Understanding the Violence in Libya Through Two Lenses, One of Objectivity and One of Bias

The violence in Bani Walid is more clearly understood through a U.S. news organization than through an Arab organization, because the former is more impartial and the information it’s relaying is not occurring in its area.

In reading about the violence in Libya, in Bani Walid (which had been Moammar Gadhafi’s stronghold), there are more differences than similarities when comparing this international news item discussed in a FOX News article (titled: Fighting flares anew in western Libyan stronghold of Gadhafi regime backers) [Source: click 'here'], versus how its discussed in an Al Arabiya News article (titled: U.N. chief ‘alarmed’ by Libya fighting, calls on Libyans to resolve Bani Walid standoff peacefully) [source: click 'here']. From these two articles, I trust the U.S. news organization (FOX) more, as it looks at it from an outside, unbiased perspective, whereas the latter organization (Al Arabiya News), which is called “the leading news channel in the Arab world” (Source: click 'here'), looks at it more from the perspective of preserving the old way of power in Libya under Gadhafi; the region is so heavily in need of a more structured leadership at this time, that their feelings are reflected in the news of their region.

Al Arabiya logo (Source- click 'here')

The basic information presented in both articles (FOX News and Al Arabiya News) is still similar in some ways. from who is involved in the conflict to the struggling new regime in Libya.

Both articles begin by describing how there is fighting in Bani Walid, and describe how its occurring as the new government is having a hard time building up its authority. With the end of Gadhafi’s regime has come conflict between those who have been pro-Gadhafi and preserving his stronghold and those who are anti-Gadhafi and want to take it over.

Although there are some similarities between the two articles, there are more differences. The FOX News article looks at the issue more from both sides of those who are fighting (the defenders of the stronghold for Gadhafi versus those pro-government, those against him trying to take over the stronghold). The Al Arabiya News article, however, looks at it primarily from the perspective of the pro-government militias as the ones who are the “troublemakers” and are causing all the problems.

Fox News states the issue, looking at it from an outside perspective, and describes how peace should be something that happens, but is going to be hard to achieve with a new government being constructed. Al Arabiya News looks at it more from the Arab perspective, old-regime perspective, that the whole international community is keeping its eyes out and peace must be happen as quickly as possible. While Fox portrays both sides as contributing to the conflict in Bani Walid, Al Arabiya places all its focus on the problems the pro-government is causing and the protestors speaking up as a result.

These differences between the two articles are extended by describing how some things are mentioned are mentioned in one article, but are not included in the other, from emphasis on the anniversary of Libya’s liberation, to emphasis on the protestors breaking into the parliament of Libya.

The Fox News article stresses how this clash is occurring at the same time that some people are celebrating Libya’s liberation from Gadhafi.  From fireworks to other festivities, it is bizarre to have this happening at the same time of this clash in Bani Walid. How can peace be made when those pro-Gadhafi and anti-Gadhafi are going to be fighting it out? As Fox as emphasizes, the whole reason the government moved forward to take control of Bani Walid was because someone who was anti-Gadhafi was killed. There’ve been reports that the Bani Walid fighters have been firing at those pro-government and using civilians as shields in order to prevent those pro-government from advancing. The Al Arabiya article, however, doesn’t mention how this clash between the two sides is occurring at the same time celebration is occurring. Furthermore, unlike the FOX News article brings up, it also doesn’t talk about the medical problems resulting in the region (hospital not functioning, doctors running away, no supplies to take care of people, etc.). Al Arabiya also doesn’t mention the exact reasoning behind the government’s decision to advance into that territory. Unlike the Fox News article, however, Al Arabiya DOES mention and actually heavily focuses on those protestors stressing that violence end immediately. It repeatedly brings up the protestors throughout the article. It also puts a lot of the blame on the pro-government militias as the primary ones stirring up trouble in the area and killing and wounding all those people.

It is clear that more differences than similarities exist between the two news sources who have covered this same story. FOX seems to take a more impartial approach in this case, while Al Arabiya takes a more one-sided approach (siding with the old-regime and wanting to blame it all on the militias).  It is interesting to compare the two articles and see how two people may understand the same topic of news from two totally different perspectives.

A Growing Problem in Technology Access: The Participation Gap with Cell Phones

The issue lies in unequal access and involvement from among those who own cell phones .

In recently reading Kevin Guidry’s piece Digital Divide or Participation Gap? Will Mobile Affect it?, and in reading Aaron Smith and Maeve Duggan’s Pew Internet article The State of the 2012 Election — Mobile Politics, I believe the problem with technology lies not in America’s digital divide, but rather in the participation gap. In the Mobile Politics article, it was found in September that the majority of registered voters (88%) have cell phones. However, these people may own different types of cellphones (i.e. flip phones vs. smartphones) and have different capabilities with their phones, allowing them to get involved in some ways with the election, but not in other ways. With recent mobile trends, as shown in terms of the election, it appears that this participation gap will only widen.

(Image Source: click 'here')

The digital divide is about comparing those who do and don’t have access to technology altogether; the participation gap is about HOW MUCH access and involvement.

To clarify, the digital divide refers to the gap between those who are able to access sources of technology (like computers and the Internet and mobile devices) and those who are not able to access those sources altogether. The participation gap refers to the split between people in terms of the different experiences/uses people have had with technology by way of less or more access. Just as Guidry described in his piece, according to Henry Jenkins, Professor at MIT, “the digital divide mostly referred to the gap in access to technology in American schools and libraries[,] the goal [being] to provide every student access to networked computing. The participation gap takes it to the next level.” (Source: click 'here') So, the issue comes up when students can only access a computer from school or a library, or they are limited in time from how long they can work on the computer, or they can’t save any material they want to store for later use; this then affects how much skills the students achieve. In this context, however, the participation gap refers to the divide between those who can do more with their cell phones regarding this year’s election and those who only have limited capabilities.

There now appears to be a participation gap with cell phones, involving those who have the more ADVANCED cell phones (i.e. smartphones) and those who have the skills to be more politically active via their phones. Less advanced ways to follow the election (i.e. texting instead of social media) is also not as popular of an option.

Among those registered voters who have cell phones of any sort (88%), about half of those people (48%) have a more advanced type of phone, also known as the smartphone. This allows these cell phone owners to gain more technological skills by being exposed to more items available to the user (such as apps, social networking, Internet access, etc.). They can then get more comfortable with the their phones and have more options with how to follow and get involved with the election.  Furthermore, as understood in the Mobile Politics article and supported by CNN, from among all cell phone owners, “texting doesn't appear to be hugely popular in relation to this year's election. This year, fewer than one in five mobile-enabled voters have sent campaign-related text messages to people they know, and only 5% had subscribed to receive text messages directly from a candidate or other group involved in the election.” (Source: click 'here') So this means, that the more “simple” way to follow the election (i.e. texting rather than getting involved with social media) is not so popular of an option. In comparison, from among those half of cell-phone-owning registered voters who own smartphones (48% out of 88%), 45% have utilized social networking to read comments about the campaigns. People seem to prefer using social media if they have the option. They also are more connected to the outside world through this access to social media.

In reflecting on the next 3-5 years, mobile trends, as seen in the Mobile Politics article on ELMS, seem to be relaying the message that the participation gap will grow.

Those who are the younger generation are more up to par with current technologies, especially if they have attended college; this younger generation is learning about all the advances in society today and the need to focus on technological innovation. They are also probably more concerned about how the job market will turn out for them. Those who are 50 or over (as the Mobile Politics article explains on pg. 5) do not have as high a likelihood of following the election via their phones.  

Overall, most people seem to have access to a cell phone in America; that is not the issue. The issue the level to which people will be able to utilize their cell phones and what exactly they can do with them. Some people still have flip phones and can simply make phone calls and/or text. Others have access to all the benefits that advanced technology (in this case, cell phones) have, such as being able to utilize email, Internet, and social media at any time of the day, as well as access to various apps. The degree to which people can make use of technology will affect their every day lives, now and in the future, from learning computer skills, to communications skills and more. Everyone should have equal opportunity to benefit from the same access and technology utilization. We will need as much of these skills and experiences as we can get in the future, for our job market, economy, foreign relations, and more.