Media’s Coverage of the Deaths of Hitler and Gadhafi

by Stefano Mocella

It is not difficult to see the colossal differences between the media’s role in covering the deaths of Adolf Hitler and Moammar Gadahfi. With the deaths being 66 years apart, the first thing you would point to is the differences in technology between the two events. 

When Hitler died, initial reports were given by German radio. On May 1, the Reichssender Hamburg, a part of Deutchlandsender, announced that Hitler had commited suicide. Being that the news came out of Germany, there were a lot of doubts that it was true. Dwight Eisenhower said he had his doubts. News escaped outside of Germany due to newspapers and radio. However with the limits in technology and a lack of evidence to support it, nothing ever became 100 per cent clear. Even today, there are tons of theories and doubts as to how Hitler died. 

With Gadhafi’s death, it’s an entirely different story. This included actual video footage of Gadhafi’s body being devastated by the rebels who had killed him. News outlets showing the footage did not confirm the body being beaten, to be that of Gadhafi. They were cautious in reporting. BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera. Here is the BBC reporting on Gadhafi’s death, showing the images. The outlets described the images as gruesome, but in the same token, news outlets were reporting how the downfall of Gadhafi was a good sign for Libya. 

The video shown featuring Gadhafi’s death is obviously very graphic and there have been complaints about the footage being too graphic to be shown on TV. However this week, media regulator Ofcom ruled that the footage is not too graphic to be shown on TV. The BBC received hundreds of complaints, as did Al Jazeera, ITV News, and Sky News. The complaints were centred on the fact that the images were gruesome and were unverified pictures of Gadhafi. It makes you wonder how things would have been done had this sort of footage or information in general been available in Hitler’s case.

When discussing technology, we also must look at how people found out about Hitler’s and Gadhafi’s deaths. With Hitler, it was obviously through print and radio. In Gadhafi’s case, TV would be added to that list, but a good majority of people found out online, whether it was linking to a news site and seeing it, or finding out through social media, i.e Facebook, Twitter, etc…  The world knew within minutes that Gadhafi was killed, but with Hitler, we still aren’t sure about how he died, and even weeks after his death, there were doubts. It also took much longer for the news to reach the public because the fast technology that we have available to us today was not available in Hitler's time. It just shows how far broadcast journalism has taken the world in its coverage. 

Ultimately, the difference is that Hitler’s death affected all those involved in World War II. Gadhafi’s death mostly affected Libya and certain countries around Libya. The media in 1945 sometimes had trouble reporting without being biased, because an evil man had died and their countries were better off for it, so it’d be hard to stay objective. With Gadhafi, it’s a little easier to look at it from an outside perspective. The coverage will continue for Gadhafi and more things will happen in the Libya situation. With Hitler, you wonder if any more breakthroughs will be made, but due to the difference in technology, Gadhafi’s death will stand out in history as the death of a dictator which caught more information and visuals than any other in history.