Libya Update (Media Incompetence)

Third Libya headline in two days from AT&T/Yahoo (sse previious article):


3. Gadhafi loyalists force Libyan forces into flight"


What can you say about that first headline, and sotry, almost promising a "fierce" attack that would surely oveerwhelm the "Gadhafi bastion"? Incomopetent, at best.


Now let me possibly clear up one inconsistency here. The above is a hedline from REUTERS, featured on AT&T/Yahoo. Now AT&T/Yahoo never used to use Reuters for any of its featured headline stories, which sometimes cuases me to assume a story is an AP ststory (almost the exclusive previous source for AT&T/Yahoo headlines. However, under theinfluence of this blog, and the BOYCOTT this blog has encrouaged as to AT&T/Yahoo for featureing the despicable AP and only leftist stories, AT&T/Yahoo have suddenly started throwing in Reuters more often than they used to do. Now this is not really an improvement, since Reuters is ALMOST as bad as the despicable AP, but it may explain something.


As I pointed out in the previoius article, there is an INCONSISTENCY in the way the headline yesterday referred to "rebels, while the two headlines today refeferred to "Libyan forces". Now that inconsistency--causing confusion--remains as far as AT&T/Yahoo are concerned. However, was the earlier story today from Reuters, while yesterday's came from the despicable AP? Maybe so. It may be that the confusing contradiction in terminoloygy is a difference between AP policy and Reuters policy. So much for "objective" "news" from "neutral" "journalists". Yep. I AM telling you that this terminology "decision" is POLITICAL--agenda driven. Oh, as stated in my previous article, there is an issue as to when "rebels' are o longer "rebels", but "journalists" should have an interest in CLARITY. They don't.


Yu should be able to see what is fundamentally wrong here. Yes, the three stories for which I have quoted headlinees are outrageously incompetent. For example, the above headline would imply that Gadhafi forces are on the march, and that rebel forces are on the run. Hogwash (or things are wore in Libya than the mess I think they ae). I gave you the true story in today's earlier article. The rebel forces seem constatly in "flight", because they are a disorganized force incapable of delibering a real military attack like our military can do. They merely test the opposition, most of the time, and then ask for more NATO "backup" if they appear to be encountering a real miitary fight. The "flight" is most probably just running away from a battle for which the "rebel fighters" have no taste. They want a "walkover". No, it is way too kind to say that there was an organized withdrawal to better prepare another atttack (like Grant against Lee, where both sides would haev temporary "flights" in an organized miitary campaign). The "rebel fighters" want NATO to do it for them. And they hae no stomach for a real fight. But Gadhafi forces are not strong enough, in the face of NATO support of the rebels, to really follow up any advantage.


But none of this gets directly to the fundamental problem: the real incompetence here. Just what business does the mainstream media hae giving INCOMPETENT daily reports on inconsequential military activity in LIBYA? What makes this "news"? Why not WAIT for things to become clear, or force your incompetent reportrers to try to clarify them, beefore publblishing this incompetent stuff that has not much to do with what is really happening in Libya. Even to the extent this stuff does reveal some sort of fundamental fact about Libya, the dail military stories simply OBSCURE whatefer significance there is. What was the point of saying that rebels were planning a "fierce attack"? Why not wait for the atttack, if it happens? And why TWO storeis today about a story that is only consequential because it CONTRADICTS what the media was saying yesterday? This is incompetence on a truly staggering scale: the inability to even recognize significant "news" when ou see it.


No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).