I like watching Russia Today sometimes. But with Libya crisis unfolding, I'm beginning to feel the one-sidedness of their coverage of these events. It's interesting to note that Russia did not veto the UN's 'no-fly zone' resolution. Abstained. Means they let it happen, just didn't want to take responsibility for it, right?
Now the RT channel is bursting with talking heads condemning the NATO intervention.
The only program that seemingly always remains balanced is CrossTalk, because of its format, it is supposed to present opposing opinions.
So when Russia invaded Georgia 2008 'to protect civilians in South Ossetia' - that was fine. Totally justified, had to be done. But NATO going under same pretext to Libya - unacceptable! How dare they! This is an internal matter of a sovereign country!
You see, this is exactly why I don't rely on one media to get my information. Every now and then most channels, newspapers, news websites start presenting things in a specific light, trying to push a certain agenda. You need to cross-reference to find out what's really happening.
Frankly, it's not easy to say for sure which course of action is right regarding Libya. I guess this is one of the situations where there are no good outcomes. Bad and worse ones only. And it may be easier to define who is to blame for this, but not how to resolve the crisis with minimal human cost.
No, I don't think US, France and UK have only innocent Libyan peoples' interests at hearts. But I also find it difficult to praise inaction. What, grab a popcorn and watch Gaddafi murder his own people daily? Actually, that is what we have been doing for a while now. Freezing Gaddafi's accounts, declaring him non-grata... when the senile old man was already hiring mercenaries and shooting peaceful protesters and civillians who happenned to be in the wrong place.
Should the rest of the world have let Gaddafi crush the rebels and continue his rule? That was an option, but was it a better one? Lots of people would have died for nothing. The dictatorship would continue and the freedom-loving rebels would have paid with their lives for their willingness to stand up for their rights... Doesn't sound fair to me. Of course, world is not fair but aren't we trying to make it better?
And now they're saying there are casualties resulting from NATO bombings, so the operation is evil and should have never been authorized.
But then again, there were already casualties in Libya without any foreign 'help'. Gaddafi was doing the killing. Was it better?
Ideally, NATO's involvement should result in weakening Gaddafi forces and strengthening the rebels, preventing Gaddafi from bombing them. Then, ideally, more people should show their support for the rebel forces and openly state their opposition to Gaddafi (now that they don't have to be afraid of him any more). Then - Gaddafi ousted, interim government formed, the rest depends on Libyan people.
But, of course, no one knows what will actually happen. Many fear 'another Iraq', and not without reason. Noone (well, not many people) knows what plans are being discussed behind closed doors.
I still hope there is a chance of NATO forces leaving as fast and easy as they've entered the country, ...and maybe not stealing too much oil?)) Could a miracle like this happen at least once in a 100 years or smth?..
Anyway, what I was trying to say here is I don't like being presented with only one side of the story. It may seem comfortable to just pick a side that you're offerred and declare the opposing views wrong, evil, gullible etc. But world is not black and white. Neither should informational resources be.
What other news/analysis resources do I use? Al Jazeera English, Euronews, France24 (EN), BBC, DemocracyNow and even Iranian Press TV as I like a couple of programs there and also like to keep track of the propaganda fed on the other side of the globe. For example, where else would I find the news about some jerk burning a copy of Quran if not on the front page of Press TV website.
The beauty of the internet are such substantial comments as this one.