author, I found it extremely difficult. There was a little piece of information on the Guardian’s website that offered some help, but other than that Gabbatt was no where to be found! Although the information he provided on the story was very similar, if not the same, as other sites, it’s makes it hard for me to find him credible. He provided no personal insight or information. I think this is partly why Gabbatt used so many other testimonies and other types of media to write the story.

This story is a perfect example of a partial truth. Although Gadaffi is confirmed dead, how it happened is still uncertain. Whether he was shot in the head and chest, dragged through the streets of Sirte, or killed in an air strike attack by Nato or a French fighter jet. Everyone reporting on the the death seems to have a different story of how it happened. Depending on what type of news outlet you decide to receive information on the matter, intertextuality will be an issue.

Taylor Smith

http://arabic.rt.com/focuses/item/63564/

Understanding and viewing Gaddafi’s capture through an Arabic online news posting website was the most interesting, and arguably the best, way to view this project through. Finding the information I needed in a language that I had no understanding of was undoubtably the most challenging aspect of it all. I was definitely a little started and worried about what I was getting myself into when I came across a website with a man holding a gun at the top, but I figured I’d check it out. With my website up in one browser, and two google translators up in another, I managed to stumble across possibly worthy information. The website’s home page looked like a typical online news web page, if you ignore the man with heavy artillery at the top. It had a list of news articles lining down the middle of the page, with the most recent being first. I found my useful information from October 21, one day after Gaddafi’s capture on the twentieth. There were numerous articles provided over Libya’s leader’s death. Through these, I found a lot of information that I genuinely found shocking, particularly relating to the way Gaddafi was killed. A few articles reported that Gaddafi had been shot in the head and chest. Other ones stated how he was beaten, and even provided videos of these events. What I found most bizarre, was that there were even reportings of Gaddafi being killed from an airstrike. The more articles that I attempted to understand, the more I started to ask myself how credible all of this information was, considering it was all opposing one another. It all came down to the filters of ownership, advertising, free market ideology, sourcing, and flack, which I will get into later. For now, I want to bring up the second main item that I reflected on: The Audience.

All of the news articles provided through this website were free for anyone to comment on. It was here that I became most shocked with my findings. I realized that the general agreements made by the people were completely dependent on the article they were commenting on. Viewpoints were different under every article that I read. It was here that I also noticed that the reasoning behind Gaddafi’s death was very vague. Some commenters described it as a deed for his “terrible crimes”, others considered it in a wave of justice, for all the innocent lives that he took, and quite a few people noted that his death was something that simply “had to be done.” One thing that I noticed to be a common occurrence through all the comments, was the mention of God and Allah. Many commenters described his death as an act that was pleasing to Allah, because of all the killing and shedding of blood of his people. The phrase “ومات بطلا شهيدا”, meaning “he died a martyr, a hero” was repeated many times. At first, I was beyond confused by this statement, until I realized that a majority of these commenters felt a huge amount of joy for their freedom. Someone quoted a passage that stated “Think not of those who were killed in the way of Allah, but from the enemies of religion.” I was very shocked that a large amount of people had an immense amount of faith in their religion, and how they believed that they were the blessed ones for still being alive with Allah. With all of these viewpoints came the idea of inter-textuality. One news post will fall after another, with relatively same ideas, and leaving the audience with the same information.
The five filters play a huge roll in how the information gets across, along with inter-textuality. The anti-communism filter instilled, or created, fears within, to frighten the population into seeing what can happen to the people committing horrible crimes. This idea also gets rid of the people you “don’t like”, which leads to the funding and ownership aspect of it all. In order to have this information be like-able by everyone, you need different viewpoints. This explains the various amount of ways Gaddafi has been described as being killed. All of the information given can only be described as partial truths, with the rest being filled in with biases, emphasizing our findings in class. It’s interesting seeing how news outlets portray their views, depending on their region, class, political standing, personal viewpoints, and cultural bases.

Hailey Johnson

The media source i looked at is The Daily Show. The title of the segment is No’ Amor Qaddafi. It aired on October 20th, 2011. From then there have been 372,178 viewers online. It is hosted by Jon Stewart. Stewart is a “liberal” American political satirist, writer, television host, actor, media critic and stand-up comedian. Stewart has gained acclaim as an acerbic, satirical critic of personality-driven media shows, in particular those of the US media networks such as CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. Critics say Stewart benefits from a double standard: he critiques other news shows from the safe, removed position of his "fake news" desk. He LOVES to criticize Fox News for distorting the news to fit a conservative agenda. Bill O’Reilly dubbed that The Daily Show was a “key component in left –wing television”. As seen from this clip Stewart uses CNN, Fox News, and ABC News to compile a detailed account of the capture and killing of Moammar Qaddafi.
One of my favorite clips from this segment is Stewart’s Advice to Dictators segment:
Turns to right side camera: “Hey dictators, what’s up? Hey is that new wall paper in the rape room? (Clears throat and makes awkward head gesture like he is disgusted) Anyhow, hey listen: um, at some point the people that you’ve kept under your thumb for however many years are going to turn around and try to hunt you down. And at the point you may find yourself with the urge to hide in a hole. (Audience laughs) BUT, unless you’re the roadrunner, and can do this—jumps to a clip of the roadrunner picking up a black hole mark on the ground and running away fast with it—I would resist hidey-holing. ‘Cause at some point the angry guys with the guns, they’re checking the holes. Y’welcome. (Turns back to front camera)
I find it fascinating the way he does this segment and how the audience reacts (they laugh the entire time). Stewart puts a spin on the violent and cruel torture of Qaddafi in a comical light and plays it off as advice. And it was effective; case in point the laughter from the audience.

In this segment it is extremely substantial the amount of selection at work here. Of course Stewart is not playing the entirety of each news clip from each source; he is taking most of his clips out of context, to support his points on this issue. With this amount of selection, of what is told to the audience and what isn’t told to the audience, raises a red flag with me. It demonstrates that these media sources think that most people cannot be told the entirety of an issue, the entire facts of a situation are muddled over like we as Americans or any other person on this Earth cannot deal with it (oh and trust me I think the 7 billion people on this Earth have witnessed enough destruction and turmoil to sink the Titanic, but this is beside the point). It also poses an issue of what exactly is accurate? If a media source is shaping the narrative of the story by selecting which information to tell its viewers, then how do we know the media source isn’t fabricating the story to fit its overall bias? We can’t tell, and that’s the issue with today’s news coverage. It is shaped and selected to dramatize and over escalate to get more viewers. Whatever happened to reporting the news to learn what was happening in the world?
Anyway, let’s look at the media source itself. I find it interesting that The Daily Show and how its run, satirical news reporting, is growing in the news realm of broadcasting. Along with The Colbert Report and other satirical reporting, more people are turning to these media’s for the news rather than actual news stations like CNN, ABC, and Fox, etc. My hypothesis of why satirical programs are becoming more popular is that these programs offer their viewers something other than news: a filter or sorts: comedy. Comedy gives the “news” a different spin. It lets the viewers have objectivity when getting the current events of the day. On regular programs the news is broadcast in a dreary light, I think. It mainly only talks about the destruction and turmoil of the world and some don’t find the negativity appealing. So, they turn to a different outlet, which still broadcasts about mostly the same events but with a different light to it all. In other words these satirical programs give viewers an outlet where they can watch the news, still get the basic ‘facts’ but be able to disconnect from the harshness of these dark times.
I also find it interesting the sources that The Daily Show uses to make its segment on Kaddafi. For example the American Morning clip and the tag line from CNN saying that the White House cannot confirm the capture or kill. The sources we think are viable may not always be credible. Just because it was a government citing doesn’t mean they know all. The reason that tag line was there was to show that because the ‘White House’ hasn’t confirmed it there is a possibility that it was not ‘true’, while the Libyan news source are posting pictures of Kaddafi’s dead body being paraded around by the rebels. It’s an interesting paradox that the American society has created around its sources and its ‘facts’.
link:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-20-2011/no-amor-qaddafi

Courtney O’Donnell

The source on Gaddafi’s death I found interesting is a blog post on ScientificAmerican.com. John Horgan wrote a blog post on October 29, 2011, titled, “Why Gaddafi’s Death Doesn’t Fill Me With Joy”. Horgan is a white man in his late fifties. He is a science journalist who has published multiple books and is the Director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey. It was a breath of fresh air compared to the other articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post that I’ve been reading because he used his own thoughts, his own ideas, and his own words to portray what he actually thought about the death of Gaddafi in Libya. The articles published in these newspapers, unless in the editorial or opinion sections, are highly subject to ownership. They all use sourcing and fact-checking so almost all the articles published in the big name newspapers look nearly identical to one another. That is a great example of intertextuality: we see the situation a certain way because all the main sources we read on a daily basis portray it the same way. To begin this blog post, Horgan starts out by saying he wasn’t even going to comment on the situation in Libya until he read a New York Times article titled, “Dictators Get the Death They Deserve,” and decided he couldn’t keep his opinions to himself. He was outraged by what the article said. He goes on to talk about how, yes, Gaddafi was a horrible person, but two wrongs don’t make a right. He mentions that even though the rebels were supposed to be the “good guys”, they would go around killing people just for supporting Gaddafi. Horgan agrees that Gaddafi did indeed deserve punishment, but he feels the world needs to come up with a better option for solving conflicts than turning to violence each and every time. He says the US is a main problem in this situation since we are the number one arms supplier in the world. Even though he agrees that humanitarian intervention may be necessary at times, he believes it has potential to cause further violence in the countries in which we are intervening. The main point of this post? It’s good Gaddafi will no longer have control over Libya, but the countries of our world, mainly the United States, need to come up with better ways to solve conflict than by supplying weapons, fighting wars, and using violence. This blog post was interesting because Horgan wasn’t afraid to say what he actually thought, that maybe it wasn’t the best idea to kill Gaddafi. All the big name news outlets seem to be in large support of the way the rebels, the US, and NATO dealt with this situation, so it was nice to read something that used different facts we don’t often see and argued different points we don’t often hear. Finding this blog post took a lot of searching. Whenever I would type in “Gaddafi killed” or anything like that into Google, immediately all the major news sources would pop up at the top of the list. Had I not searched further, I would not have found this blog. That means I would still be stuck reading the same opinions over and over again in Time, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc. These big name news outlets definitely control what news is readily available to the average American who doesn’t have time to search the internet for obscure opinions on hot-button issues every day. As we learned in class, history is full of partial truths. Every news article we read and every news program we watch is filled with shading and personal biases. I believe it is important to read a wide array of news outlets to get as many opinions as possible on any given issue.

Lynn Bielski

I found the most interesting piece of Gaddafi’s capture through a Video on YouTube which recalls the capture and execution of Gaddafi from the men who killed him,themselves. This video is packed with information as it is recognized that the revolutionists don’t match up their stories, their body language is hardly that of a soldier, it’s from AlJazeera, and lastly there are pages of opinions about the death of Gaddafi following the video from “everyday” people and what they believe to be true. This video was posted on Oct 20, 2011 - making it quite recent after his capture on the 20th according to Wikipedia. It is being filmed outside in Libya, Gaddafi’s country.

Reading into this article/video it seems as though it should be very legit, first hand information because the soldiers, themselves, are recalling the event of his capture. They looked like the are dressed to fight, the news caster has a fancy suit and the AlJazeera organization even has a fancy emblem floating in the bottom left corner. It wasn’t until I read the comments made by others, and listened to the fighter’s testimonies a few times that things suddenly didn’t match up like a promising news story would, relative to that information found on NBC or BBC. When I compared the accounts given by the soldiers “ He was hit in the head and the chest, we tried to revive him,” “The last person to come out was Gaddafi, himself. He did not resist.” “The Gaddafi came out asking ‘what’s going on, whats happening.” “He was shot in the neck and the chest.” - These alone didn’t even concur with each other, there are different accounts of how he was killed, that they tried to save him at first, how he presented himself when they found him. I compared this to the raw footage (WARNING: very graphic) of his capture where there is merciless beating, torturing, and killing. That is NOT how I imagined his capture when the Libyan soldiers were talking about it. They seemed like scripted liars, which could be a protective measure. However, there are zero emotions as if the stories had been rehearsed, looks to the right which indicates lying, and a few stumbles about what happened.

Why would an Arabic Language news network such as AlJazeera air such a staged piece of news information? Because of ALL of the filters: Ownership, advertising, free market ideology, sourcing, and flack. Al jazeera is not going to want to be held responsible (ownership) for the real news information that brings Libya down, they want to advertise as being the good, supportive guys (flack). In terms of sourcing, maybe they weren’t trying to get phony recollections of information from the soldiers, but they were there and they have their OWN way of telling what “really” happened during the capture of Gaddafi. It seems celebratory as their country was leading away from Gaddafi’s socialist leadership.

Erin Haws

Researching through the titles of news articles on CNN, I found very few that related to information into Gaddafi’s death, and many of the articles posted revealed very little describing what is known, how much is being done to really uncover the details of the murder (was he killed in crossfire, summarily executed, or lynched and dragged through the streets), and why does it matter? Many of the articles posted related to topics seeming irrelevant to the “big question”, often not even mentioning Gaddafi’s name, and related to controversies that came with his death involving other world leaders and affairs. I found this interesting when relating it to exactly what kind of “history” our own country is interested in recording, and what a major news source like CNN decides to relay to the public. It posed the questions in my mind of where is this information coming from (who’s testimony is this, how many people has it been passed through, what kind of a representation can be accurately translated through such a cultural divide, what kind of rhetoric is merged into the stories they choose to post, etc), which better helped me read further into articles in search of something that consisted of heavy affirmation, representations from subjects and various classes and types of people, and some solid data relating to Gaddafi’s death (more of peoples own recordings of events to better seek the “truth”).

I found two articles that I used for analysis. The first, titled “Gadhafi's death should be probed, U.N. agency says”, redarded the questions surrounding Gaddafi’s death. I found it interesting in a number of ways. First in just the general way Gaddafi is talked about. He is mentioned with an sense of cool disconnect that gives the reader just enough information to form an opinion, and visualize in their minds what happened (inseparably mixed with their own bias on what they believe should have happened), with almost no real information of substance or “history” throughout the text discussing any leads that would give real insight into the series of events up to his death. Very vague and broad statements are used repetitively in a way that makes it seem like you are picking up on a story, when in reality it is just inter-textuality and filtering at work. It is mostly all talk stating the “work” that is being done looking into the murder, and the reason behind why justice must be carried out in the solving of this case. But if you paraphrase what is really being said, where is this work represented? With statements like it's important that "justice is done" to bring "closure”, “More details are needed to ascertain”, and “circumstances of late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's death are "unclear" and need to be investigated”, the illusion is created that people are hard at work uncovering these “truths”, when in reality minimal story is represented except the occasional time frame and location of events. I also found it interesting that the article was titled “Gadhafi's death should be probed, U.N. agency says”, yet many of the images shown were hardly relevant to this “probing” into the case (one referencing his assets, and another addressing the next chapter in the Arab Spring). With all the graphic video and images being posted online, its hard to even comprehend what events actually took place, so a simple article like this sort of “sums things up” in an impersonal way that is easy for the reader to accept. And maybe a lot of information has been uncovered about his death, but how much of this is the public actually seeing? Another aspect I found strange was the lack of information of sourcing. Even finding out who the author of the article was (in small print at top left side of web page)some of his credentials, and his own sourcing was difficult. It just proves the strange development the country has made towards blindly following major news outlets, when in reality most people have no idea where the information is coming from, and the accuracy of the news stated (how many partial truths were told to gain a somewhat “truthful” depiction of events?)

Although the second article (titled: “Retribution a byproduct or warning sign in Libya?”) focused very little on the questions surrounding Gaddafi’s death, I still found it a good example of some of the things we discussed in class. First off, there seems to be an overall message that many murders are taking place now that revolution is under way, but such a thing is “normal” in a situation like this (revolution of a country after a long dictatorship). And again, very little is actually said about the deaths. Who is being killed? Is it civilians, Gaddafi supporters, or is the environment just an all around hostile kill zone. Statements like “Human Rights Watch says dozens of apparent reprisal killings also occurred on both sides”, give the reader that piece of knowledge giving the sense of “news” they are seeking, but is mixed with phrases like “apparent killings” that completely undermine the whole bit of news. Because major news outlets are constantly competing for the “next big story”, they put very little time and money into uncovering the real in depth stories and events taking place. I feel to really get a glimpse into a story as complex as the Libyan Revolution, a lot of time and heavy coverage in Libya would need to take place. But the fight for the highest ratings trumps this desire for “real” news. With broad storyline, and sums of murder count numbers, major news outlets are able to relay lacking information to the public, while still getting ratings because people think they are staying up to date on world affairs.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/world/libya-reprisals/index.html?iref=storysearch
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/africa/libya-un/index.html?iref=allsearch

Comparisons

In comparing my new evidence from AlJazeera with CNN, I think one thing is safe to say: nobody can decide on a news story. The US claims that although justice has been done it still needs the closure from other sources such as government officials who will find out what they want to find out, such as things which will make their country look best. Which is the exact same thing that Arab countries from the Al Jazeera site are trying to convey as well, even when it’s obvious that soldiers who supposedly had a “first hand” experience in the capture of Gaddafi can’t agree on their stories either. This is concurrent with the sources which don't know if Gaddaffi was killed in the process of his capture, or if he was killed after his capture, as one soldier from my source said they tried to seek a doctor, when one just said nothing of medical attention. Sources are leaving things up for interpertation: as CNN describes that more and more evidence is always being searched for, while AlJazeera can’t get their facts straight and post it to YouTube, where people leave comments all the way from things saying “RIP gaddafi the rats will die is why no one talking about all the great things gaddafi did and in islam you don’t kill a pow in cold blood.” to “and so what hes been killing us and raping women in front of our eyes bullet to the head was the least F***** up painful way he could have deserved to die.” When we have CNN and Arabic countries not agreeing on what has happened, our history comes to be shaped by the opinions of people who don’t really know anything but how to type their uneducated opinion on YouTube or by posting things on the internet, calling radio stations, or writing articles which will inevitably be baised with the “coulds” “woulds” “shoulds” of our opinions and the filtering to what someone wants to hear based off of where they are from. Ultimately from an individual country comparison standpoint, my source is very similar to Erin’s in that each country is filtering out what they want to hear.

In comparing the segment from The Daily Show and the clips of the Libyan soldier’s accounts and the live footage, both media’s are very different in relation to each other. One works satirically and other tells the account extremely seriously. Both demonstrate different techniques in spreading the news, but yet they are similar in a way: both used testimonies to explain what happened, whether ‘false’ or not. It can be seen from both media sources that there is a fair amount of selection, sourcing, and flack present. The selection from both sides is incredible. From both media’s the viewers never get the entire story. The Daily Show tells the viewers what they want in accordance with what will help their broadcast and the Aljazeera broadcast does similar; although the accounts from the soldiers might have been staged it is still interesting to see that they told incongruent tales from each soldier. This can be seen as subjectivity. The sourcing from each media strikes an interesting point. From The Daily Show we witness stories from American sources that lack information and concrete evidence and from Aljazeera we see details from witnesses but they are as accurate as the stories from The Daily Show. Because the tales are from soldiers on the scene we, as viewers, think that the story will be more accurate, but it turns out to be just as faulty. The live footage on the other hand shows great detail of what really happened. It is gruesome and cruel but it depicts the violence that actually took place in the capture and killing of Gaddafi. In analyzing the flack present in each media source it is distinct that each source is trying to get a say on the big story. And because they want to be the ‘first’ to report the event their information may not be as accurate and factual, displaying a conundrum: what/who can we trust to tell the truth of what actually happened?
Overall I find that both media sources tell their own story in their own subjectivity and representation, which then depicts an inter-texuality in the viewers minds of who can we trust to tell us the entire story? Even though these media sources are subject to selection, shaping, sourcing flack, and many others, I think that both are effective in the way they tell their stories; effective in a way that they created a picture of what happened, got the ball rolling if you will, and got their word out. I think they tried to be accurate and factual but when they hit a dead end on information they ran with what they had, a story with holes in it. So the question is do viewers look for accuracy of effectiveness when looking for a good scoop on a story/ current events? From this I can tell you: I think these big media sources are controlling the news/ history. They tell what ‘needs’ to be told and nothing more even if it is a crucial detail that they are leaving out. From this we base our information on which could be inaccurate depending on which source we get the information from and if we do more research. I think media sources have a greater control over the news then we think possible. Media sources select, source, shade, advertise and other filters that compile into a representation that we as viewers take for granted.

When comparing The Guardian to Arabic online news, I noticed some interesting things. It seems to me that the confusion of how Gadaffi was actually killed is apparent overseas and in the United States. The same three ideas were present in both articles: shot in the head and chest, brutally beaten, or from an airstrike. Also, much like the way people blog post today, the Arabs comment on each posting as they see fit. It’s very interesting to me that this is such a common practice around the world with only one difference: language. These two articles shared mostly the same information. Although there could be some information and ideas lost in translation, it seems that all news organizations are only as sure of what happened as the rest of them. One story doesn’t seem to have a better understanding than another. News stories today are so filtered and selective it’s almost unbelievable. The information provided does not make either news station look bad, and they don’t criticize anyone elses work because no one can confirm exactly what happened.

Comparing the views of the outraged scientist John Horgan and the political satirist Jon Stewart was extremely interesting. Jon Stewart compiles his stories for audience amusement, whereas John Horgan blogs to create controversial viewpoints of scientific issues (he made an exception in this case to comment on a political issue). I found the Stewart segment extremely amusing even though it might not have been the most informational piece of news we found. It is definitely a show I would watch on a regular basis for entertainment. He looked at the killing of Gaddafi through a political viewpoint and then gave it a funny twist. His show is good for getting the basic facts, like what big things are going on in the world, but when it gets down to the hard-hitting facts, his show can’t really be trusted. Because they use so much selection when making the show, the audience will never really receive all the facts. The producers may need to purposely leave out some facts to make the comedy fit better with the story. Regardless, it was interesting to hear about the death of Gaddafi through a more comedic viewpoint instead of the normal seriousness of the mainstream news. Jon Stewart can pretty much say what he wants, and he won’t get in trouble, so it’s nice to get an uncensored veiw of the issue. Horgan’s blog is also uncensored. The Horgan blog, however, really got me thinking about the issues instead of just being purely entertainment. I’d never really thought about a majority of the facts he brought up in the blog, and the fact that he brought up the bigger issues in the world instead of just solely focusing on Gaddafi’s death was refreshing. He focused on what types of things are going wrong in our world and what needs to be fixed to prevent thing from escalating further. His blog is mostly opinion based, although he does use some alternative sources. Both of these sources are fairly uncensored, Horgan’s blog a lot more so than The Daily Show which is subject to a high amount of selection. We get a very different view of this story from each of these sources, which can really make us question what to actually believe.

While thinking about comparing articles, I automatically assumed the articles I found through Arabic news posts would be drastically different from the ones the rest of my group members found. Although, with reading Courtney’s findings from John Horgan, an online blogger, I was genuinely shocked with how similar they really were. Courtney described how Horgan used his own ideas, thoughts, and words to convey his viewpoints, which didn’t follow the ‘norm’ of the big news outlets, and I found the same true with mine. I was expecting to see articles and comments of people’s declarations of joy, stating that their struggles were finally over. I found it true for both, that there were definitely agreements that something needed to be done to control Gaddafi, but the extent that the actions went were a little far fetched and unnecessary. In both Horgan’s posts and those of news postings on Arabic online sources, different points were argued that we don’t hear often, most noticeably the blessings that were given to Gaddafi, from the comments that I read. One thing that did differ, was Horgan offered options for change, and how different countries can use different methods for getting their points across, something that wasn’t conveyed in the Arabic posts. It was interesting seeing the different view points, and reading something that doesn’t necessarily follow the idea of inter-textuality, much like Horgan’s. Partial truths were present in both of our findings, with the rest being filled with personal biases. Our readings and findings offered viewpoints that differ from ones you would find in big news outlets. Even though it took much searching to find them both, their views and filters greatly contribute towards the overall message.

When comparing CNN news to The Guardian, I found what Melanie had to say very similar to my own analysis of “news”. Although CNN is a larger outlet, the two seemed similar in the sense that their devotion to uncover some solid truths was lacking. Both news sources seem to be more interested in getting stories out first, in hopes of gaining the bigger audience. I also found it interesting that the majority of what Gabbott posted was relayed through other news sources, like CNN and NBC. Its just another example of how we, the public, have no idea the accurracy of news being relayed. This source gets there information through one news outlet, who gets it from another, who gets theirs from The Guardian, who gets theirs from CNN. Its almost like a bad game of telephone. The two findings were also similar in the sense that finding information on the actual author of specific articles, and some of their credentials is very difficult. Like Melanie said, Its almost like the authors don’t want ownership. I know that on the CNN website there was a lot of emphasis on everything being more tied to the CNN organization, rather than individual work. There were some differences however, mainly in the way that The Guardian is more focused on getting the most information out there, gathered from whatever they can find. CNN does not use this exact approach because they want the public to think they are out their uncovering their own “truths”. By this I mean they are a little less obvious where they are gathering their information from. But overall, although the two outlets differ in scale and sourcing of information, I still found similarities in the methods they used, the stories they post, and the motives behind relaying news to the public.

Overall we all took the position that the media these days is quite overbearing and has a great amount of control in the news business. They select what to tell the world, shape how they tell the world, they advertise what they want the world to buy, and they use the sources with ease even if the information from them is not entirely factual. As one can see from each analysis and comparison some mediums have much in common in the way they filter their broadcasts and how the viewers perceive it. With a combination of rhetoric and subjectivity these controlling media sources’ political representations have an immense impact on the world.