BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Meanwhile, American media tries to act inconspicuous

26 comments on Meanwhile, American media tries to act inconspicuous

Meanwhile, American media tries to act inconspicuous
: While European media are donning tinfoil (see the post below), American media are — as I’ve complained before — trying to act as if 9.11 is something to whisper about, almost something to be ashamed about: our victimhood, our loss: Sshhhh, don’t disturb the Widow America.

Mark Steyn has a slightly different (conspiracy) theory:

Two years after ”the day America changed forever,” the culture is in thrall to the same dopey self-delusion it held on Sept. 10, 2001: There are no enemies, just friends we haven’t yet apologized to. The terrorist won’t be a problem if … we just give him a helping hand. Or, as the novelist Alice Walker proposed for Osama bin Laden, ”I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love.”

That’s why America’s TV networks have decided to sit out this week’s anniversary. On the day itself, it was all too chaotic and unprecedented for the news guys to impose any one of their limited range of templates. For the first anniversary, they were back on top of things and opted to Princess Dianafy the occasion, to make it a day of ersatz grief-mongering, with plenty of tinkly piano on the soundtrack and soft-focus features about ”healing circles.” That didn’t go down too well, so this year they’ve figured it’s easiest just to ignore it. The alternative would be to treat 9/11 as what it was — an act of war — and they don’t have the stomach for that. War presupposes enemies, and enemies means people you have to kill, or at least stop, or at the very least be ever so teensy-weensily judgmental about.

He could be right but I say that’s a media conspiracy theory that gives them too much credit for forethought. No, I think, instead, they’re simply making a (misguided) marketing decision that Americans are trying to get past 9.11 — they don’t want to be reminded.

That’s insulting and wrong.

26 responses to “Meanwhile, American media tries to act inconspicuous”

  1. Anthony Avatar
    Anthony

    Jeff, Just thought I’d pass this link along about Blog Iran (http://www.activistchat.com/blogiran/). I don’t know anything about it, but it was left in my comments and reminded me of your coverage of the struggle there.

  2. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    Hard for me to understand people not wanting to remember, people excusing the actions of those who committed murder on 9/11 or those who want to paper over that day.
    To be honest, the day after when I heard Mayor Daley in Chicago and France saying “We are all NYers/Americans.” I thought, “bullshit! for how long? A week before you got back to hating NY or America?” I wasn’t wrong, unfortunately. I think Mark Steyn said it best in his Ed in the Sun-Times you linked below.
    It’s 9/10/01 all over again. Most Americans have learned nothing and I am including the majority of the Upper West Side liberals, Madeline Not-So-Bright most of the elite who are adept at intellectualizing hate of America (they wouldn’t do the same for the KKK, but it is equivalent to loving them).
    I will be at work, a few blocks away from the WTC with a very heavy heart for those who died, and for those who choose to ignore what happened that day.

  3. Hoofin Avatar
    Hoofin

    The problem is, the thing gets jingoized beyond belief.
    I hardly believe anymore, that people into the anniversary hype have the feelings of the family in mind when they talk about what 9/11 “should” stand for.
    For sure, the 9/11 was an attack on America, but it was also a heinous act, plotted before, with a set target of victims. The Al Queda did not attack “all of us”; they attacked a set number of several thousand people—who just as well could have been any of us.
    There needs to be a separation of the War on Terrorism from the anniversary of 9/11. If we treat 9/11 as a horrible thing that, no, did not happen to “all of us” but indeed did happen to a set number of people. And the War on Terrorism ssen as its OWN thing, controversial as it can sometimes be, that continues to this day, I think that 9/11 would be a lot more bearable for the families. Some number of whom are reminded of it everyday anyway, and don’t need “anniversary commemorations”.

  4. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    “A set number of people” — Hoofin, what the hell are you talking about? I don’t have amnesia — I can remember reading reports that Bin Laden hoped to kill a whole lot more people than died that day. He thought (incorrectly) that crashing planes into the towers would cause them to fall over, which would have crushed many more buildings than were actually damaged, and have killed — I believe the estimates were — upwards of 250,000 people. And a lot more people actually worked in the Trade Center than the 3,000+/- that died — but the attack happened before a lot of people had arrived at work, and the towers didn’t fall right away so many people were able to make it out, and…. By the way, have you forgotten about the attack on the Pentagon, and the plane that was heading god-knows-where before it crashed into that field in Pennsylvania? (Some say it was intended for the White House but now we will never know)
    But leaving all that aside, to talk about the people who were killed that day as “a set number of people,” as if the terrorists had some number in mind and were going to stop at that — it is such sheer idiocy that I can’t even deal with it anymore. Christ.

  5. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Andrea brings up a good point that should never be forgotten. 9-11 was the equivalent of an atomic bomb attack. The fact that it did not kill more people than died in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was either an act of Providence or damned lucky.
    You know, you get busy with your life and things happen and, if the consequences are small, you pay it no mind and move on. It amazes me now how blase we were about the first bombing of the WTC which, had it worked, would definitely have brought the towers crashing down horizontally. Instead of according the event the gravity it deserved, we blithely dismissed it as evidence of the incompetence of our foes and the strength of our own edifices.
    What is the difference between murder and attempted murder? A death gurney versus a lengthy prison sentence with possibility of parole. Why? It makes one wonder, where would we be right now had the hijacking attempts failed? Still in our insulated little world, sneering at the terrorists and whistling past the graveyard?

  6. MommaBear Avatar
    MommaBear

    Somehow, those in charge of major media outlets all seem to come from the same cloth: pretty damn weak and sleasy cloth. They appear to have mush for brains, mush for hearts, mush for souls, and no guts at all.

  7. Choire Avatar
    Choire

    Well, which media outlets are you talking about? Every newspaper and magazine I’ve read today and this weekend (okay, except Teen People) has had extensive materials on September 11th, 2001 — and the reason they’re not covering it more is because there Is No Story beyond what they have. People: still grieving. Towers: still not rebuilt. A new videotape, strangely just emerging two years later, and stories about survivors. The end.
    Any other stories are human interest, speculation about upcoming terrorist attacks or about the Bush administration’s incredibly expensive foreign policy plan. So what are we missing?

  8. Choire Avatar
    Choire

    And I’m not sure I want my media outlets to speak in “loud anger and proud memory.” I’d rather they speak more like journalists, and let their subjects express what they express.

  9. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Choire:
    First, there are plenty of new stories about September 11 (try a start here). It takes a little journalistic imagination and the ability to listen to what people are saying to see those stories.
    Second, what, you don’t want journalism with a voice? Gee, then maybe Gawker isn’t the thing for you, mate. It’s all voice, no?

  10. Hoofin Avatar
    Hoofin

    Wow, you won’t find me posting here again.
    The point I was making totally blew right past you.
    I never said that Al Queda would simply look to hit a fixed number of people and that was that.
    What I said was that Al Queda had a set target in mind (four structures, actually, that was right. I think nearly everyone has concluded that the fourth target was either the White House or the Capitol.)
    Yet everyone acts like the plane was headed right at them that day. Figuratively, maybe yes. In reality, no.
    So when people go running around saying “we were all attacked on 9/11!”, I don’t think that that is exactly true. I don’t think that is very fair to the people who actually lost loved ones in the real attack. It is not the same loss, as this “figurative attack” that is becoming part of American culture. “The Day America Changed!”—how much has really changed?
    Sure, it’s time for everyone to rally round, because there are nut cases who will commandeer our powerful instruments of modern technology to kill people and wreak havoc. But I think people going around saying how “we were all attacked on 9/11!” is a little cruel to the families whose loved ones:
    did not come home to watch the countless reruns on television,
    and get to drive around in their SUV with the plastic flag attached to the antenna for the next several months.
    How the media treats 9/11 should foremost consider the feelings of the people who truly suffered loss that day. Not be jingoistic entertainment for the masses. They had a loss; you did not. You were lucky.
    So, yes, now we go after the terrorists—not perfectly, but with some concerted effort. Again, this is mainly a ritual where some very small set of families (the military ones) suffer the tragic losses. Others drive around in their military-style vehicles in the Homeland and bitch about how the price of gasoline hasn’t come down since the war ended. (“If it stays at 2 bucks a gallon, doesn’t it mean the terrorists won???”)
    Now, to the physics specialist there, I think you have things wrong.
    I am not one myself, but:
    The planes hitting into the World Trade Center was not “the equivalent of an atomic bomb.” The energy released by the “pancake” of the towers collapsing is estimated to be the equivalent of 1/16 the energy of the Hiroshima blast. The energy was contained in the building itself: you had a structure 1/4 mile higher than the Earth. Anything that would affect its stability would in almost all cases release that energy and send the building straight down.
    (There was only one way for it to go: down. The center of gravity of both structures would not allow them to fall ANY other way, just by the impact of a plane. Down is the direction, not sideways. I think that was Newton or da Vinci.)
    I think the traditional media, for all their flaws, would do a disservice to the families and to the country, if they do not distinguish between the people who really suffered that day, and everyone else, who pretty much did not.
    We are all patriotic, but unlike World War II, this pretty much seems like a “war” (like Vietnam in some ways), where a specific number of people get to make the ultimate sacrifice, and everyone else makes no sacrifices. And get to sit around and debate about it while those sacrifices go on.

  11. Hoofin Avatar
    Hoofin

    Hoofin,
    Yeah it is a lot like Pearl Harbor (ask anyone who went through that day) as it did feel like it happened to them. Even more so on 9/11 because it you were me, you were waiting for friends and husbands to make it home or not. During the initial chaos when we didn’t know what was going on it was frightening. How many planes were out there? There was one unaccounted for around PA. My dad never felt that on 12/7/41.
    It is nothing like Vietnam. Besides the war itself being nothing like it, the soldiers were drafted. Now they are volunteers. Big differeces.
    We marched into Paris in the fall of 1944 thinking the Germans were through…then came the Battle of the Bulge in December where we lost 4000 US servicemen in a month (something to think about) and 20K to frostbite where sometimes feet were removed. Servicemen were upset and continued to be that while America and Europe celbrated victory, they were still being killed, still living a life of a soldier in combat. They resented it bitterly. WW2 was not all gung ho “gee whiz” moments of patriotism.
    Thanks for the other round of intellectualizing 9/11 and too bad you can’t take it like you dish it out. God forbid you listen to someone else and may alter your opinion after doing so.

  12. Hoofin Avatar
    Hoofin

    Well, whoever you are, posting as ME (10:02 am):
    I guess I would not need the company of this board after all, since I could just have the debate myself.

  13. Infidel Avatar
    Infidel

    Hoofin, the person impersonating you was “Catherine,” author of the earlier string of jingoist non sequiturs posted at 12:12 am.
    I can understand your reluctance to post here again. Even the host – a smart guy – has fallen into the link-me-Glenn camp of keyboard warriors bravely denouncing ANY deviation from the party line as “anti-American,” a term with no remaining bite.
    Approving links to that servile sack of shit Mark Steyn should offer a clue: discussion is the last thing going on. Just a long and monotonous game in which each player tries to see how much more gravitas can be plucked from 9/11 before it melts entirely away.

  14. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Hoofin – Why do you willfully misread my post? I made no mention of energy release or explosive power. I was referring to an estimate of 250,000 potential dead if the towers had toppled. That is way more than died in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
    Get it?

  15. M. Simon Avatar
    M. Simon

    Killing jihadists (as Jefferson called them) in Iraq is enough 9/11 gravitas for me.
    Apparently though it is so much gravitas for some that the weight makes it hard to breath.

  16. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    Oops – I can’t believe I put Hoofin’s name where my name should be. Sorry about that. Yes, it was me, Catherine posting, and that was an accident and unintentional.
    Thanks for the compliment Infidel! HUGS!

  17. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Oh, and I just reread his dumb post. Hoofin, you do not know where the center of gravity of each floor was. If they were all misplaced from the center of the building in the same direction, you would assuredly get a torque which could topple the building on its side. Stick to what you know.

  18. hoofin Avatar
    hoofin

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
    NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?
    Eagar: It’s really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don’t realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.
    Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, “How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?” They said, “Oh, it’s really how you time and place the explosives.” I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that’s not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there’s no other way for them to go but down. They’re too big. With anything that massive — each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons — there’s nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

  19. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Hoofin – he is assuming that the center of gravity was directly over the center the load bearing members which were symmetrically placed 100 feet away. If the structural members on one side had been weakened by impact and fire and collapsed while the other side remained standing, you’d then have gotten your cg offset that could start a “chain reaction” that would have devastated much more area below.
    Kind of like when you chop down a tree, you first cut a notch in the trunk. This moves the cg of the upper portion beyond the load bearing portion that you left standing, and the tree buckles and comes down.
    I’m not suggesting the entire length of the WTC would have fallen this way. That would require the “notch” to be farther down. But, given the population density in that area, it would not have taken much to ratchet up the casualty numbers significantly.

  20. Infidel Avatar
    Infidel

    Killing jihadists (as Jefferson called them) in Iraq is enough 9/11 gravitas for me.
    LOL! Non sequitur of the week!

  21. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Oh, and, the notch could have been lower had the jihadis chosen to make it so. That would also change the characteristics of how long it took to collapse and so forth, too but, you get the idea. There were all kinds of random events that could have made the devastation much worse (I started to mention a few but, I don’t want to give anyone ideas).

  22. hoofin Avatar
    hoofin

    Galileo

  23. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Excuse me? Are you making a point? Are you prepared to argue that trees do not fall sideways on the basis of what little you understand of basic physics?

  24. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    The list of subjects that Hoofin (and his sycophant-troll “Infidel”) do not understand seems to be considerably larger than just basic physics. For instance, he does not seem to know how to read a paragraph — the point I made has nothing to do with what actually happened to the buildings, but what Bin Laden and his cronies hoped would happen — they had no idea that the things would fall more or less straight down — and he also seems quite unable (or unwilling) to face up to certain assertions that the terrorists and their many fans have made, the main one of which was that yes, the attacks on the “four targets” was meant to be an attack on all Americans. If these hate-soaked beings could have figured out a way to kill every man, woman and child in America (and I doubt they would have stopped at the Mexican and Canadian borders) then they would have. But gosh darn it, they had to settle for a few thousand.
    But it obviously doesn’t matter to Hoofin or Infidel — they obviously couldn’t give a shit, those people who died were and are not real to them. I’ll bet they are the types who go around referring to “average” Americans as “mundanes.”

  25. Jery Avatar
    Jery

    Regardless of what Incontinent says above — I think it was Incontinent but I’m too busy to look it up — Mark Styn is one of the brightest guys writing today. Funny, biting, just all-around terrific.

  26. hoofin Avatar
    hoofin

    Wow, you people are particularly vicious, just as someone had said before.
    You can lose a point with grace, and move on. I didn’t know you expected me to point out that a tree is a solid, so the center of gravity is in a much different location (higher up) than a 1/4 mile tall building, which is mostly air.
    No source, but I remember reading that intelligence reports claimed that the attack planners did not expect the building to collapse–the attack was to fly the planes in and cause havoc, not to have the building pancake.
    I think Seven World Trade Center was the first skyscraper in history to be destroyed (collapse) by ordinary fire. It is likely that no one had considered the possibility before September 11, 2001 . . .
    Now to Andrea’s comments, which I believe would land her in Superior Court on a well-founded libel accusation (you have a seriously bad habit, lady, if that’s a habit): I believe that I feel worse about the deaths of 9/11 than you do–because I take the feelings of those who suffered genuine loss seriously. As opposed to any number of you, who see tomorrow as a day to politic. And use other people’s misfortunes for some online armchair debate about how the other people out there are not as “patriotic” as you allege to be.