The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Don’t call us victims
: Glenn Reynolds stands back and notes the real issue with 9.11 anniversary coverage — it’s not about how much coverage but it’s how we’re portrayed: The hushed tones are turning us into victims of an attack, not combatants in a war. But we are at war.
… the coverage so far does seem to be in the
That’s right, blame it all on the media! What about a President that refuses to take the fight where it belongs? Where’s Osama?
So, Diana, does that mean we should invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Jeez, and I thought I was a hawk!
I don’t know, I think there’s a middle ground. My reaction to the attacks is to still be inclined towards grief and remembrance, both quiet emotions. But they’re not about being a victim, it’s about focusing more on the ~2800 people we lost instead of the 19 hijackers. When I visited the site, I didn’t get angry (though obviously, i’ve been angry about many parts of the whole situation over the past 2 years) because I was too focused on grieving for the people we lost there.
Despite what Glenn says, honoring those we lost is an appropriate and important way to remember the day. We can spend the other 364 days of the year revelling in war. Whatever stigma you want to attach to the word “victim”, the reality is that thousands of people were killed, and proud memory does not require loud anger.
I understand that’s been your reaction, but why would you want to enforce that mode of remembrance on those of us who might honor these people differently?
My view is that the appropriate mood should be to remember the horror of seeing those towers fall, and realizing that those tiny objects we thought were debris were _people_. Then we should steel our resolve to avenge the deaths of those who died, not in mourning and blaming, but in remembering, despite all the blame being peddled by the Dems, that we have stopped being victims for the likes of bin Laden and Saddam. That we have more in common with the NYFD and the heroes on Flight 93 than with our last Dem president who treated the first bombing at the WTC as a criminal case and offered limp excuses for allowing bin Laden to attack us again and again and again, without ever acknowledging that they were all acts of war.
We need resolve now more than ever, because without it, we’ll prove bin Laden’s assessment of our character to be true.
Anil:
You are absolutely right: Reverent memory of the dead is the first order of the day.
But what I am reacting to and what I think Glenn is reacting to is the hushed tone that comes when we talk about victims in this age of victimization. I do not want to see us treat ourselves as nothing but victims. This is similar to the ongoing discussion in the Jewish community after the Holocaust: not wanting to portray Judaism as a culture of victimhood. I fear that the media treatment I’m seeing this year — hushed, uncomfortable, walking away — approaches that and I’m responding to that.
-j
Not even so much the hushed tone, which I think is appropriate when focusing attention on those who died (as opposed to the significance of the attack that killed them), as the complete washing away of any recognition that it *was* an attack, that these people didn’t die in a natural disaster or engineering accident, that they were murdered.
And more than that, that they were murdered as a means to attack this country.
To identify those who died exclusively as “victims” is to wipe out that context and to give the deaths a new context that is more comforting, less demanding of action. The general media [present company excepted] may be uncomfortable with the implications of that context – and therefore ignore it and do the best to make the rest of us forget it – but they ought not to be able to get away with doing that, discomfort or no discomfort.
This is a bit rambly. I’ve been thinking about this, and the problem is clear to me emotionally, but I’m having some trouble verbalizing it clearly.
i got a lot of negative comments for linking 9/11 to the war at my own site
http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946/2003/08/28.html#a746
Quite right. I am so tired of this mewling, pettifoggery that passes for enlightened argument from the establishment opinionmakers. I am sick up to my eyeballs with the inveterate wimpishness and mawkish moaning of the media. George Patton must be spinning in his grave.
But why won’t the Bush Administration allow the Saudi records to be released? We’re slowly pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia (perhaps a tacit admission they never should have been there?) whose presence may very well have helped feed bin Laden’s psychotic hatred of the west.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it leads me to conclude we feel we cannot go without Saudi oil, so we’re willing to remain allied with a regime that many believe spawns and then turns a blind eye to terrorists dedicated to the destruction of the U.S.
How many Americans are truly willing to make the sacrifice of no Saudi oil? President Bush has never asked us to sacrifice anything in this war. It seems to me we’re weak as a people. And as an earlier poster noted, only weak people are victims.
IMT,
It’s not that we’re hooked on Saudi oil. It’s that Saudi production capacity is so high that it winds up being a swing producer – singlehandedly able to manipulate the supply to raise or lower the global price. They’ve kept the price stable – something all economies everywhere love – but could just as easily send the price soaring. That’s the power they have that everyone fears…
So, I’m unaware of any sacrifice can be made to remedy this situation. War in the Holy Land? Oh please, not that.
Jonas:
Of course the Saudis control enough of the oil supply to affect price. But I don’t see our alliance with them as a case of Real Politik as during the cold war or WW II because the Saudis don’t have the power to destroy us.
There ARE sacrifices we could at least begin to talk about making. They include all the standard things; energy conservation, alternative energy sources, greater exploitation of our own conventional resources, legislation and tax policy designed to encourage energy efficiency and independence.
Instead, what has our leadership offered? War (right next door to the Holy Land), tax cuts to encourage ever more consumption, massive deficits that will eventually weaken our ability to defend ourselves, deteriorating relationships with stable western or western-style democracies that know a thing or two about dealing with terrorism.
The war on terrorism is real. It needs to be fought by all of us, not just the 0.5% of the population that happens to be in the military. It’s my opinion that our leaders feel we are too weak as a people to make actual sacrifices.
I am a little late for this thread, but I do see the people who died on 9/11 as victims and not as “heroes” or “war dead” or something else.
When anyone flies a plane into you at 600 mph (or you are on that plane), you are a victim. When you suffocate or burn to death on top of a giant building because you can’t get down it, you are a victim. When tons of material come crashing down on you becuase a fire destablizes a building, you are a victim.
The problem is not “the culture of victimhood”–it is the fact that no one seems to be able to recognize the real victims anymore from those for whom it is “just another tricky day”.
I don’t know for sure, but I would BET that any number of 9-11 families who certainly very much miss their deceased relatives would be quite amenable to quiet anniversaries of 9-11. I don’t think media hype is appropriate.
Very little is done with the thought of the people who suffered the true loss that day. A lot is done based on what OTHER people feel SHOULD be going on on the anniversary day.