Libya, CNN and the Mainstream Media: Incompetent Propaganda

This is another aricle where my--correct--ridicule of CNN and the mainstream media is not based on my own poliltical agenda. This is actually an "I told you so" based on a blog article of a week or two ago (check out the archives). Yes, I believe Libya's Khadafi is a madman who needs to be ousted in Libya. Thus, you can say I am on the "side" of democracy in Libya, and even on the "side" of the rebels.

Bt what I told you--in foresight, again--was that the mainstream media (I first used the AP as an example, although CNNN was putting out more blatant propaganda) was payng no attention to the FACTS in Libya. They wre merely putting out--and still are--pro-rebel PROPAGANDA. Now CNN has said in the past that it regards it as improper to even take the side of the UNITED STATES in "reporting". I find this open ROOTING for the rebels as improper "journalism".

No, I don't care whether people on CNN report on the many lies and crimes of Khadafi. But remember how all of the mainstream media reporting was that the rebels were "approaching Tripoli", and about to oust Khadafi? I told you that they were NOT ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIIONS.

What were those questionis? Well, were the rebels really giving them the complete picture? Did the rebels have any military organization? Were the rebels--however right they are--anyting more than a disorganized mob? Would th erebels be able to stand up to a real military attack? Did the rebels have any real organization (even non-military), and WHO are the people in charge?

You will note that the media stories tonight basically prove all of the previoius media stories--including Fox News, where the advocacy was not quite so obvious, but there--were PROPAGANDA. The story tonight is that rebel forces are in full fledged RETREAT, and that Khadafi forces are now "winning" the civil war.

Well, you say, if I want Khadafi out, why do I object to REBEL PROPAGANDA and open advocacy "journalism" trying to oust Khadafi? I object to it because there is not even an attempt to give you, and me, THE TRUTH. Why pay any attention to the mainstream media, if you know they are not even attempting to tell you the truth?

That last question is a good question, and the answer is that I do NOT pay any attention to the mainstream media, except to criticize them. Yes, I will read between the lines, on occasion, to figure out the FACTS (as distinguished from the propaganda). But it is not easy, even for me, and I am an expert.

We do NEED a "news" organization interested in factual information, and not solely interested in agenda (political and otherwise). it is too bad we do not have one. CNN is cerainly not it. The despicable AP is just as bad. Nope. The whole mainsteam media is "all propaganda, all of the time". That includes NPR. No, as I have said repeatedly, Fox News is not the answer either, atlhough they are actually more "balanced" than the others (just not much more interested in factual information).

Read Michael Crichton's "Airframe", as Crichton said it better than I can in his prescient (although the trend was already well established) novel. As Crichton puts in the mouth of a consultant advising someone on dealing with today's media: "The essential thing for you to realize is that these people are not intrested in finding out information. It is an enoorous mistake to answer questions as if the purpose of the questions is to obtain informatiion.".

Crichton was right, and so am I. Yes, I have been proven right on Libya. All we hae been getting from our media is propaganda, and it does not matter that the propaganda was in a "good cause". (maybe, depedning on who the rebels really are, and recognizing that a MOB does not represent a viable military, or even governing, option). Yes, our mainstream media would have actually done better for the rebels to have presented factual information, instead of propaganda. Everyone agrees--almost--that Khadafi should be ousted. But FACTUAL information, and penetrating questions, would have been much better for determining just how that ouster can be accomplished in the face of the very real obstacles that exist. As it is, CNN and the rest have propably helped KILL thousands of people who perhaps did not have to die (for nothing?). Someone needed to be informing the whole world, including the rebles, that an undisciplined mob of untrained, ill-equipped people was not going to cut it.

P.S. Note, again, that all articles on this blog--until further notice--have neither been proofread nor spell checked (eyesight). If only poor eyesight were the main mainstream media problem.