When the body of evidence disrupts fantasy reporting

Saif Al-Islam, son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, gestures in Tripoli August 23, 2011 in this still image taken from video. Saif told journalists that Libya, which has been largely overrun in the past 24 hours by rebel forces seeking to topple his father, was in fact in government hands and that Muammar Gaddafi was safe. REUTERS/Reuters TV

When  representatives of the world press is tied up in a frenzied state with the desire to report the killing (or capture) of an alleged mass murderer and gets it wrong all of the time, it shows a degradation of prescience for last days reporting.  But it is far more telling that objective reporting has been overcome by emotion mongers who have historically feasted on the dark-side of human cravings.


Historically speaking, there is no surprises here.  Isn't it the media, the press, the fourth estate, whose main job  is to report the news as it happens no matter how gross or disturbing the content--or inaccurate? Yes and no.


The problem may be more complex than meets the human eye as I attempt to point out why media professionals have been skirting best practices or acceptable standards for news reporting for some time now.  Of course one could easily decide to utilize the World Trade Center bombings as a prime reference as this event has been etched time and time again on the hearts,minds and souls of all Americans  (and the world), time and time again.  Maybe we can reference the invasion of Iraq where millions have died, and the death toll continues to rise, to show the fervency of a hungry press. Or, maybe we can concentrate on the the terrorist in Norway who unmercifully snuffed out the lives of many innocents.  For sure there's a lot of scandalous news in America, and the world.  But there's one thing for sure, one can always depend on the press to report something.


As a lover and seeker of truth, I'm quite dismayed when I m seeing anticipation, prediction and desire trump actual events on the ground.  I must even reveal my dismay with one of my favorite online radical newsletters, Counterpunch, as the editor in a lead article on August 23, today: Qaddafi Has Lost; But Who Has Won? appears to be prematurely announcing  a victor.Is it all-knowing or is it slothfulness?  It bothers me that world sanctioned fighters (yet sovereign rebels) kill  their top military commander and the press never blinks as though investigative reporting is not merited, and, that it my interfere on a momentum on the road to Tripoli to get to an already  visualized endgame--the physical demise of Gaddafi.


It may be more fair reporting to look at an article in the Christian Science Monitor  dated August 23:  Tripoli and fallen and...the battle for Tripoli rages on.


In a comparative analyses, you decide which is more balanced reporting with a knack for judicious and empirical discovery?  May I add that one article does not distract from my reading preference, but it should be stated that nowadays nearly all news outlets,corporate and independent, have a more activist streak when it comes to cocky presuppositions vs. factual exposition that often blurs the line between commentary and the stating of actual facts.


Because we live in days where results are driven by emotionalism and prejudice we are discovering that the integrity of truth and facts are losing ground.  Maybe it all started when another war President, Bush, helped to popularize the word "preemption".  In essence in our nationalistic purity we were tasked with acting on data that may or may not be true.  This paradigm epitomizes the zeal of the press today, gone wild. Hence, it has nothing to do with facts on the ground, but only wishful thinking or hoping.


The appearance of Saif Al-Islam at the Hotel where embedded world reporters are hanging like vultures to be the first to hear and report the mighty kill of Gaddafi and clan did not motivate reporters to delve into deep questions or reflection,rather, his appearance really only symbolizes a small nuisance that does not fit into the codified script for how events are suppose happen.  His appearance is an aberration.  His appearance, in a automated vacuum that chews up rightly reported facts, is indeed a desecration to what those doing the reporting and those receiving what the report believe imagine.


Today's reporting is quickly standardizing a human belief system (or what they want to believe and what's palatable to the sucker consumer's desire for fatefulness) that has nothing to do with facts on the ground.  Are you hearing this?


So, no matter what my or our preferences for outcomes, as for me, I'll take factual real-time reporting anytime.  As for Saif, he should be ashamed of himself.