The Story of Qaddafi's Death

The day of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi's death in Libya was one in which the internet lit up with stories. From Libyan citizens and rebel supporters scrawling fervent bulletins on their Facebook pages to international reporters and media outlets scrambling to compile and broadcast all the information they could gather, it was a state of mania in which no one could really understand what had happened. There was so much to hear about Qaddafi's death, yet very little to learn; after reading the umpteenth rumor about the events and circumstances surrounding the Libyan dictator's demise, the only thing I knew was that I didn't really know anything. But no one did, the truth was lost in the frenzied celebration surrounding Qaddafi's corpse (literally).
In this particular New York Times article, which is seemingly meant to be a factual piece detailing Qaddafi's death, the only truth is obtained from the writer's analysis of a shaky, low-resolution video taken from an unidentified person's cellphone shortly before Qaddafi was officially pronounced dead. Nearly every other piece of information put in the article is preceded or followed by phrases such as "was said to," "claimed to have been," and, my personal favorite, "by all accounts." As a side note, if a piece of information you're putting in your story is supported "by all accounts" and yet you're still unsure of it, maybe you should rethink some of the (plentiful) information you're including that is supported by only one account.

As we are well into our unit on storytelling in class, this story - and this article in particular - fascinated me greatly. We are witnessing historical events unfold before our eyes, and the amount of influence these storytellers are having upon our knowledge of these events is surprising. It seems it's true that "history is written by the victors," for, as of now, the most substantial information we have about Qaddafi's death has been given to us by Libyan rebels, some of whom supposedly shot Qaddafi themselves. We are hearing stories which undoubtedly have extreme anti-Qaddafi partiality, often intended to glorify the storytellers and always lacking sympathy for the opposition. It is because of this that it is very difficult to learn the truth about what happened, and it may be a while after the dust settles before we can be sure of anything. Unlike the textbook passages we analyzed in-class, in which the authors showed their own partiality in their depictions of historical events, we are being given a biased story of these events long before the textbook writers have any chance to get their hands on the story themselves.
What do you think? How much is this story being influenced by those who are telling it? How will people look at this story five years from now?