by: Hailey Koehler, Alec Pesola, Lor Yang, and Denver Biddle
In this post, we will examine the representation and presentation of the news surrounding Muammar Gaddafi's death in October of 2011. We have studied four independent news sources and will compare and contrast the positions that each take in this situation. All referenced sources, articles, videos, etc will be linked to at the end of the post.
The News
ABC News talks about Gaddafi’s death from an objective third-person perspective, and treats his death as a victory worthy of glorification. The news station is definitely coming from a pro-American/anti-Gaddafi position, and goes as far as mocking an interview with Gaddafi prior to his death. In the interview, Gaddafi claims to believe that his people love him and will fight for him; unfortunately, this belief was inaccurate. He died because of his people.
FOX News is widely known to be “right-sided” and conservative, while President Obama is a Democrat and thus is considered “left-sided.” Regardless of the varying political viewpoints, a broadcasted video (linked below) proves to reflect the “patriotic” position of FOX. In the video, Obama claims that we have reached “our” goal, and that US forces greatly helped take down Gaddafi - without even stepping foot on Libyan soil (which is because it was Libyan rebels who killed him, not American forces).
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) news is known to be an un-biased, un-opinionated source of the news. This holds true for the BBC’s presentation of the “Gaddafi story” - they try to simply tell the history of his rise to power and his eventual downfall as it happened. However, with a story as controversial and influential as this, it’s impossible to not include some amount of opinion. There are subtle references to Gadaffi’s beliefs and values as crazy or delusional, although these assumptions are probably more fact than opinion. Surprisingly, the BBC does not have any actual video footage of Gaddafi being murdered. They reference the footage and show other footage of the Lybian people, but do not have the actual murder footage.
Harman Newsweek published an acticle called “The Moral Tipping Point” about the Muammar Gaddafi situation. The article talks about 5 Bulgarian nurses and 2 doctors who died because of Gaddafi. This is interesting, considering how many Libyans died because of Gaddafi’s acts of terrorism - yet the author chose to write about 7 Bulgarians. The article is written this way to appeal to Americans and Europeans (whom the news is directed at) because they can relate to doctors and nurses. It’s harder for Americans and Eurpoeans to relate to the massive amount of Libyan casualties.
Accuracy/Reliability
How accurate are these news sources? The ABC clip includes video footage of Gaddafi’s being beaten by rebels, and the timestamp on the video reads “8/13.” The news reporters point this out and say that “according to what the Libyans said” it happened on 10/20. Something doesn’t seem to add up here, and the news system is trusting word of mouth over evidence. Gaddafi’s death could have actually happened 3 months prior, or it could simply be a technical error. The video from FOX can be reasonably assumed to be accurate and official, as it is a formal Presidential announcement. It can be assumed that everything he says is accurate. The various news articles from the BBC base their statements on official press releases and footage straight from Libya. The articles contain almost no opinion and are based on facts, and thus are quite accurate. The first article from Harmon Newsweek is also very factual and didn’t leave much up to opinion. However, the second article is more opinionated. It is about the future predictions of whether Gaddafi’s death would lead to democracy and peace for Libya, or to rebels taking over and causing violence. There is a lot of controversy on this topic, and because it is purely speculation it requires a decent amount of opinion.
Comparison - What's Missing?
Four different sources means four different approaches to the visual representation of an international news topic. What is being said by each source, and more importantly what is not being said but is shown? One thing to note in relation to all of the news sources referenced is that Muammar Gaddafi/Gadhafi/Qaddafi (apparently) has multiple identities! His name is spelled differently in every single one of our sources, which leads us to assume Libyans are not like “us” Americans. In America, we would check an ID or birth certificate to see the correct spelling, but in foreign countries the paperwork is not as accessible. This inadvertently makes Gaddafi seem like an alien, who we can not relate to.
First up is the video from ABC. Despite the fact that the creditability of Gaddafi’s death came via word of mouth, the news is still aired simply because of how influential this story has become. Interestingly, Good Morning America chose to include the gory video of Gaddafi’s beating along with some graphic images of his corpse with very little disclaimer or warning before. This lack of warning shows that ABC chose to include everything in their news broadcast, not just what would be appropriate for all audiences.
The FOX video, on the other hand, doesn’t leave much for interpretation. The video is simply President Obama, by himself, in front of the White house delivering a speech. The President (or whoever wrote his speech) definitely chose his words carefully. He gives credit to the Libyan government for releasing the news, and talks about the new Libyan “democracy,” implying that the American form of government is the best. He then proceeds to take partial credit in the murder, and gives credit to the other countries and forces who helped. The speech is very straight forward and leaves little to speculation.
The BBC articles and videos on Gaddafi have a good mix of words and visuals. The two timeline pieces use images almost exclusively to tell the “Gaddafi Story,” while the other articles use mostly words. The combination of articles makes the story very understandable and easy to follow. The two approaches also make the BBC come across as a reliable and un-biased news source.
The lack of visuals in the Harmon Newsweek articles make it seem more informative, in comparison to other articles about such a controversial topic. However, this could also be taken as a negative factor, because it’s difficult to visualize an event without some sort of visual cue or presentation. Overall, the Newsweek article comes across as professional and well rounded, but a bit more philosophical and psychological than the others.
Controlling the News
Are these “leading classes” controlling the news and, in consequence, history? By examining four separate news sources, their individual biases and opinions become apparent. ABC news takes the position of an uncensored and raw delivery of the news by showing the gruesome images of Gaddafi’s corpse. FOX news takes a political position by basing their coverage around a speech by President Obama. Both the BBC and Harmon Newsweek do their best to remove any opinion and bias from their representation of the story - the BBC by including both text and visuals in a healthy mix, and Newsweek by only including in-depth text.
If the news broadcasting “business” were to be controlled by only one source, there would without a doubt be “control” of the news by the “leading classes” of society. For example, if FOX was the only accessible source for world news, the world would be misinformed on many issues and would only see things from FOX’s “right-sided” position. However, because of the incredibly vast selection of news sources, there is little “control” available to each independent organization. If one station was to ignore an aspect of a story, or lie about a fact, a different station would simply tell the other side of the story. Thus it is nearly impossible for news stations to “control” the news without forming an alliance - and therefore losing their competitive advantage.
In conclusion, the news can be represented in many different ways. Each news organization has it’s own approach to visualization of the story - some work better than others. To truly understand such a complex news story, many sources and positions must be taken into consideration, as each source has associated strengths and weaknesses.
Referenced Articles, Videos, etc:
FOX News is widely known to be “right-sided” and conservative, while President Obama is a Democrat and thus is considered “left-sided.” Regardless of the varying political viewpoints, a broadcasted video (linked below) proves to reflect the “patriotic” position of FOX. In the video, Obama claims that we have reached “our” goal, and that US forces greatly helped take down Gaddafi - without even stepping foot on Libyan soil (which is because it was Libyan rebels who killed him, not American forces).
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) news is known to be an un-biased, un-opinionated source of the news. This holds true for the BBC’s presentation of the “Gaddafi story” - they try to simply tell the history of his rise to power and his eventual downfall as it happened. However, with a story as controversial and influential as this, it’s impossible to not include some amount of opinion. There are subtle references to Gadaffi’s beliefs and values as crazy or delusional, although these assumptions are probably more fact than opinion. Surprisingly, the BBC does not have any actual video footage of Gaddafi being murdered. They reference the footage and show other footage of the Lybian people, but do not have the actual murder footage.
Harman Newsweek published an acticle called “The Moral Tipping Point” about the Muammar Gaddafi situation. The article talks about 5 Bulgarian nurses and 2 doctors who died because of Gaddafi. This is interesting, considering how many Libyans died because of Gaddafi’s acts of terrorism - yet the author chose to write about 7 Bulgarians. The article is written this way to appeal to Americans and Europeans (whom the news is directed at) because they can relate to doctors and nurses. It’s harder for Americans and Eurpoeans to relate to the massive amount of Libyan casualties.
Accuracy/Reliability
How accurate are these news sources? The ABC clip includes video footage of Gaddafi’s being beaten by rebels, and the timestamp on the video reads “8/13.” The news reporters point this out and say that “according to what the Libyans said” it happened on 10/20. Something doesn’t seem to add up here, and the news system is trusting word of mouth over evidence. Gaddafi’s death could have actually happened 3 months prior, or it could simply be a technical error. The video from FOX can be reasonably assumed to be accurate and official, as it is a formal Presidential announcement. It can be assumed that everything he says is accurate. The various news articles from the BBC base their statements on official press releases and footage straight from Libya. The articles contain almost no opinion and are based on facts, and thus are quite accurate. The first article from Harmon Newsweek is also very factual and didn’t leave much up to opinion. However, the second article is more opinionated. It is about the future predictions of whether Gaddafi’s death would lead to democracy and peace for Libya, or to rebels taking over and causing violence. There is a lot of controversy on this topic, and because it is purely speculation it requires a decent amount of opinion.
Comparison - What's Missing?
Four different sources means four different approaches to the visual representation of an international news topic. What is being said by each source, and more importantly what is not being said but is shown? One thing to note in relation to all of the news sources referenced is that Muammar Gaddafi/Gadhafi/Qaddafi (apparently) has multiple identities! His name is spelled differently in every single one of our sources, which leads us to assume Libyans are not like “us” Americans. In America, we would check an ID or birth certificate to see the correct spelling, but in foreign countries the paperwork is not as accessible. This inadvertently makes Gaddafi seem like an alien, who we can not relate to.
First up is the video from ABC. Despite the fact that the creditability of Gaddafi’s death came via word of mouth, the news is still aired simply because of how influential this story has become. Interestingly, Good Morning America chose to include the gory video of Gaddafi’s beating along with some graphic images of his corpse with very little disclaimer or warning before. This lack of warning shows that ABC chose to include everything in their news broadcast, not just what would be appropriate for all audiences.
The FOX video, on the other hand, doesn’t leave much for interpretation. The video is simply President Obama, by himself, in front of the White house delivering a speech. The President (or whoever wrote his speech) definitely chose his words carefully. He gives credit to the Libyan government for releasing the news, and talks about the new Libyan “democracy,” implying that the American form of government is the best. He then proceeds to take partial credit in the murder, and gives credit to the other countries and forces who helped. The speech is very straight forward and leaves little to speculation.
The BBC articles and videos on Gaddafi have a good mix of words and visuals. The two timeline pieces use images almost exclusively to tell the “Gaddafi Story,” while the other articles use mostly words. The combination of articles makes the story very understandable and easy to follow. The two approaches also make the BBC come across as a reliable and un-biased news source.
The lack of visuals in the Harmon Newsweek articles make it seem more informative, in comparison to other articles about such a controversial topic. However, this could also be taken as a negative factor, because it’s difficult to visualize an event without some sort of visual cue or presentation. Overall, the Newsweek article comes across as professional and well rounded, but a bit more philosophical and psychological than the others.
Controlling the News
Are these “leading classes” controlling the news and, in consequence, history? By examining four separate news sources, their individual biases and opinions become apparent. ABC news takes the position of an uncensored and raw delivery of the news by showing the gruesome images of Gaddafi’s corpse. FOX news takes a political position by basing their coverage around a speech by President Obama. Both the BBC and Harmon Newsweek do their best to remove any opinion and bias from their representation of the story - the BBC by including both text and visuals in a healthy mix, and Newsweek by only including in-depth text.
If the news broadcasting “business” were to be controlled by only one source, there would without a doubt be “control” of the news by the “leading classes” of society. For example, if FOX was the only accessible source for world news, the world would be misinformed on many issues and would only see things from FOX’s “right-sided” position. However, because of the incredibly vast selection of news sources, there is little “control” available to each independent organization. If one station was to ignore an aspect of a story, or lie about a fact, a different station would simply tell the other side of the story. Thus it is nearly impossible for news stations to “control” the news without forming an alliance - and therefore losing their competitive advantage.
In conclusion, the news can be represented in many different ways. Each news organization has it’s own approach to visualization of the story - some work better than others. To truly understand such a complex news story, many sources and positions must be taken into consideration, as each source has associated strengths and weaknesses.
Referenced Articles, Videos, etc:
I think that you guys chose a very interesting topic. The idea of political killings have always been something that the U.S. has secretly supported, but never public condoned. I actually think that is the most interesting thing that I got out of your project. The fact that the sitting president of the United States made a formal speech for the press about the 'good news' that another country's political leader is dead seems to show a large shift in the mentality of the U.S. in the past several years. When the CIA failed to kill Fidel Castro, they never publicly admitted to having anything to do with the attempts. Same thing with many political assassinations that have occurred (particularly in the Middle East). If the leader is not someone who is helping the U.S. then we will publicly condem whoever did it, but it is obvious that we don't truly believe that because we simply say it and then we never do anything to bring justice to whoever committed the assassination. The fact that we not only condoned this killing, but we actually said that we took part of it and the fact that we took pride in saying that we killed Osama Bin Laden fits almost perfectly into the Chomsky's last filter, but instead of being anti-communist, its more pro-American. For me, pro-American has replaced Chomsky's anti-communist filter. Now days (especially since 9/11) the news has taken to negatively showing any culture that hasn't been Americanized. If we think about it, even the news articles relating to the massive growth of China and Brazil show them in an exotic light, as if it is some sort of shock that countries that haven't been Americanized are capable of such growth. The representation of political assassinations definitely falls through this filter because, as I'm sure you guys noticed in your research, the killing of Gaddafi is portrayed (in American news at least) by a group of Americanized 'rebels' that are trying to bring American things, like democracy and freedom of speech, to Egypt. This filter makes it okay for a political leader to be assassinated simply because he wasn't Americanized. I think this filter is probably the biggest one that affect the American news outlets as far as this story is concerned. However, I disagree that these news sources show that there isn't a leading class because I think that these news sources show that there is clearly a leading class that controls the news. Clearly all of these news outlet's have a consumer base, whether or not that consumer base buys their products out right or are subject to the advertising that they put with their news. Now, all of their consumer bases clearly have to have some amount of disposable income or else the companies would not still be in business because the consumers wouldn't be able to buy their products or those advertised with their news. If any of these news outlets started trying to adjust their audience to those people without any disposable income, they would certainly not still be out there making news. While the leading class may not have such a straightforward control, such as specific rich board members saying what news is published and what news isn't (although that may be also true), the leading class (or those with disposable incomes in this case) is clearly controlling the news because if they are not pleased by the news that they are seeing from that outlet that outlet will lose it's consumer base. With no consumer base there is no more news outlet. I think you guys did a really good job and these were just some of my thoughts that popped up while I was reading your project!
ReplyDelete