Journalism Project-Sorry, It's Pretty Extensive!

Journalism Project

Emily Thoreson, Aren Passenheim, Lily Crutchfield, Julia Gross, Georgia Rowekamp, Ameilia Brandell

Muammar Gaddafi took the position of Libya’s head of state in 1969. In 1977 he began to take different chairs of power including Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, Secretary General of the General People’s Congress of Libya, Prime Minister, and finally Chairperson of the African Union. In the 42 years he has had political power, Gaddafi has abolished the Libyan Constitution of 1951, and established laws based on his political ideology and published books to support him doing so. The protests against Gaddafi began in February of 2011, and this shortly became a movement of the population. On October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was killed in Sirte, his hometown.

The death of Muammar Gaddafi has been covered by almost every news outlet in the world. This includes live broadcasts, newspapers, magazines, online resources, photos, journals, social network sites, and everything in between. Our group focused on the reactions and effects on people following this major moment in history. We explored many different news outlets: comedians, left, right, moderate, as well as a few direct quotes. Our information is specifically found from CNN, Al Jazeera, China Daily, Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal, and Jon Stewart. Our findings were full of celebrations, freedom, remembrance, United States involvement, negative reactions from Libyans, and how the country will begin to rebuild. One discovery through this project is how American news displays information to its population differently than those news outlets which are created elsewhere.

ARTICLES and AGENCIES WE CHOSE:

1. CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/23/world/africa/libya-main/index.html?iref=allsearch

2. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

“No ‘Amor Gaddafi”

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-20-2011/no-amor-qaddafi

News of Muammar al-Gaddafi's death gives rise to celebratory gun shooting, victory slogan chanting and baby throwing in Libya, but Republicans have a different reaction.

3. Al Jazeera

“Sirte ‘Paying price of revolution”

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/10/2011102851013449869.html

Residents of the birthplace of slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi say NTC fighters took revenge on their town.

4. Wall Street Journal

“After Gadhafi’s Fall”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204485304576643100926286190.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

5. China Daily

“Israel bombs Gaza, 10 dead”

“NATO launches air raids in Libya on Thursday”

“Gadhafi's Son Ready to Surrender”

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/world/2011-10/30/content_14002245.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-10/20/content_13944578.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-10/28/content_13991676.htm

6. Time Magazine

“It used to be a beautiful city, one of the most beautiful in Libya. Today it looks like [postwar] Leningrad, Gaza or Beirut.”

ZAROUK ABDULLAH,

A university professor, standing outside his badly damaged family home in Muammar Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte.

http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,2098123,00.html

I took parts from a few articles:

1960s Libya: A Glimpse of Life Before Gaddafi

By Jehad Nga

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/07/18/1960s-libya-a-glimpse-of-life-before-gaddafi/#ixzz1cxM8todY

My father is used to waiting.

In one form or another, he has spent 41 years doing just that. My earliest memories of my dad are of him sitting on the sofa glued to the TV, watching the news while my brother and I grew around him. In a room housed inside one of the many hotels that became our family’s temporary nest, life resembled that of a normal family’s for a few days. On occasion, in our home in London, he would appear and drift away like a spirit — something we learned to live with. In some ways, I think he was waiting for a glimmer on the horizon, a memory that had fallen deep inside him and hadn’t been seen since the fall of 1969. It’s as if his watch had stopped that September, and like him, it waited for time worth telling to resume.

In the 1960s, my father was the owner of a hotel and casino named the Uaddan, which overlooked the coast in Tripoli. In my early years, I remember hearing stories of life inside the hotel before Muammar Gaddafi spearheaded the September revolution of 1969. As I got older, I began to see a pattern in the stories my father told. Seldom did he reminisce about moments that postdated his ownership of the Uaddan or share experiences that included my family. The birth of my brother or our family trips to various islands never made the cut. Nor did he talk much about the years he spent with my mother or how they met. My brother and I always joked that it were as if my father didn’t have the ability to record time that came after the hotel — I think there’s some truth in that.

What I have learned over the years is that to my father, the Uaddan was no longer a hotel but rather a demarcation for a period when his light glowed the strongest. The allure to return to those times never lost its potency. He lamented the loss of that light and would spend the next four decades lost in reveries that brought him closer to those days.

I think most Libyans who were around during those days have their own Uaddan — a safe house built for the purpose of storing away those memories and desires beneath the surface, locked away and preserved until a time would come when they could be ignited into flight.

I always knew that Libya was not a camera culture. On my many trips back to Tripoli, I never saw people taking photos. My father never bothered to take photos after 1969 in the same way he used to. Those earlier days were recorded diligently: parties and beach trips and everyday life. The colors that once jumped out of the pictures from those days are now washed away and faded. I have spent a lot of time looking at these photos over the years. Now more than ever, they speak to me and give me a clear picture of what was extinguished for so many in 1969. Those chapters hold such an important role in the lives of not only the Libyans but also many of the internationals who were living in Tripoli at the time. My mother worked in Libya in 1969 as a schoolteacher and still talks fondly about those days, in the same way that people speak of the 1960s in the U.S.

To my father, the Uaddan was orphaned rather than simply taken by Gaddafi’s government. He knew that nobody would love or care for the place as much as he had all those years. The government had no use for the building and allowed it to succumb to the effects of long-term neglect. I have visited the hotel several times over the past few years, less out of curiosity than a need to see for myself the place that had taken on a life of mythological proportions in my upbringing. Still a hotel — although more a lifeless shell of what it once was — I never saw anyone inside during my visits. My father refused to go because I think it would have broken his heart to see its condition. To him, the hotel was sacred and forever preserved in his mind at its prime. My father’s memories of the Uaddan burst the actual boundaries of the building. He made it into something it may never quite have been — at least not as he boasted. But that’s what happens to memories: they become what you need them to be. Who he was during the Uaddan days, and what was taken from him with the coming of Gaddafi, would pull apart anyone. And into that chasm poured memories that have solidified to make up his past.

The events that have been taking place in Libya over these past months have brought me closer to understanding my father’s past than any events in the previous 30 years. As the revolt grew stronger in February and March, I began to see that hidden place inside him that he had never revealed to his children. When I saw him last month, it were as if his cheeks had become sun-kissed by the new dawn rising over Libya. He speaks of those days of the Uaddan as once again being within reach — his voice tells me that this is the moment he has been waiting for. He is again ready to take center stage on the ballroom floor and play host.

Where Gaddafi's Corpse Lies: In the City That Hated Him Most

By Vivienne Walt / Misratah Friday, Oct. 21, 2011

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097539,00.html#ixzz1cT5O8fsQ

The lifeless figure, bloodied and beaten, lay naked but for tan-colored trousers, with gouge marks across his chest and a bullet hole in one temple. This was the man who instilled terror in Libyans for nearly 42 years. At the back of a food market on Friday afternoon, Oct. 21, Muammar Gaddafi's body lay on a dusty, narrow foam mattress under a bare fluorescent light in a refrigerated room normally used for fruits and vegetables. The cocky omnipotence that strutted over Libya for two generations had become a pathetic, brutalized cadaver.

A small group of local residents filed in nervously. Blinking in the darkness before the light was switched on, they gasped as their eyes adjusted to the sight of Gaddafi's body, scarcely able to believe that they were peering at the dictator's dead face just inches away. It was, for them, concrete proof that their ruler was truly dust and to dust he was returning. An elderly man in a gray robe and white skullcap staggered out into the sun, lifted his arms to the sky and said, "Oh, thank you, God, thank you, God." An 11-year-old boy waiting to enter, having been brought to the site by his father, sneered as he chewed a wad of gum and said, "I came because I want to see frizzhead." …

…Looking at Gaddafi up close — from a distance of a few inches — there seem to be signs he received a beating. There are deep red lines across the right of his chest, as though he had been struck or scratched several times.

The city where Gaddafi's corpse now lies — hardly a resting place — is deeply ironic. Just a mile from the cold-storage room, Misratah's main artery, Tripoli Street, still displays the ravages of rockets and missiles, evidence of the city's long siege by the dictator's troops. But Misratah endured and survived. And, to the city's pride, Misratah's fighters then led the final assault on Sirt, including the capture and killing of Gaddafi.

…Hundreds of men and boys lined up to witness it, as if they needed to make sure that Gaddafi would indeed never return. Hours before, the fighters who brought him down had attempted to keep the location of his body secret. But within hours, Gaddafi had become this town's biggest-ever attraction.

INDEPENDENT ANALYSES of RESEARCH:

1. CNN:

The article “Libya’s New Leaders Declare Liberation” from cnn.com portrays a quite positive light on Libya’s new freedom. It gave a feeling of unity and a feeling of happiness that the people of Libya are now free. “Cheering crowds packed a central square in Benghazi Sunday afternoon” (CNN Wire Staff). It talks about the freedom the people of Libya now have and how hard they fought for the freedom. It makes the reader feel happy that they have now reached their freedom that they have been striving to achieve for many months. The article continues to talk about the uprisings against Moammar Gadhafi... The article’s prime focus was not on Gadhafi’s death but on the liberation of the people of Libya. It was more a feel good article about the people of Libya. Of course there is bias that exists in this article in the sense that quotes from Obama are used on how he feels about the liberation, but did not include leaders from other countries thoughts on the subject. So in this sense, the reader is only getting the American view of how the liberation is being portrayed. This shows American’s egotism in that we only care how what our leaders think about the event and how we plan to deal with it. If Americans as a whole cared more about what other countries thought, the CNN staff would most likely have included more about what other countries plan to do in reaction to the Libya’s liberation.
At the end it was added how U.S. officials want Abdel Baset al-Megraphi imprisoned because he was released. They take the time to talk about what a bad person he was for bombing the Pan Am 103. Although these people who died because of him deserve justice, it didn’t really make sense as the reader to have it added in there at the end. It was almost like I just read an article and then I was sidetracked from the article by this. It took away from the celebration of the people of Libya. The article started off very positive and celebratory and ended on more of a negative note; which was an interesting way to go about it. Instead of continuing to focus on the positive impacts this liberation is bringing to the people, it started to focus on what the United States wants to happen to the country and how we will or will not interfere with Libya. CNN is United States based but it is clear that it is also United States bias because the article started to center on towards the end what Obama thought of the issue and did not address what other countries thought about the liberation. It seemed as though yellow journalism, which means rather than providing information to a public eager to expand their knowledge, it is about creating a public that will buy the news by trying to make it have more excitement or sensation than it really does. This is seen at the end of the article, in the sense that it wanted to keep the reader interested in bad news and controversy instead of leaving the reader feeling good about the people of Libya. Perhaps this tactic is used as to get the reader to look up information on Adbel Baset al-Megraphi on CNN to keep them on the website.

2. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

John Stewart approached the Libyan situation after Gaddafi’s death with his usual sense of humor. He covered the news in a segment called “No ‘Amor Gaddafi”. He chose to focus on the American reaction, specifically the right wing’s reaction, and on what America had to gain from the new Libyan government. Stewart showed clips from right-wing news station Fox News. In these clips the analysts attempt to find a way to make Gaddafi’s death and Libya’s revolution bad and turn it around to reflect poorly on Obama. Jon Stewart points out the contradictions as the same analyst both suggests that the new Libya is dangerous, as it could become a hub for terrorism and that America should have intervened sooner. He chastises them for being unable to put their personal politics aside and acknowledge a victory for the Libyan people and for Obama.
He also replays an interview between Stewart’s “field man” John Oliver and the Libyan ambassador to the United States, Ali Suleiman Aujali. It served as a reminder of what America had to gain from the Libyan revolution. In the interview Oliver suggests to Ambassador Aujali that the name “Libya” is tarnished now and that they should consider a new name. He shows America’s real interests in Libya through the suggested new names “Oilfrica” and “Oilgasm”. (The name “Zazzistan” is also suggested.) It suggests that Libya use its oil resources to gain aid and trade from the world. It also subtly suggests that since America assisted in the Libyan conflict that we should be first in line to receive Libyan oil.
Stewart portrays the Libyan situation in a light of the liberal American reaction through mocking conservative analysts on Fox News and highlighting what America can gain from the revolution. It positions viewers against Fox News and Republicans by making them appear stupid, stubborn, and willfully ignorant.

3. Al Jazeera:

Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, Libya was the main target for the National Transitional Council (NTC) and revolutionaries. The town was under siege for nearly a month before Gaddafi was captured and killed. Many of the people that lived in Sirte were supporters of Gaddafi, but there were also many that were not. There were many families living in Sirte that got caught in the crossfire between Gaddafi loyalists and NTC fighters and suffered for reasons out of their control. The families that still remain have been left a ghost town. The video in this article showed street after street with buildings that had no walls due the aftermath of bullets and bomb explosions.

The reporter interviewed a few people that are still living in Sirte after NTC fighters captured and killed Gaddafi. Instead of being happy or relieved that Gaddafi was no longer in power, they felt resentment toward the NTC fighters. Even after Gaddafi’s death, rebels and NTC fighters drove through the streets and celebrated by continuing to destroy the city and its buildings. Remaining civilians believed they did this as revenge for damage done by Gaddafi on their cities and the other horrific crimes he committed. This outraged them because the rebels were supposed to be fighting back against Gaddafi’s regime for the good of the public, but instead they were acting in a similar manner as his supporters. The residents of Sirte also said they have suffered from discrimination from NTC fighters when they tell them they are Sirte because the fighters assume they must have been Gadaffi loyalists. The fighters do not even listen to what they have to say. The reporter even interviewed a young man that was originally involved in the protests and attempted overthrows of the Gaddafi regime, but seeing the aftermath and the reactions of the NTC fighters, has now gone back to showing support for the old government.

I thought it was really interesting that they were so many people that are unhappy with the aftermath of Gaddafi’s death, even though they supported the revolution. This is not the typical representation of the Libyan people in American news. In American news sources they only talk about how the revolution has done so much good for the people and how they have such a bright future. This article was obviously trying to get the viewer to sympathize and have pity on those left behind in Sirte and was biased against the NTC fighters. The article made the argument that the rebels were not as great as other news sources have made them out to be and have used similar tactics as the ones used by Gaddafi. They didn’t take the time to find out if they were hurting innocent people, they were only focused on their end goal of taking down the regime.

4. Wall Street Journal:

This article is bleeding with the views of the author of this article just by the first sentence, “Grotesque political careers usually end grotesquely, and Moammar Gadhafi’s end proved to be no exception.” This article is very expressive in the way that it is showing how positive it is that Gadhafi’s “bizarre rule that terrorized his people” is finally over.
Comical but informative, this author does a great job of mentioning that Gadhafi for the past forty-two years ruling Libya is competitive to Osama bin Laden in the way that only he has killed more “noncombatant Americans and Europeans through acts of terror.” It is said that President Obama, Britain’s David Cameron, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy deserve credit regarding the death of Gadhafi. It’s viewed that the United States has a lot to do with his death, because the U.S. military led the targeted bombing that initiated the ending result. Because of this, Tunisia and Egypt remain rebellion free. The view that this author gives is that he is very patriotic, proud, and stands behind America because the United States has shaped this event for the better, much better.
Gadhafi had plans to derail the democratic transitions in Tunisia and Egypt, and because of his death, this won’t occur. Thousands of innocent lives were saved also because Gadhafi was not able to destroy Benghazi.
It is also recommended that Libyans should follow a federal system model politically similar to Iraq. This shines a light on Libya that gives hope because of such a “global menace” is now deceased. Libyans can now celebrate. Even though it will take time and practice, Libya is now given a chance to build a “future free of tyranny.” It is also mentioned that Libya has advantages, because it is a small but well-educated country that has oil that hasn’t been destroyed previously in the eight months of fighting. There is hope that the security apparatus behind Gadhafi should not be nearly as threatening as some others, such as Saddam Hussein.
Overall, the author views this death as nothing but successful and the best outcome that could have come out of this situation. He is proud in the United States, as well as Libya.

5. China Daily:

In the days of the rule by Muammar Gaddafi, Libya was under much controversy as to whether or not the country was in a place of economic growth. From the articles that I have read on the China Daily News Outlet, many of the articles are fact-based on how he has changed the country for good. In all of the articles the facts were much more present, and as I started to look harder there was not a piece of opinion. This shocked me when I was looking, especially because in American news outlets there is a strong emphasis on each writer’s opinion. This also made me start to think about why these have become such a part of both the American news outlet, along with a part of our culture.

Over the time since the death of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya has turned into a country that is in a state of disrepair. Today there are many different problems with car bombers and with the rebel fighters taking over the streets. Israeli air strikes have been attacking the country, with more to come. There have also been problems with NATO attacking different convoys inside of Libya that are supposedly hurting the countries civilians. Besides the basic information that is presented in this article, there is not a lot that is going to tell me about the writer’s opinion. As I started to read different various articles, most of them were talking about how Gaddafi was killed, along with where, how and why his body was displayed. There was also an article that was talking about how the son of Gaddafi had fled the country, and various other facts about the country and the Gaddafi family.

6. Time Magazine

I pieced apart many parts of articles from Time Magazine for this project. I wanted to objectify each of the different consequences Time reported on after the death of Libyan longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Most of all I wanted to reflect on the idea that one man; one living, breathing, man can cause the corruption as described through a quote and photo of a Sirte inhabitant, and a piece of memoir by the son of a man who owned a flourishing hotel before Gaddafi’s rule in 1969. Finally, I included a physical description of the death ruler just to create a sense of reality; the reality that the man who created this corruption was dead and could cause no more pain to his people.

“It used to be a beautiful city, one of the most beautiful in Libya. Today it looks like [postwar] Leningrad, Gaza or Beirut.” Zaruk Abdullah looks over his demolished house in Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte and reflects on the damage it has undergone. The effects of Gaddafi’s regime took one of the most revered cities of Libya, and made it another stereotypical war-ridden city. Also along these lines Jehad Nga reflects the changes his father underwent after the closing and damaging of his hotel; a hotel that was not just a business but a symbol of a time in Libya when people lived merrily, freely, and joyfully. The closing of the hotel was a closing of an era, one that was marked by the inhabitance of Gaddafi and his regime. Here I’d like to introduce a comparison to Art Spiegelman’s Maus. Maus was a similar memoir, one discussing the downfall of a population. Beyond Spiegelman’s descriptions of the Holocaust, he describes the relationship he has with his father throughout the graphic novel. Nga reflects also on how the relationship with his father changed when the hotel shut down, how their communication broke down, but now after Gaddafi’s death, he sees light in his eyes again; hope is returning to their family. Finally, in the paragraph which breaks Gaddafi down to that of just another tortured human body, there is a symbol that Gaddafi’s ruling was not just a form of government, but a household name. “An 11-year-old boy waiting to enter, having been brought to the site by his father, sneered as he chewed a wad of gum and said, ‘I came because I want to see frizzhead’’. Gaddafi’s rule became a culture, one even identified by 11 year old children. His death marks another end of an era; the people of Libya will now look forward to begin to restore its once-beautiful cities to their original splendor.

Time Magazine is an American magazine which records history in many different lights. After researching on Time’s online database, I found numerous extras such as additional photos, interviews, and firsthand accounts of different events in history. I find these articles to identify with Hegel’s idea of ‘Great Men’. Gaddafi, who was an evil ruler, was indeed a great man in Hegel’s theory. He acted, spoke, and helped push history forward. He made headlines, he broke laws, and he made people talk whether those people were the people of his country of the people of the press. The three pieces I chose from my agency solidify the idea that Gaddafi, although he was simply one human being in time and space, was a great man because he produced history.

COMPARISONS and GROUP ANALYSIS:

One of the major implications of the comparison of multiple news outlets lead to the discovery of how American news outlets portray news stories differently than other outlets throughout the world. One of the main comparisons that was noticed was how the American news outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal and CNN had a lot of opinion based articles, where the China Daily had none of the sort. The China Daily was extremely fact based, with little to no opinions expressed in each of their articles. Each of the news outlets portrayed the same material, but in a different way. The Wall Street Journal expressed the thoughts of the writer with a more humorous manner. CNN was fact based as well, with opinions from different people, including the President. The China Daily was extremely fact based, with no opinion placed into the article. As we compared the news outlets between the United States and other countries, we found that this was true. In America each news outlet has to portray the same information in a different manner in order to well papers, where as in other countries where the goal is to most accurately give information. All of the articles gave the same information, but the China Daily was short and to the point, where as the American news outlets hyped up the information.

The articles from CNN, “Libya’s New Leaders Declare Liberation”, and Wall Street Journal “After Gadhafi’s Fall” both are United States based newspapers and there is an apparent United States bias in both of the articles. Both articles focus on how the United States feels as a country about Gadhafi and portray him as being a horrible person. They both make it clear that the people are happy that he is gone and are now going to have freedom. They also both make a point to take about how President Obama feels on the issue. The Wall Street Journal’s article does even goes as far to give President Obama credit for the revolution. Even to the point where they say the United States should have been more involved because NATO had a hard time without more of our help. CNN does not specifically give President Obama credit but they did talk about how he felt on the issue. It was interesting that they both made a point to talk about how much oil Libya had to offer; perhaps almost suggesting that the United States should be more involved with the country developing their new government. Both articles represent the United States as being important in the revolution, The Wall Street Journal more so but there definitely is a bias towards the United States and the impact they had. They try to give a feeling of patriotism to the reader even though the United States did not make the huge of an impact; seems blown out of proportion almost to the reader. Obviously they realize their viewers of the articles are going to be American and hearing positive comments on how the United States helped out or feels about Gadhafi’s death will relate more to the reader and make the reader feel good about the United States. It was interesting how they only talked about how horrible of a person Gadhafi was and how happy the people are that he is gone now; like they can finally start their lives now that he is dead. They both had no specific quotes from any people of Libya. Perhaps they are making an assumption here on how the people feel. It is clear that both articles have a United States bias and were centered around the United States rather than having direct sources in Libya and the feelings of the people of Libya were not directly discussed more than in general statements.

When comparing the article from Al Jazeera with the American articles from CNN and the Wall Street Journal, there was obvious American bias and a failure to assess the entire situation. Both American articles focused on how great the liberation was for Lybia, using phrases like “peace and prosperity” and that now the Lybian people can “look forward to a future of liberties and opportunities.” However, the Al Jazeera article looked further than just surface value and explained how the NTC fighters and rebels did not bring only happiness with the liberation and death of Gaddafi. Many innocent families have had their houses destroyed because of the rebels seeking revenge against Gaddafi’s hometown, but the stories of these families were not addressed in any way in the American articles. Also, both of the American articles have references or statements from U.S. government officials and explain what the liberation means for the future of America, but this is not the case for the Al Jazeera article. In fact, the Al Jazeera article does not even mention America or its leaders. The American articles may have talked about what the liberation means for America because they believe that was what the public wanted to read, but they still failed to include statements from other countries.

The Wall Street Journal’s view on the death of Gaddafi is quite similar to the one of Jon Stewarts. This is the best outcome that could have occurred, the people of Libya are now no longer under the thumb of a terrorizing leader, and the United States did a good job. They both analyze this situation as nothing but positive, and have a difficult time with the fact that there are so many people in the world that aren’t taking it as good news, they are dwelling on the bad things. Similarly they both make very straightforward and direct comments about the views that they hold, and make sure that their views are made clear. Both sources mention Jon McCain and his view on the death, as well as other republicans. Another similarity is that they both mention that there is a large amount of oil in Libya, and that it can be used to everyone’s advantage.

Jon Stewart does his normal comedic act, and does not touch much on the political side of it, other than the Republicans are being unrealistic and unreasonable with their judgments of this situation. The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, points out a lot of things very political. There is much more discussion on what could have happened if Gaddafi was still alive, and things that he did that made him such a terrible leader. Jon Stewart was much more focused on making the media seem somewhat ridiculous in the way they are handling this death. Wall Street Journal primarily focused on what they had to say, and what their reaction to the death of Gaddafi was.

A similarity between Al Jazeera and Time Magazine is the way they sensitively handled the remaining civilians of the banished town of Sirte. Casting a sympathetic glance at the survivors of battle creates hope in the news to move forward. Beyond this, it creates a sense of humanity throughout that form of agency; by caring about the people, readers and consumers of that news will take the facts more seriously because they are created for people and not just spit out.

As far as contrasts go, I can tell that the Al Jazeera article was written for people in the Middle East and translated to English. Al Jazeera presents ideas that suggest the negative effects of Gaddafi’s death, whereas Time Magazine focuses simply on the positive aspects and the look forward to better things to come. In similar ways, Time Magazine and other American sources made rebel fighters to look like heroes; whereas Al Jazeera unveiled the negative and humanistic side of rebel fighters and NTC fighters. American news sources such as Time are great for creating a grand narrative of the news, similar to that of a fairy tale; there was a horrible problem, but then the American fairy stepped in and destroyed the problem, and they lived happily ever after. This of course is a completely general statement, but true nonetheless. American news sources should take a look at independent sources such as Al Jazeera to create depth and multiple inputs in their work.

This history is that of nations and great men. The voice of the American nation spits its information at the country in opinions, humor, and often second hand accounts, as discovered by our research. Our news creates a grand narrative of Gaddafi and how right will dominate wrong; and it did according to our news sources. However, after looking at other country’s agencies, we discovered that their news was more based on facts, and they looked at the event of Gaddafi’s death from many different angles. The one thing that both news sources agree on is that Muammar Gaddafi was indeed a “Great Man”. In history, he pushed events along; he created history through his monumental actions, even if they were heinous. Muammar Gaddafi pushed history forward, even through his death. Culture will continue to follow those who do just this; create a grand narrative its audiences will desire to read, and follow those who make this happen. Nations and their reporters will continue to seek its inhabitants’ loyalty. In the words of Muammar Gaddafi himself, “Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin.”