Even now, the media aren't silent. As a topic grows stale, they move on and return to it when it's again perceived as fresh or there's enough info to warrant an update.
Same with the drought in NE S. America, ash-Shur and the IS, Ukraine, ebola, Chinese military infringement, Typhoon Pam, the drought in the American SW, etc., etc.
Just recently there was a spate of articles on Libya. Then the articles went away (mostly because they were days or weeks old) and the press went on to another issue. If something changes, they'll be back. Right now Libya is status quo, and the real issue is that people aren't (still) outraged at what happened 4 years ago.
At the time, even on DU the majority of the volume was in favor of the NATO mission in Libya. Gaddhafi's "gates of hell" line about what he'd do in Benghazi was taken as weirdly literal, even though it was boil-plate Mid-Eastern hyperbole. It didn't help that Gaddhafi had gone from being a thorn in the West's side for years to being a Bush II-appeaser when he admitted getting N. Korean aid and "repented". What he did domestically stayed the same, but Gaddhafi went from being basically beyond reproach to beyond redemption.
And with all that "Arab Spring" nonsense, hope for change or whatever, it seemed that a government that had been repressive for years could be acknowledge to be repressive just before it fell and bunnies flew and the desert bloomed with flowers. DUers who didn't like the NATO intervention in Libya had a fairly difficult time, given the binary, black/white thinking that often dominates. (I called Qaddhafi a pig long before it was fashionable to do so; and I said that while he may be a pig, he was almost certainly better than whoever or whatever would replace him, and suddenly was deemed a Qaddhafi supporter.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
