David Dunlap, who has been covering the controversy over the now-dead International Freedom Center at Ground Zero can’t resist one last glib snipe at the opponents of the IFC:
Now the question is what else in the master plan is open for revision. If ground zero is too hallowed for a freedom museum, how much longer will a performing arts center be considered appropriate? Or a million square feet of retail space? Or four office towers? Especially if one of them is named Freedom.
Just couldn’t help themselves, could they?
The case against the IFC was clear. This tries to dismiss that case — even as it won the day — as if it were nothing more than the PC orthodoxy of the families or those who disagreed with The Times. At least his viewpoint is clear.
That was in his sidebar (not labeled analysis or commentary, so I’m not sure what it was meant to be) but in his main news story, Dunlap also misses the point of the controversy. He says of the IFC:
The Freedom Center, picked for the memorial site by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, was envisioned as a living memorial in which the story of Sept. 11, 2001, would be told in the context of the worldwide struggle for freedom through the ages.
But that was just the problem. The story of 9/11 was thrown under pressure, essentially as an afterthought. The context — read: agenda — was the story; 9/11 became just the context.
