Change in Libya, change in media

Judging by changes in the tone and language of coverage, I sense the media is backing away from the Libyan rebels. When the tide of battle turned not long ago, the coverage was breathlessly supportive of their cause. But now the rebels have power and the remaining fight has only the Gadhafi manhunt and a few stalemates with Gadhafi loyalists in various municipalities. The waning enthusiasm in part flows naturally from the press tiring of the story line. But there's more to it: The rebels are no longer a single-cause fighting force. Now they are emerging as a diverse set of forces with different agendas and identities. This defies the simplistic narrative that most journalists need. For example: The rescue of trapped miners makes a good story. The miners dealing with the trauma, depression, and anxiety in the aftermath is a hard story. The former gets tons of coverage; the latter, little to none. Aside from the media's preference for simple narratives, they now see that the new Libyan leadership may turn out no better than Gadhafi, and this would reveal how truly uncritical the coverage of this conflict was.

Another transcript

The New York Times piece Huntsman Warns That GOP Can't Win the White House by Denying Climate Science offers only a summarized transcript of environment-related content spoken during last night's Republican debate. This pointless article quotes a bold assertion by Huntsman, then makes no attempt at verifying his figure. Unbelievable. Here is the only authentic moment from the debate--a potentially historically significant moment in the evolution of the GOP--starring Huntsman and left alone by the NYT:

When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 climate scientists, to call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science ... By making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off.