The Guardian, and a few other outfits in global media sold its readership very hard on the "Gadhafi killing his own people" fallacy to enable Islamist gangs to plunder and maim and kill and ruin the societal fabric of Libya (and a few southern neighbors). Since then, Libya is a wasteland, its inhabitants enslaved as a whole (as opposed to the few political (read Islamists) prisoners' under the Gadhafi dictatorship),…
I agree with you "western" (let's say democratic instead) medias are very biased. I live in Hong Kong and I couldn't believe what I was reading in british media about our "oppression" while kids were breaking the pavement down my road and doing V for vendetta graffiti under the cries of "Fuck the Popo".
But all in all, it's fine, to be honest. We don't ask media to be without bias, but to be clear about them. We know somewhat the editorial position of the Guardian, they're one opinion amongst many.
What turn countries into rubbles, is when people can't understand who's telling them what. Facebook is too blurry, you don't know if it's your sister, a CIA agent or a FSB one talking to you about a solution to a problem. People get angry in closed networks, that echo and echo until they feel the entire population think the same way. And you can't really calm them down with deep and complex analysis because while anger is easy to spread with a quick BS meme, calming down people requires focus, dual way communication and effort on every side.
That's what happened to HK at a small scale, a sort of irrational mass anger, but that's not what happened in Lybia. Simply because in Lybia, people weren't the richest most powerful people on the planet. They tried the last resort solution, they won somewhat, now after the destruction they have to rebuild and they're learning it's way harder. We've all been through these phases, no need to argue the Guardian caused it :) I'd be partial to Facebook though :D