After decades of official and archaic journalism, the Arab people could enjoy breeze of liberty of expression through satellite channels born thanks to petro-dollars.

These channels particularly Al Jazeera could pretend to be an opinion leader in an Arab world longing to see and to hear something different than fake glories attributed to their revered and lasting leaders while the Arab land was stolen, occupied and the people humiliated.

Al Jazeera became the voice of voiceless and enjoyed a great amount of credibility.

This credibility was the pillar upon which the Qatari channel relied to contribute in the 2011 revolutions.

Al Jazeera was the first to report Bouazizi self-immolation at the very beginning of the Tunisian revolution. And despite the absence of a bureau in Tunisia, we could see a fantastic coverage with just phone calls, amateur videos and above all that, a credible information.

However and for some reasons, soon after the beginning of the Libyan revolution if we may call it this way, we could witness a shift in the way of approaching the will of change.

For AL Jazeera, the intervention of NATO was taken as granted and not enough questioned. By miracle, French president Nicolas Sarkozy along with British PM David Cameron became the protectors of the slain Libyan people.

The terminology also changed, NATO strikes became operations, civilian victims were only those who live in Benghazi, and Misrata called the Arab Stalingrad.

As a journalist, I still remember the pictures provided by both Associated Press and Reuters of a NATO strike against Tripoli.

We could see damaged buildings and some hospital scenes showing injured children screaming of pain and grieving parents. Despite being a client of AP and Reuters, Al Jazeera chose to report the Tripoli strike quoting the Libyan government whereas the pictures were available.

For nearly 24 hours Al Jazeera scrollbar was still quoting the Libyan government without a single picture of the strike. The following day, we could see some pictures showing slight damage on a building but no picture of the casualties filmed by Reuters and Associated Press.

The question deserving to be asked in this regard is: Are Benghazi children more valuable than those of Tripoli?

Or just because it suits everybody to demonize the Gaddhafi fighters whereas the NATO civilian casualties should not be reported since its mission as defined by the UN Security Council was the protection of Libyan civilians.

Another legitimate question: Now that Gaddhafi regime has been toppled, why doesn’t Al Jazeera lengthily report the daily fighting occurring in Tripoli and other Libyan cities between the rebels.

Again it suits everybody not to talk about such disturbing issues.

The point is to praise the success of the revolution and the new era under the auspices of NATO and Nicolas Sarkozy.

NATO TV present in Libya turned to be like any channel, reporting light stories such as tourism and sports. But no word on the schools transformed into torture centres where people are arbitrarily detained and tortured. No word on Libyan and foreign women being abducted. Not a single picture of the militias daily fighting and if ever we get any, these pictures are filtered as it is the case with the pictures of Afghanistan attacks.

In the new Libya, why don't we see this army of foreign reporters we used to see when Gaddhafi was still in power?

Why don't we remind our readers and viewers that Saif el Islam is still in the hands of Zentan militia which refuses to hand him over to the NTC. Why don't we talk about the confiscation of houses by the rebels under the pretext that they may have belonged to Gaddhafi allies.

Has any Arab or foreign reporter talked about all that?

Why didn't we try to follow up the pullout of MSF doctors from Libyan prisons because they ended up treating prisoners and preparing them for interrogation and torture. Sic

No body mentions that the Western powers still hold 200 billion dollars frozen during the revolution.

Oddly, the NTC cannot afford to provide treatment for Libyans injured during the war. It is begging Western countries to unfreeze just one or two billion dollars to do it.

Note, we are talking about Libyan assets.   In the post-Gaddhafi Libya, the security situation is very precarious because of the 30 thousand fighters enrolled in the 55 armed militias present in the country. With one exception: Oil facilities.

Haven't we seen anything on that?

Where are the amateur videos so that Al Jazeera and other media could air them?

Syria and Bahrain are other examples of how information is processed in Arab channels such as al Jazeera and Al Arabiya.

While in the case of Bahrain, the demos staged in the tiny Gulf island are either ignored or minimized, we could say that Syria became an obsession for these satellites channels. Not to mention the number of amateur videos and reports that proved to be fake.

I still remember one sent by Reuters in April 2011, we could see 2 men being violently beaten. According to the script, these men were supposed to be Syrian activists attacked by the so-called Shabbiha or pro-Assad unofficial fighters.

Two days later, Reuters sent an apology asking to drop this video because it was shot in LEBANON in May 2008 when the country way on the verge of a civil war. The video showed pro-Hezbollah activists beating Hariri supporters or vice-versa.

And as long as there is no difference between the Syrian and Lebanese landscapes, one can claim whatever he wants.

Many channels aired these picture but fewer made the rectification. Again, it suits everybody not to do it.

For many years, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nassrallah speeches were systematically aired by al-Jazeera but not any more.

Why? It's all about this "bloody Shia crescent"