The countless news reports announcing “America Under Attack” and the photographs of firefighters covered in soot from the World Trade Center helped assemble the nation in a period of mourning after the 9/11 attacks. Journalists then had a tough decision to make: How would they convey the terrorist attacks to the public? The media could not immediately dive into serious reporting that required the asking of tough analytical questions because of the magnitude of the attacks and the fact that they were carried out on American soil. The country was in a state of confusion, shock and mourning. Journalism reacted as much to the public’s needs at the time as the public reacted to the media. From the day of the terrorist attacks to five years later, reporting evolved. What began with efforts to comfort the grief-stricken became a more critical analysis that posed questions. But did journalists take advantage of the elements of mourning and grief in their work?
Works such as Michael Feldschuh’s The September 11 Photo Project (Regan Books, 2002), published months after the attacks, were necessary in order to sympathize with the victims’ families and to create a sentiment of mourning throughout the nation. Photos of the towers being bit by planes, firefighters leading survivors out onto the sidewalk and lower Manhattan covered in debris were all a part of the healing process for Americans. Journalists sensed what the country needed at the time was to come to terms with the tragedy and begin to dry the tears the event caused. Reporters knew (call it journalistic psychic ability) that it was not the time and New York was certainly not the place to be pondering why America had been targeted or how we had let this happen. It would have been deemed insensitive to report anything deeper than just the story of what happened on the morning of 9/11. In line with the sensitivity at the time, reporters reiterated several stories of survival and heroism to shed a little light on a grim situation.
Journalism created a strong sense of community in the immediate aftermath of September 11, with headlines encouraging the nation to unite against the terrorists and never to allow another attack to take place. Unification and community were very important factors in the healing process, and journalism produced news articles and broadcasts that emphasized those themes. The September 11 Photo Project focused on rescue workers, a popular and reassuring topic. Images of grief-filled faces, the framework of what once was the World Trade Center and the war zone of lower Manhattan reminded people of a common goal: to end the evil that brought devastation to the United States. Creating a community through photo journalism helped people heal and release anger about the tragedy. The nation was in mourning, with flags flown at half mast, but the photos also portrayed that America would certainly not stay that way forever; it was strong.
American journalism, however, took full advantage of the nation’s need for healing, comfort and mourning in order to continue to produce infotainment, not information. Hours of airtime and pages of print were used to repeat many of the same stories: who was killed, who was injured, who was a hero and how many New York City emergency units responded.
This is not to denounce the tragedy or its unfortunate victims in any way, but it is sad to say that 9/11 became like a soap opera, a saga for stay-at-home moms who could cuddle up on the couch with a box of tissues for a good cry. Yes, the event was extremely shocking and sad. But if the nation was attacked by vicious terrorists, don’t Americans deserve an answer as to why such an event occurred? Do they not deserve a proper analysis when their mourning period is over?
The absence of rational debate was justified for only so long, which was recognized by media analyst Noam Chomsky in his book 9-11 (Open Media, 2001). Chomsky skillfully utilized his strongly persuasive wit in his foreign and domestic interviews, denouncing America’s claim at innocence because “in much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason.” He boldly gave examples of attacks Americans have launched on other countries to support this point. Chomsky also declared that the official definition of terrorism entails “the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious or other aims.”
There is no doubt that the United States witnessed terrorism on the morning of 9/11. The problem is that the question of why the country was attacked is rarely seriously asked by the media. The United States, as Chomsky also points out, may have reacted before thinking about the 9/11 attacks, rushing into the “war on terrorism.”
With the nation’s grieving a memory, Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn’s 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers (Times Books, 2004) was published. Dwyer and Flynn, of the New York Times, expose the disorganized rescue effort and poorly designed evacuation routes in their analysis of the event. The overall tone of the storytelling is factual and focused on the rescue efforts, or lack thereof.
It is time that America hear news about 9/11 beyond heroism and begin studying the rescue efforts and how they could have been improved. There was a definite fight for survival inside the towers, but very little or no communication whatsoever going out to those who were trapped or ready to evacuate. A report of a possibly haphazard rescue effort would have caused an uproar in 2001; it would definitely have been labeled unpatriotic. However, Dwyer and Flynn present a very important point in exploring the logistics of the rescue operation. If the fire and police departments in one of America’s largest cities could not refrain from bickering in a life-threatening situation, how were the civilians expected to behave? As it turns out, there was a lack of communication between the NYPD and the FDNY. Not only were they unequipped with the proper technology, there was never a rapport built between the two departments; in fact, they acted like a group of uncooperative children instead of leaders.
It is clear to see that rational debate over 9/11 began with questions such as the ones Chomsky raised in 9/11 and that Dwyer and Flynn posed in 102 Minutes. Reporting began to cause people to question the stories that they were told since the morning of 9/11. One of the media’s main purposes should be to raise questions and rouse discussion, making for more thorough reporting. 9/11 was such an unexpected, shocking and devastating event that journalism took another route. It was absolutely necessary, though, for some writers to finally realize what the 9/11 reporting had been missing: critical questioning. The mourning time was over; the sentiment of the country had changed.
Furthermore, if the progression of the media following 9/11 is going to be studied, it is essential to examine the diction surrounding the particular sentiments of the aftermath, as Sandra Silberstein did in her book War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11 (Routledge, 2002). The initial rhetoric surrounding 9/11 was rightfully comforting, allowing Americans to heal. President Bush’s calming speeches were compared by Silberstein to President Roosevelt’s words after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The perception they both try to create is one of necessity and urgency. For instance, Bush said of the war on terrorism: “These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.” He was, in effect, holding a war rally, similar to what Roosevelt said in 1941: “…I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. I believe I interpret the…will of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.” Storytelling after 9/11, shaped by constant news coverage, constructed a very distinctive collective identity, an enemy (“them”) and an “us”; journalism definitely responded directly to the president’s tone.
Nevertheless, the stories journalists provide in 2006, as opposed to 2001, offer more analysis of the “war on terrorism” and examine the event from less emotional angles. Time allows for more critical reporting, which means new rhetoric to create a different story. It is almost as if journalists are now covering a totally different story when reporting about 9/11 years after the attacks. It is no longer deemed insensitive or unpatriotic to examine 9/11 from a more practical angle.
After the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001, journalism went through a definite progression, from emotional to analytical. The element of mourning was carried out for too long simply because the media and Americans in general were not sure in what other way to respond to the event. In a state of shock, yet still needing to produce good stories, journalism unfortunately lost touch with its duty to foster rational debate. Reporters thought that they could not go wrong as long as they portrayed emotion, but they did so to such an exaggerated extent that they seemed to ruin the story of 9/11. An event of such magnitude deserved to be thoroughly investigated, analyzed and scrutinized. A mourning period was also necessary, but turning 9/11 into something like a television miniseries, with new characters and emotions each week, was definitely not the route to good journalism.
Andria Dunkin is a Rutgers-Newark student. Posted September 2006.
