Introduction
The death of Col. Muammar Gaddafi on October 20, 2011 was the end to a bloody revolution in Libya. The revolution was in a series of attacks witnessed in Arab and African countries in the recent past. The armed revolution was fought between forces allied to Gaddafi and forces that sought to overthrow his government under the name “National Transitional council”.
The war began in February 2011, with the UN freezing Gaddafi’s assets and restricting his travel abroad. In September, the UN replaced Gaddafi’s recognition as the representative of Libya with that of the national transitional council. Gaddafi remained influential until his death by the NTC.
The origin of the revolution
Gaddhafi became the president of Libya in 1969. He abolished the constitution and adopted laws based on his own ideology. Though claiming ceremonial representation, Gaddafi remained dominant in all aspects of the government issues.
Libya’s human development index is the highest one in Africa. There is free education, health care and housing. The country’s rate of corruption was however higher than most countries. Libya’s media industry was rated as the most censored in the Middle East and North Africa. Founding of political parties was illegal; they carried a death penalty. Instead, he introduced the direct political participation system. Gaddafi kept a small army that was ill equipped because he feared a military coup. There was almost no popularly elected government body that represented people freely. The general feeling among people was that of oppression and lack of democracy. People were not free to air their opinions and to openly disagree with the government. The spur to the revolution was the arrest of a human rights lawyer, coupled with “successful” revolutions in the neighbouring Arab countries.
The publicity of Gaddafi’s death
Muammar Gaddafi was killed by the NTC forces on the 20th of October, 2011. His death received first class publication in the print, broadcast and social media. Media houses ran screaming headlines and bold pictures of the slain “hero”. Ibrahim (2011) wrote that the pictures showed the former leader half naked, covered in blood and begging for his life.
The social aspect
Lawson (2011) in his article brings up the issue of social implications of such act. The society has not been known to rejoice at deaths, whoever the victim is. While those airing the stories and pictures might think of this as a killer story, the society is likely to sympathize with the victim and condemn the media’s publicity.
Although every society has its own norms and taboos, some norms and taboos are shared worldwide. Explicit show of corpses is a taboo in most societies. Besides, such distressing pictures have been prohibited by the media, especially those lacking proper discretion of viewers. The media seems to have forgotten that the death of Gaddafi is still the death and not exceptional to the censure rules.
The cultural aspect
The open airing and show of the pictures contradict the long standing media tradition of keeping in discretion such gruesome pictures. When they have to be shown, the audience is forewarned and the children are kept out as much as possible. This ethic of culture was overridden with this “story of a lifetime” boom.
The political aspect
This publication was met with mixed political sentiments. The revolution was political by nature and so was the death. There was mixed reaction among politicians all over the world. For the people in Libya who supported the revolution, it was a true and deserved evidence to prove the end of decades of misery. The photos satisfied their curiosity and complemented their victory.
For those who were pro-Gaddafi, the photos were an abomination to a leader who served the country and people’s best interests. They were perceived as obscene, unwarranted for and abusing to the long ethical media culture.
Jones (2011), in his article, says that the death and publication served well to expose the west’s hypocrisy. They criticized the photos yet they were part of the war. Theirs was pretence of the expected outcome when NATO had not relented in the search for the villain and would have done exactly the same or even worse. This brings out a west that is ready to interfere with the affairs of other countries but not ready to face the consequences or the outcomes.
The geographical aspect
Various regions had various opinions about the photos. While the photos elicited much controversy in the west, little was heard from Africa and even Libya itself. It was because the event was seen as victorious and so the publicity of the photos served as evidence to the victory and to complement the celebrations.
The few who did not share these sentiments were too afraid of the rebels to air their opposing views. The rest of African countries maintained a low profile concerning the publicity, probably also fearing to go against the triumph of the Transitional Government for economic reasons such as fuel and Aid. This is true given the African Union’s quick recognition of the NTC and disowning Gaddafi.
The Arabic world also did not raise much controversy concerning the publicity. The opponents of Gaddafi heralded the publicity as a true show of failure and end to a dictatorship regime and also opening way for justice to prevail. Those who opposed the publicity largely based it on religion, Islam, which does not permit such treatment for prisoners of war.
The technological aspect
Technology played a significant role in the publicity of the photos. The print and broadcast media seem to have been in competition in the publication. Elliott (2011) argues in favour of the guardian’s publication of the photos. He says that the photos were already in the internet. The paper’s publication only complimented what was already available to the public.
It should be noted that the photos were captured by means of people’s phones. They quickly uploaded them on the social media before they could get to media houses.
We could say, therefore, that the publicity of the photos was inevitable through the internet. This however, would not have elicited much attention it did with the publication in the mainstream media.
Opinion: the publicity of Gaddafi’s death
The revolution in Libya drew a lot of worldwide attention more than the previous revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. The UN acted swiftly in denouncing the incumbent leader and supporting the NTC. No fly zones were quickly enacted over Libya and Gaddafi and his inner circle barred form travel abroad. NATO was fully occupied in the war. They fought relentlessly to bring down Gaddafi, while the AU mounted its support for the NTC.
With all this support for his downfall, his death was eagerly awaited. When it happened, the media was too eager to show it as it was to the whole world. Katz (2011) said in defiance of the guardian publication of the photos that, “the importance of the photo in news terms outweighed the repugnance factor.”
I, however, strongly oppose the publicity accorded to Gaddafi’s murder. Industry ethics, just like a constitution, are made to stand the test of time and circumstances. Media attics are no exception. By such publication, the real motive eludes the eye on whether to report or to revel. Was it meant to inform the world that Gaddafi was dead or to show the world how Gaddafi looked while dead? It turns out that the media loses grip of one of its most fundamental pillars. Personal sentiments and feelings of victory and triumph took over ethical specifications. Elliott, on reflection after the excitement, agrees that the papers might have gone too far and posits that it should not happen again.
Hastings (2011) says that the death of Gaddafi was personalized and used to proclaim victory for parties that participated in the war and victims of the Lockerbie. Just like the case of Saddam Hussein, whose execution was also made public, Gaddafi’s death’s open publicity seems to have been a strategy for heralding the good work well done by the sympathizers of the NTC and a show of their support for the NTC. Gaddafi has for long been associated with the Lockerbie incident and so, for many who were affected it was their chance to settle their scores. His death, therefore, was not celebrated on its own merit.
Some media houses defended their actions saying that this was the way of offering proof to those who would doubt the death and demand evidence. But it is not the reason. Just a few months ago, the leader of Al Qaeda was killed in Pakistan. The public did not gain access to the photos to prove that it was really Osama who was killed. But who would dispute that Osama was actually killed? Besides, there was no public outcry for his photos to prove his death but there was public outcry to dispute the photos of Gaddafi. I do not think the public needed prove of Gaddafi’s death. We would surely know if he were alive from the massive influence he had in Libya.
Gaddafi’s killing did not deserve much attention it solicited. It is common law that we all deceive a fair hearing before a court of law in spite of the atrocities committed. Gaddafi too deserved that and the killing denied him that chance. From a legal perspective, we could say it was a shame and not a victory as such, to have had him executed in cold blood.
Conclusion
The media needs to know how much influence it wields upon the public. A simple gesture can go a long way in informing or distorting public opinion. The media, being the fourth estate, should be seen to be dissociated from politics and other prevailing pressures to which it is likely to bow.
When the public gets lost in excitement, the media should not follow suit but it should remain sober and instill sanity back in society. Many of the editors can now admit some form of over bearing on the story but it’s now too late. Underage children were exposed to classified material that should never cross their way. Media culture and reputation were tainted that it will take some time and effort to regain. Above all, confidence in the media was lost.
Finally, it should be realized that all humans are equal and deserve dignity, even at death. Just like our presidents avoid the public eye when ailing in surgery wards, so should the privacy of all other people be respected.
Reference List
Elliott, C. (2011). Yes, Yes, Yes-Publication of Gaddafi’s Death Pictures Was Justified. The Guardian(UK). Web.
Hastings, M. (2011). A Tyrant falls, But I Fear What Will Come Next. Mail Online News. Web.
Ibrahim, S. (2011). Final Pictures of Gaddafi: To Publish or Not To Publish? Emaj Magazine. Web.
Jones, J. (2011). The west wrings its hands over dead Gaddafi photos, but War is always hell. The Guardian (UK). Web.
Katz, I. (2011). Yes, Yes, Yes,-Publication of Gaddafi’s Death Photos Was Justified. The Guardian (UK). Web.
Lawson, M. (2011). Even Muammar Gaddafi deserved a private death. The Guardian (UK). Web.