Libya...are what we are being shown accurate?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Yes RT is state media of Russia. But they do raise a very good point. How much of what we are being shown is accurate? Is this really a "all the people vs the evil turrism of Qadafi" type situation ore more complicated? My first reaction is usually to just trust the media tentatively more so in the following years after being lied to about Yugoslavia and then later Iraq. What is more worrying though is the number of people who don't pursue the important questions at all and just accept what they are being fed.

[charles the hammer]

Well when people can actually give evidence that its being misreported then i will take it seriously, but Russia who is very anti intervention isnt exactly non biased. Also Youtube.

Edit: Do we really need another thread for this, We already have 2.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well when people can actually give evidence that its being misreported then i will take it seriously

Exactly. I find it distasteful some people want to use people struggling and dying as a political football against the west or the media.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What major news agency is painting this as a revolution with universally popular support?

The country is split over the issue, and that's what we're being shown...

[Carpathian Wolf]

1. Didn't the Russian president agree to allow bombing of Libya via UN?

2. What is wrong with being anti intervention?

3. So WHAT if the damn report is hosted on youtube? If you see a news report on TV ok...but if it's uploaded onto a site big problem?

4. We're discussing not the war but how the war is portrayed in the media.

[charles the hammer]

1. Didn't the Russian president agree to allow bombing of Libya via UN?

2. What is wrong with being anti intervention?

3. So WHAT if the damn report is hosted on youtube? If you see a news report on TV ok...but if it's uploaded onto a site big problem?

4. We're discussing not the war but how the war is portrayed in the media.

1. he abstained so kinda
2. Nothing but he has been very critical of it and you can tell he doesnt like it.
3. I also rarely take TV reports seriously.
4. Well then to my original point.

[Carpathian Wolf]

1. he abstained so kinda
2. Nothing but he has been very critical of it and you can tell he doesnt like it.
3. I also rarely take TV reports seriously.
4. Well then to my original point.

1. Yeah so my point stands.
2. So?
3. That's nice.
4. Ok?

[charles the hammer]

1. Yeah so my point stands.
2. So?
3. That's nice.
4. Ok?

1. No it doesnt, He still is fighting this at every step. Abstaining isnt like he is for it more he tolerates it or doesnt see a need to fight it.
2. So if your saying the west may be potentially biased do to favoring the opposite can be more than true for the Russians who arent a fan of the intervention.
3. You brought it up.
4. Odd answer, but to expand on my previous answer do you have any evidence the reports are being altered or not reported on? If not there is not much to discuss.

[Exarch]

it appears the pentagon has learned how to manipulate the media well, and why am i not surprised especially after vietnam and desert storm

[charles the hammer]

it appears the pentagon has learned how to manipulate the media well, and why am i not surprised especially after vietnam and desert storm

You mean in a war that has seen major backlash among the public and in a war the US was only half-heartily into to begin with? Seems like a waste of Pentagon Resources, especially when Julian Assange is still alive

[Exarch]

You mean in a war that has seen major backlash among the public and in a war the US was only half-heartily into to begin with? Seems like a waste of Pentagon Resources, especially when Julian Assange is still alive

uncle sam has only to lift his finger and that greedy mutt, france and its supposed imperial ambitions via the EU will go for the kill.

so now that the saudis are goign to supply arms to the rebels, does that mean russia can now supply arms to the gadaffi forces?

[charles the hammer]

uncle sam has only to lift his finger and that greedy mutt, france and its supposed imperial ambitions via the EU will go for the kill.

so now that the saudis are goign to supply arms to the rebels, does that mean russia can now supply arms to the gadaffi forces?

Wait you think this is a US war? Why?

[Exarch]

Wait you think this is a US war? Why?

becuz wannabe president mccain goes to libya and gives them his vote of support.

man won't that look funny if gadaffiwins. france is simply desperate to secure their own libyan oil especially since gadaffi sez 'no oil for YOU!' on account of france being france

[hellheaven1987]

so now that the saudis are goign to supply arms to the rebels, does that mean russia can now supply arms to the gadaffi forces?

Well, Russia probably would use someone, assume AU, to supply Gaddafi force equipments in this case (and PLA may use Congo to do that too). Unless NATO directly violate the embargo agreement Russia would not directly supply equipments to government force.

[Dr Zoidberg]

I'll take what the BBC and CNN are showing in Libya over RT any day...

[NotYetRegistered]

I'll take what the BBC and CNN are showing in Libya over RT any day...

This.

[Armenum]

I'll take what the BBC and CNN are showing in Libya over RT any day...

Why them necessarily? It's like the two sides of the coin. Both are going to be naturally biased. Better to rely on more 3rd party that have no visible take on the conflict, and of course the reportage by civilians via Youtube.

[Rex Germanius]

Why them necessarily? It's like the two sides of the coin. Both are going to be naturally biased. Better to rely on more 3rd party that have no visible take on the conflict, and of course the reportage by civilians via Youtube.

An impartial party is far more credible than an interested one. On that I agree. But civilians are not always to be trusted. Most of the first-hand civilian reports on Youtube are from the east, which is obviously biased against Gaddafi. There is a lack of overall reporting from all contexts within Libya. The majority of people in the West are only informed from one side of the issue.

[Armenum]

An impartial party is far more credible than an interested one. On that I agree. But civilians are not always to be trusted. Most of the first-hand civilian reports on Youtube are from the east, which is obviously biased against Gaddafi. There is a lack of overall reporting from all contexts within Libya. The majority of people in the West are only informed from one side of the issue.

Well the civilians will show first hand what Gadaffi forces are doing. One can't really argue against the amateur video takes that go directly to youtube. The state tv of Libya will emphasise all the "bad" things that the rebels are doing - so by watching both it's possible to get an appropriate balance.

[Rex Germanius]

Well the civilians will show first hand what Gadaffi forces are doing. One can't really argue against the amateur video takes that go directly to youtube. The state tv of Libya will emphasise all the "bad" things that the rebels are doing - so by watching both it's possible to get an appropriate balance.

That is true. But what is distressing is the lack of fair coverage in Western media and the general ignorance of the public of Western countries of all the negative aspects of the rebels.