The media blitz needs to STOP NOW!! [Archive]

Glimmerglass

Sep. 13, 2001, 03:55 PM

>> I read a quote from a well-known news photographer (Reuters, I think) who took some photos of people jumping from the windows of the WTC. He said he hesitated at first, unsure of whether he should take such photos... but then decided he was in position to record the events for history, and pressed the shutter <<

Erin, I'm glad you posted this comment but not for the response given by the photographer. For myself I feel that such images are not for public consumption whatsoever.

Its repugnant to see images such as those captured by some idiot photographer, scanned into electronic form, posted on the new agency's web site and then quickly traded about on people's pc's in some macabre spectacle. There is no benefit at all for human kind to see that. Capturing the last moments of another human being, dying without any dignity and in, without question, one of the most horrifying ways is not news.

If such was true then why not open the gates of human depravity and show nightly on the news not just the sheet that covers the body at a crash site but the blood and guts too. Under the same warped logic that too would be a record for posterity.

Reuters, AP, and the other agencies who have engaged in this modern "journalism" should be sued by the loved ones for additional pain and suffering.

Houdini

Sep. 13, 2001, 04:02 PM

I would not want to open the paper and see a picture of someone I love falling to their death. I agree that it makes for an emotional picture. Perhaps I wouldn't be so upset if it wasn't such an up close and personal shot. In this tradgedy I don't think it is necessary to shock people into understanding what a horrific event this was. I think what we need from the media is to be kept informed of political actions and of survivors being found and of the investigation. We all understand the horrific nature involved. We need images of hope not images of horror.

>>>"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken"<<<

lilblackhorse

Sep. 13, 2001, 04:12 PM

but I do. I think that having all the networks, plus the myriad of other stations all broadcasting essentially from dawn to midnight is too much, at least now that things have settled down a bit. The newscasters are all vamping essentially, filling up the airwaves with the same stuff over and over again, from a different angle--even the government officials are saying some stupid stuff that just makes we want to say "well, duh"...ie "we have found x amount of people involved, but I am sure there will be more"...how much of this stuff do we need to hear until there is concrete news? Iam sorry if this ruffles feathers, but I truly think this whole situation was a wake up call to the US-We are the all powerful nation that for some reason thinks that nothing bad will ever happen on it's soil, or that because we are so powerful, that noone will dare touch us. It scares me to death, since there a lot of countries out there that hate Americans and America for what it stands for-I see this situation as a very large religious war, which frightens me even more. Listening to GW tonite saying that the whole purpose of his presidency is now to get even and exact retribution for this is the scariest thing...Pakistan has nuclear weapons for god sake....do we really want to just grab a big stick and go waving it around so soon because we are so awe struck that something so horrible could strike the US? I am very patriotic, I grew up on military bases, and my father spent most of my younger years fighting for nothing in VietNam. I would like some of this incidiary rhetoric to slow down instead of whipping a saddened nation into anger and retribution. JMHO, and you can just flame away....I think that all along the US should have been far more strict on airplane security...why now do we suddenly worry about our water supplies....are they any more in danger than they were two days ago??? We really need to think of this stuff all the time...the pessimist in me for sure, but the "what if's"...you can never be too sure or too paranoid...we are so dependent on technology something like this was bound to happen-hell, even here in the middle of nowhere, life comes to a standstill when one measly fibreoptic line gets cut and long distance is out...think about it. I just don't want GW rushing us into a war that will really incite the whole Muslim/Islamic world....it would be a sad day for the US and for the world. Think about it.
praying here for pacifism...

OlmosHeaven

Sep. 13, 2001, 04:16 PM

I'm not always proud of the type of journalism that's presented on the broadcast media and in newspapers and magazines these days. The revelations of President Clinton's extracurricular activities are a far cry from the self-imposed silence by the press about John F. Kennedy's activities.

But the turn toward the sensational, the tacky, the expose, the gossipy revelation of dirty secrets, etc., has followed the change of public mores and morals in modern society. When I was a teen-ager, girls didn't proudly carry their out-of-wedlock pregnancies to term in full view of their high school chums. Movies didn't show frontal female and male nudity (at least, not in this country). Drivers didn't flip off somebody who cut in front of them, much less take out a gun and blast away.

The public's insatiable appetite for the sensational and even the gory -- look at the movies that top the box office charts most weeks -- follows the loosening of public morals. And I don't necessarily mean sexual. We applaud rude behavior, we intrude on other people's space with boomboxes and cigarette smoke, our impatience shows that we believe we are more important than the next person.

I'm not advocating a return to the prim '50s and I think a presidential candidate should be judged on his personal conduct as part of the overall package. But I would like to see a return of the cold shoulder, the social snub, the sense of shame, the refusal to read about someone else's dirty laundry. Until enough people say enough, the media will continue to give the public what the box office, the circulation figures, the overnight Nielsens continue to say what the public wants.

Brookes

Sep. 13, 2001, 04:38 PM

Many folks don't have access to the news at all times. Therefore the repetitive nature of what is being shown can be viewed by all.

By all means when you've "had enough" go out for a walk and enjoy the day or whatever relaxes you. This is simply another one of our great freedoms at work, freedom of the press.

I also would like to see a return to "morality". I'm amazed by what I see and hear people doing and saying. This kind of reminds me of the thread where everyone was talking about "being common".

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!

dogchushu

Sep. 13, 2001, 04:45 PM

I'm kind of torn on this. On the one hand, I get a bit tired of hearing the same things over and over again. On the other hand, I keep checking new sites during the day and obsessively listening to the radio to find out if there have been any new developments.

Honestly, I don't know what the major networks would show now. I know that coverage isn't on many cable channels and occassionally I'll flip through the dial to see what else is on. But it all seems so darn trivial that I just can't watch it. As someone working in the advertising/marketing field, I know I wouldn't want my ads to run at this time anyway (it's more than a bit tacky), so they may be postponing "paid for" shows until it seems more appropriate.

I do agree that broadcasting every bomb threat of dubious credibility is ridiculous. But so many rumours are flying around, I wonder if the news organizations can separate fact from fiction right now.

Kryswyn

Sep. 13, 2001, 05:50 PM

I don't have TV or cable or satellite.

I've seen only a few hours of TV news since this began at a friend's home that night. The rest of my images of this tragedy come from the photos posted on the web. They are pale in comparison to the TV images shown Tuesday night.

As horrifying as some of them are, the TV pictures are worse. I am not someone who enjoys people's pain; I've asked reporters to move on at the funeral of a well-known, respected family friend. The point being that the funeral was news, not my grief.

But the picture of a person leaping to their death rather than burn or be crushed is a dramatic moment and yes, it is news.

God forbid it takes years to track down those responsible, but if it does, the pictures that are so terrible now will remind us of what we felt when it comes time to deliver justice.

~Kryswyn~
"Always look on the bright side of life, de doo, de doo de doo de doo"

Sep. 13, 2001, 06:00 PM

I actually love the fact that when I want/need to hear more, I can get it instantaneously. When I need a break, that's what Animal Planet's Funniest Animal Video's are for! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

havaklu

Sep. 13, 2001, 06:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Houdini:
I would not want to open the paper and see a picture of someone I love falling to their death. I agree that it makes for an emotional picture. Perhaps I wouldn't be so upset if it wasn't such an up close and personal shot. In this tradgedy I don't think it is necessary to shock people into understanding what a horrific event this was. I think what we need from the media is to be kept informed of political actions and of survivors being found and of the investigation. We all understand the horrific nature involved. We need images of hope not images of horror.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Up close - personal shots to capture the "horror" of a historic event are nothing new.

I would rather see a picture of something real taken by a photographer trying to capture history and/or evoke emotion than any airbrushed 14 year old fashion model on the cover of Vogue.

Here is a link to what are considered to be the "pictures of the milenium" from Life Magazine covers. Many of them depict graphic real life violence. Most of these photographers won awards for their work.

Life Magazaine - Best Covers (http://www.lifemag.com/Life/millennium/photos/alfred.html)

Cactuskate

Sep. 13, 2001, 06:45 PM

Remember many of us are not that close to the reality of the event. Yes it is our country that has been attacked. But I quite frankly have only been to NYC once, and the first place we went was at 2:00am and drove by the twin towers. My Secret Service friend I was visiting at the time did the tour. So this media coverage and this BB seem to be my best link to the emotions and the reality of it all.

If the media coverage gets too much for me, I use that lovely remote and surf for something else. However, old reruns of Frasier and Friends just pale to all of this.

I think ABC has done a particularly good job so far of NOT sensationalizing the events. Who knows what they will find to cover as time goes on. It seems when the "news" value dies down, is when they get carried away.

Meanwhile I shall return to my chair and watch on. Maybe I will get to see that wonderful picture of the exhausted worker and his wonderful dog.

And you know I haven't gotten the least bit tired of hearing the National Anthem or the Star Spangled Banner either.

"The older I get, the better I used to be, but who the heck cares!"

Palisades

Sep. 13, 2001, 07:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Houdini:
We all understand the horrific nature involved. We need images of hope not images of horror.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a (amateur) photographer, I have to disagree on this one... photographs should portray the truth in the situation, and therefore allow us to pick out whatever part we most need/want to see. The camera doesn't lie, and images of horror can be just as meaningful as those of hope.

That said, I have not seen the photograph in question, and I agree that it sounds at least somewhat insensitive, if not downright cruel, to display it in the media.

Trixie

Sep. 13, 2001, 07:40 PM

As a member of the media... I feel obligated to tell you that anything that anyone ever says can and will be used to the fullest extent that it can, even if it's out of context.

As a photographer, today I stuck to the policemen, flags, and flowers outside the Washington Monument. Our paper doesn't have the manpower to send me to NY, but if I was there, yes, I would shoot the jumpers, not to be insensitive in any way, but because that's history, and that's the way it is. It sucks, but people want the news.

I am not defending my profession, but without it, the citizens of the US would not know what's going on at all. You can't over-publicize this in the first week. It's just too big, and too well-watched. It's not even just about the reporters. We don't cover stories that don't get read. If you're tired of hearing about it, I suggest getting a book, because this is not going away any time soon.

*donning flame suit*

Velvet

Sep. 13, 2001, 07:51 PM

Olmosheaven-I keep wondering if it's the tail wagging the dog, though. Don't you wonder, too? Is it us just being passive and accepting it? Or is it us really "wanting" it?

lilblackhorse- /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I'm shocked, too!

To everyone else, I think that part of my problem is the replaying of the crash images over, and over, and over. If I just want to watch the news for a minute to catch up, I'll get those images replayed five times in a half hour on some channels.

I have turned off the TV, but to me it just seems like there are no other options that are being presented other than a book, and I also have a difficult time focsing on one.

The reason I started this topic was just because it does seem to me like just plain too much...and that they don't know when to stop. Last nights television moved a bit more away from it, tonight we're right back into the thick of it. I just wish they'd get a bit of distance, show some respect, and repeat things that are more helpful and a bit less harmful to the American psyche.

One thing that I saw that made me feel sad, proud (of the U.S.) and amazed was in London, at the changing of the guard when they played our national anthem.

Canter

Sep. 13, 2001, 08:02 PM

That's funny ... I was about to say, if it wasn't for the media overload, I would never have seen that touching display of unity at Buckingham's changing of the guards. And for moments like that, I am truly grateful for the kind of broad coverage and new technology that our journalists provide.

Velvet

Sep. 13, 2001, 08:15 PM

Maybe what they should be doing is moving towards more of that sort of coverage, and away from those constant replays of the towers and the Pentagon?

Jennasis

Sep. 14, 2001, 05:01 AM

NONE of you work in television news. NONE of you know...or could ever begin to know, the kind of trauma the reporters, photographers, and camermen have experienced in this tragedy. For that matter, NONE of those air-headed talentless anchor people, or station managers that get to hide behind the safety of the news desk have any idea what it was like. God willing, NONE of you ever will. I am a cameraperson....I got to see it all.

How DARE anyone of you judge us? Do you think we enjoy being out there?? Do you think we were happy to be bringing you those pictures?? Do you think we aren't saddened beyond belief to be faced with those who were in the buildings, asking them to describe what they saw?? Do you know how many reporters were crying (man and women) hysterically??

YOU WEREN'T THERE. We were. We had a job to do (awful as it was, and awful as it is). We are obligated to keep you informed. Feel free to turn off the television anytime you want.

(PS...I'm in the process of looking for a new job. I can't live like this anymore).

As far as "ending the media blitz" Velvet et al..Don't you understand that this is bigger than Pearl Harbor? Don't you understand what's happened? YOu know this is just the tip of the iceberg. we are at the threshold of what could become Worl War III, or at the very least a war of some kind.

dogchushu

Sep. 14, 2001, 05:17 AM

Oh Jennaisis, I don't think anyone feels you enjoy this. It must be so awful to witness things in person. And I'm sorry for all of you that have to be there day after day, reliving events with rescue workers and those searching for survivors. Their stories are heartbreaking to watch from the safety and separation of my comfy living room. I wouldn't be able to bear it in person, and you are a stronger person than I am for going through it as you have.

I've seen many shots taken by camera persons whose actions, in my opinion, rival the heroism of the reporters who stayed out in the open during the London blitz to capture the story as it unfolded. I saw shots of the towers falling while everyone else was running for safety. I've heard one story of photographer who stayed while everyone else ran for safety and was literally picked off his feet and blown 10 yards by the air pressure created by on of the falling towers. No one near him was left uninjured. I doubt I'd have the courage to stay and report... my pictures would all be "here I am, running away."

But, as tragic as it is, it's history. And it needs to be documented. That documentation of prior historic events (the London blitz, Pearl Harbor, the Vietnam War, etc.) have preserved them for us and brought them to generations who were not alive to witness them.

I think most people have issues with the constant replaying of events that they're sickened by seeing. Not with the actual recording of those events. But as many have mentioned, there is an off switch to that television set.

Hang in there Jennaisis. What you must be going through makes my "bad days at the office" pale in comparison. But what you do is extremely valuable and is appreciated.

Jennasis

Sep. 14, 2001, 05:21 AM

Thank you. As I wait here in the newsroom, to hear where I'll be assigned to go today...it helps to know I'm appreciated (if not by my boss, grrr....) then by you guys.

As a side note...one of our photographers is still missing. We thought we found him Wednesday night, but his family went to the hospital to ID him and it wasn't him. Prayers for his family.

Gnarly

Sep. 14, 2001, 05:32 AM

Watching CNN helps me grieve. Tears are healthy.

It's sort of like going to a funeral. I hate funerals, but I learned how wonderful it is to let out your anger and pain. It's unhealthy to marinate in it.

Turn off your TV, and your radio. Mine will stay on.

God Bless America. Did y'all hang up a flag today?

Canter

Sep. 14, 2001, 05:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Velvet:
Maybe what they should be doing is moving towards more of that sort of coverage, and away from those constant replays of the towers and the Pentagon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the news agencies have moved towards that kind of coverage. The human face of destruction is certainly the focus of many of the current news reports as is information about the hunt for the terrorists.
Sorry, but I can not find fault with the way in which this has been covered in the media. IMHO, all of the journalists have done an incredible job during a very difficult time.
And this situation is going to be going on for a long, long time.

M. O'Connor

Sep. 14, 2001, 05:47 AM

This says it all.

Sorry, but I agree with those who are out there performing the grusome job of recording this history...In years and generations to come, their having done this will allow those in the future to understand to the fullest extent possible what actually happened. One of the freedoms that allows us all to witness these events as they happen, and then engage in free discussion of events (and to listen in as members of our media do so) is exactly what was under attack...do you think that the citizens in Iraq, Libya, or China would be so powerless against their governments if they were privy to the extent of discourse that we take for granted?

Leesa

Sep. 14, 2001, 05:49 AM

I didn't have any control being in lower NYC on Tues. morning, but I have control in turning off the television if the coverage was too much for me. As difficult as it is to watch I am able to gleem much needed information about the situation and my friends.
After the events of this week could we please stop bickering over unimportant things and just agree to disagree.
Thanks to all those kind New Yorkers who helped those of us that were able to walk out of lower NYC on Tuesday for all your help. As I walked north from downtown I could not believe the kindness of ordinary residents coming out of their apartments offering water, juice, wet paper towels. THANK-YOU.

Eglinton

Sep. 14, 2001, 06:00 AM

I couldn't agree more with Jennasis...this is HISTORY!!! It is horrible, and it's history. Nothing like this has ever happened in out lifetimes....we need to stay informed. This is not a time to hide your head in the sand. Come on!

Robby Johnson

Sep. 14, 2001, 06:40 AM

you've grown weary of it doesn't mean it's not big news to everyone else, Velvet. How would you feel if you had a missing family member in Manhattan and lived in, say, California?

You need to accept responsibility for yourself. Walk away from the TV when you get overloaded. I watched intently on Tuesday, and didn't watch much coverage again until last night.

Robby

DMK

Sep. 14, 2001, 06:43 AM

... because I was also initially upset by the networks that chose to show that footage...

But this is what I have to ask of those that felt showing us a person falling to their death was inappropriate. How does this differ from showing the towers being hit or collapsing? Were the deaths of those people less horrific? Less real? Does seeing an image of a person somehow make their tragedy more real? Is that a reasonable response?

Also, on another thread I read that someone felt that showing the images over and over numbed us to the tragedy of it all. I suspect we are numb because that is how we will cope with it, and has nothing to do with seeing the image over and over. If you were eyewitness, I'm sure your mind's eye is replaying it at a far greater frequency than the media.

And maybe I am different, but I cannot watch footage of the USS Arizona and other ships at Pearl Harbor without feeling grief and anger, I cannot watch the Zapruder film without crying and feeling helpless, I cannot see that footage outside that hotel in Memphis without feeling an incredible sense of loss. With the exception of the Zapruder film, I was not present at any of these events (and quite truthfully I was way to young to understand what happened that day in Dallas), but I have a sense of grief and understanding that is real and acute. I suspect this is in part due to the historic footage. I doubt I will EVER truly be numb to the events of September 11, 2001.

buryinghill1

Sep. 14, 2001, 07:17 AM

When I was in elementary school, JFK was murdered. Our teachers cried, the school bus driver cried and we got shipped out of school quickly.
My dad came home from work and he and my mom cried. They sat us down for DAYS in front of the black & white TV. We watched the funeral (remember the horse with the boots turned backwards?).
Mom and dad wanted us to grieve with "the whole country." It was a lesson in unity. And thank god we had that lesson.
Thank god we have the press (right or wrong) to show us the awful truth, rather than government fabricated news!

suzy

Sep. 14, 2001, 07:37 AM

I watched TV the first night for 1/2 hour. In that time, I was able to get a pretty good idea of what had happened. Since then, I've listened to the radio back and forth to work and spent a fair amount of time on the internet. I don't need or want to see people jumping out of the WTC. The situation is so horrific already; and what about the family and friends of those people jumping? Is there no compassion for them? I also worry about children who aren't particularly well-supervised watching images like this. Freedom of the press is one thing, but displaying images of people leaping to their deaths is something else. It reminds me of when Princess Diana was dying and photographers were photographing that. It makes me sick to my stomach to this day that people could be so callous. I see it as a lack of humanity. As another poster mentioned, it's also disturbing that the most violent movies are the biggest box office hits. What type of society are we creating?

Sandy M

Sep. 14, 2001, 07:41 AM

I had a long conversation with my brother - he and his girlfriend have several friends in NYC, one who worked in the WTC, but was in her company's Hartford, Conn. office on Tuesday, and my brother's most recent ex-girlfriend lives within blocks of the WTC. He said he had spoken with a friend who is a professional cameraman/film editor, etc. who had stated that he was appalled at the constant re-showing of the crashes WITHOUT sound. His point, as a professional who edits film to create effects, was that such silent repetition of these images can become desensitizing. There have already been comments about "movie special effects" - and this adds to that "unreality."

The other news coverage may be repetitive, but probably is necessary. It would seem/be insensitive to return to soaps and the like so soon, much as a relief as that might be (i.e., a return to normalcy, if we ever can), and it is, as they say, an on-going crisis. And yes, the Buckingham Palace Changing of the Guard was very touching.

Canter

Sep. 14, 2001, 07:50 AM

I didn't find it callous at all. Disturbing, horrifying, unimaginable. Those words came to mind. But I never once thought to blame the photographers/videographers who took those shots. They were recording facts.
It's important to note and record everything that happens. When the air vaccum caused by the explosion and susequent explosions of the glass windows caused those poor souls to be literally sucked out of the buildings, as horrible as it is, it will have an impact on future high rise planning and design. And will hopefully save lives in the future.
IMHO, some good may eventually come out of the decision to show/record this shocking image.

Velvet

Sep. 14, 2001, 07:54 AM

Why can't they have updates running across the bottom of the screen and show other reports (like they did with the return of a few news shows the other night) instead of beating the bushes for more ideas to fill the gaps (and repeating the same images over, and over again)?

I like to stay informed, I'm just concerned with the sensory overload, as others are also pointing out.

And as for news people going into the line of danger to report it, I have always had a problem with that. Do they really have to be in a burning building, forcing firefighters to possibly put themselves in more danger just to make sure that the reports are not injured? I feel like the media more often gets in the way and creates their own stories, rather than reporting what is going on and letting other professionals do their job. Haven't they realized that the impact of a persons story is often as good as the pictures they take? Haven't they proven that with their eyewitnesses that they've been bringing on their shows?

I just don't think we need a million pictures, nor hundreds more people (often reporters) getting into danger during already perilous situations.

Maybe that's just my opinion, and that's okay. This is not meant to be inflammatory, it's just something I often feel when watching sensationalistic news.

Like I said before, is the tail wagging the dog? Does the public want it only because the media is spoon feeding it to us? If they stopped, would people really be upset? Or would they be okay after a bit of withdrawal, and resetting of expectations?

suzy

Sep. 14, 2001, 07:56 AM

I don't think anyone was directing their comments at the newspeople and photographers who (like you) are in the trenches. I, personally, feel that the people back at the station who are deciding what gets released and what doesn't need to more carefully review the material before releasing it. As far as documenting this event because of its historical significance -- YES, absolutely; I agree that it must be documented. There are going to be repercussions from this that stretch well into the future, so we should keep good "records" of what happened. I'd just like to see more compassion shown for the family members of those people photographed. I would be beside myself if it was my mother, father, husband, or whomever shown jumping from the building.

And, Jennasis, I know that there are a lot of brave and compassionate newspeople/photographers on the scene who are appalled and heartsick as they record this event. I don't envy them their job, and I'm grateful that they are bringing us the news. My finger pointing is at the people at the news stations who I think could show better judgment in what they publicize. You are doing a tough job that has to be done.

Sep. 14, 2001, 07:56 AM

One man whose wife's message on their answering machine in her final minutes gave the tape to news media - he said that by them playing it over and over it makes her real, not just a number amidst the huge numbers who died. Every one of us has a point at which we can't watch/listen any more. Then you have the freedom to do something else. Those who want/need more information have the freedom to do so. That's what makes this country what it is.

AHC

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:00 AM

Velvet, I live in New York City below 14th Street. I had to show identification to get home last night. I have friends who have family who are missing and presumed dead. I watched the towers crumble from my bosses window. I have friends who have been trying to reach me all week from around the country who can't get through because phone lines are overloaded.

From my perspective, close to ground zero, the visual images are horrific, but I and everyone else I know who lives here is glued to the tv and/or radio waiting for updates. Most of the coverage I have watched and listened to has been informative, empathetic and remarkably accurate.

As others have said, if you don't want to feel sensory overload, stop watching. I watched a movie the other night for a couple of hours and it brought welcome relief. Today I will ride my horse. But when I want to know the latest, it's okay with me to see the visuals. I saw them live anyway, they aren't leaving my head anytime soon.

Erin

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:01 AM

Gee, Velvet, I'm sure that the member of Jennasis' staff that's missing has a "problem" with being in danger too.

It's part of their job. Same as the war photographers. There's a reason for the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words.

I think I'd better go post on the "I pledge" thread before I say what I really think...

Sweet Pea

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> How does this differ from showing the towers being hit or collapsing? Were the deaths of those people less horrific? Less real? Does seeing an image of a person somehow make their tragedy more real? Is that a reasonable response?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DMK, my thoughts exactly. I was there, I witnessed it firsthand. I still watch the TV - and each time I see those planes crash, it is no less horiffic. This is probably the hugest tragedy EVER, in the history of the world. I think that it is important that people realize just how horrible this is. If it is too much for you, turn off the TV.

Smart Alec

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:13 AM

turn the tv off or watch another channel. People have the right to know what is going on and censorship is not the answer.
Freedom of Speech.

Duffy

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:18 AM

I say, thank goodness we DO have photographers, reporters, etc. who are able to do their jobs, unlike in other countries. I find myself glued to CNN, but have taken breaks from time to time. I agree with others who have said that these films, photos, etc. are imperative. They will forever document this awful time in history. And we are so lucky to live in a country who allows this type of news to be known.

Velvet

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:20 AM

That's part of the problem...there's no other channel to turn to.

And, I've never said you can't turn off the TV, but there are many people in this world who have a 7th grade (or lower) level of education (as proven by journalisms writing standards), and they are the ones who might not understand the implications of watching something like this repeated constantly.

I just worry that those people (who are considered the majority) are going to push for a war or something else that's possibly not rational. Oh, someone will be "removed from this planet" for what happened. But will it require war to satiate a blood lust that is derived from the constant bombardment of these images? Something that might require the death of thousands of innocents, without serving the purpose we intend (of removing the leader of a terrorist group)?

I think this is why I at least want them to move on and get into the recovery part, and show the good more than the bad, at the moment. We have all seen it, we are all mourning, but we also need to know what is happening NOW.

Like I keep saying...JMHO.

LisaW-B

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:26 AM

Uh, Velvet, just turn OFF your TV if you're overloaded.

I think we need all of the coverage. We need to continue to be bombarded, and saddened, and angered. if we're not, then we risk going back to complacency in our nice little American bubble worlds.

But, you have the ability to turn it off if you need a break. I did last night--no TV, no radio. I needed that, too.

AHC

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:28 AM

We are hearing what is happening now. Most of the coverage is very current and forward-looking. Lots of it is about what is open and closed, roads, trains, airports, etc.

If you have no other TV channels, how about renting a movie? That's what I've done the past two nights and it has helped give me respite.

BarbB

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:30 AM

While I don't always agree with the media coverage of events - I value the fact that what I see is not censured by the people who don't want to see it and therefore think that I shouldn't see it.
That TV has an OFF switch - I use it a lot.

BarbB

www.tapestry659.50megs.com (http://www.tapestry659.50megs.com)

Velvet

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:30 AM

And I finally found it:

Europe in Mourning (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/14/europe.mourning/)

JMHO

DMK

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:32 AM

Well, Julie... it's like The Boss (Springsteen) said... 67 channels and nothing on... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(oh, how out of date that song is! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Shouldn't it be 967 channels and nothing on?)

I was going to note that out of 500 plus channels, there were about 10 channels with continuous newscasts, the other channels were back to regular broadcasts (most never left it), but that presupposes one has a dish or cable...

suzy

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:32 AM

I don't think that the people with 7th grade educations have the clout to affect what the U.S. politicians choose to do in response to the recent attack, so I'm not overly concerned about their watching the news non-stop. And, at the risk of sounding disgustingly DQish, they probably tire of this sort of news quickly and run out and rent an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. (See Suzy duck!) /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The decision makers in our country (even if you didn't vote for them) are intelligent, well-educated people who better understand the international implications than any of us can (um, generic us. I'm sure there are probably some Middle Eastern scholars here who understand the situation quite well).

What I would like to see on the news in the near future is more history on the Middle Eastern conflict(s), the players, and what people in the know think should be the U.S.'s reponse to this. We needed to see what had happened and to take the time to grieve. Then, it's important to move forward and figure out how to handle what has happened.

Cactuskate

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:33 AM

I took the Pledge , so I will not be able to say what I truly want to say.

Velvet, turn the damn thing off and have the decency to feel what might be going on in someone else's life.

"The older I get, the better I used to be, but who the heck cares!"

Eglinton

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:36 AM

Velvet...you want them to move on?????? ohmygoodness Velvet people are MISSING!! Many people do not know if their families are dead or alive!!!! They are showing their pictures on TV, hoping someone sees them. I don't think they are quite ready to move on...and I am sure that they would hope people would be more interested in this disaster, and their search for loved ones, than in reruns of Friends. This is not over. It is happening right now. As many people have stated, we are VERY lucky to have access to truthful and accurate media reports, not government regulated propeganda. This is news that is always changing, there are always new developments. I, for one, am very interested. And as for those with 7th grade educations, maybe they will learn something by watching this coverage. I am sure there are many out there who have no idea where the middle east is even located. People need to learn.

Smart Alec

Sep. 14, 2001, 08:45 AM

"Smart Alec

That's part of the problem...there's no other channel to turn to."

So do something else. I don't have cable so most of the channels I get are network channels where, yes, most of what's on is news. Still, there ARE other things on. You could also rent a movie, go for a walk, ride your horse, go out to eat, get a cup of coffee---all things I have done myself when I need a break. Don't blame the news because you don't have enough self control to turn away. As for other adults watching...well, whether they have a good education or not....that is their right as Americans to keep in touch with what is going on.
Goin' back to the pledge thread now... /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

N&B&T

Sep. 14, 2001, 09:05 AM

..."people with seventh grade educations" may not need or want any one of us here on a horse bulletin board to decide what news is best for "them" to receive, and what format is best for "them" to be exposed to. Lack of formal education does not necessarily mean lack of intelligence or inability to process emotional or other information. (I'm stopping here.)

As far as "clout" goes, everyone gets to vote.

As far as knowledge of Middle Eastern life and politics, many well-educated posters here are far less well-informed than they might be (including myself), and are happy to opine nonetheless.

As far as warmongering and hostility--both of which are subject to personal interpretation as we have seen right here in the last few days--I'm not sure that that will divide along educational lines...

I am certain that extensive media coverage, analysis, and discussion of many issues associated with this disaster and its implications for our country will continue for a long while.

We can ALL learn more about terrorism and we most probably will in the future.

Velvet

Sep. 14, 2001, 09:07 AM

On the "moving on" comment, I meant move on to the CURRENT news! Not leave the topic entirely, but cover what is being done now, and stop rehashing the crashes at the moment.

Don't you want to hear about the survivors and the recovery of the dead? Yes, I see you do. That was exactly my point.

Erin

Sep. 14, 2001, 09:21 AM

Velvet, what the hell channel are you watching? I have seen constant coverage about the rescue efforts, innumerable stories about families searching for their loved ones, and numerous mentions of the support from overseas that was mentioned in the CNN article you posted.

Yeah, they're still showing the crash footage. They're still talking about people's escapes from the towers. And three days after the fact, that footage and those stories are still incredibly powerful.

I'm honestly sitting here shaking my head, without a clue what you're complaining about. All I can say is that I sure as hell don't want to be subjected to the sanitized and artificially cheerful "news" that you seem to want. Just give me the real news, and I'll sort through it on my own.

Smart Alec

Sep. 14, 2001, 09:23 AM

"Not leave the topic entirely, but cover what is being done now, and stop rehashing the crashes at the moment."
That seems to be what they ARE doing.
Also, well said Erin, those images are ones we will not and, to be honest, should not forget.

AHC

Sep. 14, 2001, 09:35 AM

What Erin said!!!!!!!!!

Gnarly

Sep. 14, 2001, 10:01 AM

NEVER FORGET

ErinR

Sep. 14, 2001, 10:21 AM

"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." I have probably gotten the quote slightly wrong and don't remember the source at the moment but I hope the idea comes accross. People like Jennasis and others who risk their lives covering horrific stories help to give the rest of the population the knowledge and inspiration to work to make sure the situations are not repeated. Certain photographs from the Vietman war are thought by many to have changed public opinion and the course of history.

I certainly don't enjoy looking at the horror and my personal weak spot is the interviews with those looking for loved ones. I now change the channel (to another news station) when they come on, not because they are in poor taste but because I am evidently too empathetic and just can't bear it.

I personally am beginning to think people should be required to watch at least some news on every topic after a conversation yesterday with a fellow who thought we should send ground troops to Afghanistan. When my husband noted that the Soviets tried the same thing with huge loss of life, he replied that we would win with no problem because we have better technology. Other than GPS I can't imagine how technology helps on on a mountain path. People cannot make intelligent decisions unless they our fully informed and photographs and video do this well and the image lasts longer than a verbal or written description would.

As memories fade people will start to complain about delays caused by increased security. Personally I hope that we do remember these events so that we will stay vigilent (not afraid but prudently cautious).

I also think that it says alot about the American press that one can complain about press coverage on a press sponsored website without any concern for censorship or recriminations.

InWhyCee

Sep. 14, 2001, 10:28 AM

This overload of information is not allowing anyone time to breath and adjust to the facts.... This media blitz is just pushing people past what they can tolerate and is creating worse problems.
_____________________________

Excuse me, since when were you appointed Czarina of the Airwaves? As a New Yorker who lives not two miles from the attacks, and who knows people who worked in the WTC (and are safe, I'm happpy to report), I can tell you there are thousands, if not millions, of people who want EVERY BIT of information they can get.

Ask yourself: If your mother-brother-fiance was working on the 93rd Floor and is now missing, would you want to know EVERYTHING the rescue teams are doing? Would you want to get your message to ANYONE who may have seen him or her that morning?

Or, to name some of the less traumatic events we are experiencing in Manhattan, a building one block away from your apartment appears to be collapsing--do you want to know what the engineers are thinking? Do you want to know when you will be able to pass the police barricades to rescue your pets from your own apartment? Does your son or daughter work in the City and you need reassurance that it's not completely aflame?

If YOU have a problem with media overload, TURN OFF THE DAMN TELEVISION SET (I know I have, because I was too UPSET to watch any more) and GO GIVE BLOOD... RAISE MONEY... COLLECT SUPPLIES... THANK A FIREMAN... LIGHT A CANDLE... AND PRAY.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Velvet

Sep. 14, 2001, 10:49 AM

I started this topic last night, when they were barely giving a moment to the rescue attempts. That's when this started. This morning, maybe they've changed their coverage. Did any one see WHAT I said I wanted covered?

I do know people who live in the heart of Manhatten. They are all right. Yes, if they were not, I would want to know about the rescue operations, I never said to stop talking about that. My problem is with the bombardment of speculation and the images of the initial attack. I want to know what is happening NOW, but I also don't need them hunting up excitement, nor using filler. If they have something to say, come and the TV and say it. If they are filling time, go to other things that are happening around the world.

This is what I've been talking about, and others seem to understand what I've been saying...maybe we'll have to go back to "agree to disagree."

LittleWitch

Sep. 14, 2001, 10:58 AM

I don't have a TV so I listen to the radio for news. I surf the internet with pictures disabled (the best way to surf). I am in control of what images I see. I like having access to all images and then deciding for myself what I want to look at.

Also, last year on vacation I stumbled across a exhibit of prize winning news photos. Most of the photos were of war and violence (sequence photos of people being executed or shot in the back, scenes of death) but my favorite was a photo of a boy and his grandfather in a refugee camp, laughing. This photo stood out in my mind because it was surrounded by so many images of death.

Heidi

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:06 AM

Velvet, egads woman, perhaps you need to pause and contemplate that sometimes the world does not revolve around you.

suzy

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:06 AM

>>>"Lack of formal education does not necessarily mean lack of intelligence or inability to process emotional or other information. (I'm stopping here.)

I'll apologize for my comment about people with 7th grade educations because I KNOW some of them, and yes, they are intelligent and thoughtful people. It was a very gross exaggeration. Nonetheless, there is a segment of the population that will just mentally tune-out because it doesn't affect them (or so they think) since they are miles away from the devastation.

>>>As far as "clout" goes, everyone gets to vote.

We all get to vote, but as far as clout, none of us really have any right now. The politicians will make the decisions, and we will have to live with those decisions. I'm hoping that no nuclear weapons are part of the "solution."

>>>As far as knowledge of Middle Eastern life and politics, many well-educated posters here are far less well-informed than they might be (including myself), and are happy to opine nonetheless.

I openly admitted that I don't know nearly enough about the Mid-East. That's also why I said I'd really like some broadcasts that can teach ignorami like me about Mid-East history as well as current events in that region. Anyway, it doesn't matter what topic you choose - a lot of uninformed people will choose to opine. That's freedom of speech at work.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

InWhyCee

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:08 AM

I started this topic last night, when they were barely giving a moment to the rescue attempts.
_____________________

FYI: A NY Fire Department official announced this morning that firemen at the site were not allowed to give interviews or to release any unauthorized information ... so information is bound to be sketchy from here on. They have also been moving media back from the area because of the threat of another building collapse.

If you have satellite TV, try to get a local New York station, some of which are broadcasting on cable channels ... I hear that NY One News is also being carried in some cities on public access ...

Good luck
No offense

Glimmerglass

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:12 AM

An interesting commentary from Washington Post writer, Howard Kurtz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30086-2001Sep14.html

Velvet

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:16 AM

I take issue with that. I have said that I want it to stop, but not only for my sake. I've been watching what's happening to others, as well, and that's what brought me to many of these conclusions. Maybe it's just the crowd I hang around--but we all seem to be in agreement on this one.

Also, "opinions" are very personal, that doesn't mean I expect everyone to agree, or that I'm the only valuable voice (which your comment would imply). Instead, I often post out here to see what sort of intelligent replies I do get. It doesn't mean my opinion changes (as I doubt your's probably would either), but it means I get to see the other side of the coin.

I admit, I've been out here losing my temper at the media and the government, not because they're easy victims, but because I truly believe they are part of this problem. Do I think I'm blameless? Nope. I helped get some of them into office, and I support the media by just having a television set in my home. Should I not have a right to express myself? Nope. I should be able to express myself--it's my right as an American. Should I sometimes think 5 times and post once? Or work harder to see how someone else might interpret my posts? Yep, but in this situation, I'm probably not behaving in my normal mode--just as most of the rest of the world (let alone other Americans) are behaving. I feel very deeply about what's happened, I feel awful about those who have been even more directly impacted (some of my friends), and I also feel a very real and deep disappointment.

Sorry for upsetting everyone out here. I guess no matter what I say, it'll be taken as a personal attack--and be defended as such, or it will be turned into something I never intended. *sigh*

Erin

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Velvet:
I started this topic last night, when they were barely giving a moment to the rescue attempts. That's when this started. This morning, maybe they've changed their coverage. Did any one see WHAT I said I wanted covered?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Velvet, my only explanation for your, IMHO, misguided arguments is that you must be seeing only what you want to see (or in this case, don't want to see). You're choosing to obsess over what I think is a very small portion of the coverage.

Yesterday was the first day since this happened that I did not go to the barn. From 6 to 11 pm I sat and watched NBC. (I don't have cable, and it's the only channel I get decent reception of.) The stories were about what was currently going on, and exactly what you've been talking about -- rescue efforts, the investigation, and the absolutely heartwrenching stories of those looking for loved ones.

I think the vehemence you feel is directed at you is because you are flat-out wrong, and those of us "disagreeing" with you are flabbergasted that you continue to ignore what everyone else seems to have seen. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but your preception of the facts is just completely skewed.

As I said in my first post, I hate to see the media bashed in cases like this, especially by people who just seem to be looking for someone convenient to lash out at.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but this topic is just really pissing me off. The media is far from perfect, but in this case, I think they're doing a pretty decent job.

Velvet

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:25 AM

I was glad to see that Washington reporter agreeing with me about the repeated images.

Okay, I'm open. Tell me about the coverage last night (that's when I was watching) that covered the rescue attempts? All I saw (and I was channel surfing before I posted--for 2 hours) was talks with people who saw the planes crash, or who had escaped (which was interesting enough). I saw fleeting conversations with people who had missing loved ones, and montages of the attack that were constantly repeated, and filler conversations with other reports on what they were experiencing...which was usually just a marginally interesting discussion about the dust in the street and look on the faces of those leaving...and asking someone to describe something that they had just stated was "indescribable."

Like I keep saying, maybe it's just me...or just me alone when I'm out here.

suzy

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:30 AM

>>>I personally am beginning to think people should be required to watch at least some news on every topic after a conversation yesterday with a fellow who thought we should send ground troops to Afghanistan.

Totally agree. This comment also made me think of my secondary school education. I was lucky enough to go to what was regarded as a very good school. However, when I look back, I'm appalled at the pathetic selection of history courses and the complete lack of any current events courses. In our first year, Ancient History was the requirement. We had to take U.S. History (very sanitized version at that) in our Jr. or Sr. year. We never even got past WW1!!! My recollection is that there was a European History course offered. There were absolutely NO courses covering the Middle East. I'm not part of the academic world, so maybe things have improved. If not, I'd love to see better offerings at the secondary level. I'd also like it to be mandatory that everyone studies current events. I'm embarrassed by my own lack of knowledge and am scouring the Internet in an attempt to learn. Of course, it's quite a challenge to weed out facts from opinions.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Kaori

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:32 AM

which alot of it is. I think that's what Velvet was getting at.

Yes, the situation is dramatic but I think the presentation of it makes it unnecessarily dramatic.

I don't condemn the videoing and the picture taking because it is important to record history.
I was born years and years after the Vietnam War, but thankfully I can understand how gruesome it was because of the photographs... They are as horrific as the ones that have been taken over the last couple days. The pictures give me understanding of how several generations of Americans were so deeply affected by it.

What I hate is the constant replying of the same images over and over again. I think it's inconsiderate and raises a blood lust in the American people that just isn't wise. Going to war is not a good idea, even though taking down Bin Laden is. A war isn't necessary to do that; it would be Vietnam all over again.

At first I was just in shock by the news. Like many others, I was getting the news as soon as it came out. The images that only shocked me days before (especially the planes crashing) now make me angry and vengeful... as I am sure it is having the same effect on many others.

**Spel chekers, hoo neeeds 'em? Alan James Bean**

Heidi

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I admit, I've been out here losing my temper at the media and the government, not because they're easy victims, but because I truly believe they are part of this problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I heartily disagree Velvet.

For those of us who share your horror at the events of Tuesday, for the friends and family of the lost and murdered, the media represents not only a source of information but perhaps a medium from which we, and those who are directly affected, can derive some answers.

Having been glued to the television set since Tuesday morning, and profoundly saddened by the terrorist attacks, I feel a need for answers - I want someone to explain to me, why and how.

I am not a religious person so am seeking those answers from various media sources, who have invested a great deal of time speaking with military, economic, political specialists; a media that has taken considerable time to speak to the families of the missing and dead; I want to witness the gut-wrenching work of the fire workers and policemen; I want to share, and absolve myself of, the collective grief.

Erin

Sep. 14, 2001, 11:40 AM

Well, let's see... I saw a lengthy segment about the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, who lost 700 employees. Every one of the employees who was in the building at the time was unaccounted for.

I saw a segment on several different fire houses that had lost members. One of many times I "lost it" was listening to firefighter with a thick NY accent break down as he tried to describe what kind of person his lost fire chief was.

I saw interviews with flight instructors who supposedly taught the terrorists. One was completely mortified that his instruction had contributed to this horrible event. He said he felt "raped."

I saw a segment about the spontaneous memorials that have sprung up all over the world... heaps of flowers at embassies, that sort of thing.

And I saw an endless parade of interviews with people who were looking for lost loved ones, holding up posters, etc. Several people allowed news crews to accompany them throughout the day in their search, so these were not just 2-minute man-on-the-street interviews.

Yes, they're still showing the crash footage, and yes, as the Kurtz column mentions, it may be a bit much to show it as a segue to every new segment. But for God's sake, the buildings imploded. What better image is there so soon after the incident, when we are all still feeling utter shock at what happened?

I will say that I was just watching some more coverage over lunch, and NBC's tone, at least, has become much less hard-news and much more reverent. Instead of titling the coverage "America Under Attack" or whatever, it's "America Mourns," and there's somber classical music playing. They did a montage of photos of the missing with a black-and-white photo of the still-standing but burned-out towers in the background.

It seems like today is a turning point for the coverage, so maybe you'll have less to complain about now, Velvet.

But as far as the actual stories being aired for the last few days -- they were exactly what you claim you want to see, even if the crash footage was still being shown in between.

Jennasis

Sep. 14, 2001, 12:13 PM

What channel exactly are you watching?? I have YET to see any of my journalistic brethren SENSATIONALIZE anything that has happened so far. There is no need to. the events are pretty sensational all by themselves.

You don't know ANYTHING about journalism, or what it takes to put together a newspaper or a news braodcast so step the heck off with your media bashing.

Everyone of the members of the media who were present at the time of the events DOCUMENTING it (not creating news) are absolutely traumatized by what they saw and experienced. We are lucky to be alive!

IN THE WAY????? We're IN THE WAY??????? I won't even dignify that with a comment. The perception you have of the media is so warped and off base it isn't even remotely funny. (PS...the paparazzi responsible for Princess Diana, and news media are two completely different things, and not comparable in any way shape or form).

Over 4000 people are missing and most likely dead and you have the GALL to complain about news coverage??????

As far as the compassion shown for the families of those who jumped...from a practical standpoint...you can NOT identify anyone from any of the footage. It's horrendous, but it happened live on tv. Some people weren't watching at that exact moment, so they replay it to show the tragedy of t all. I've been watching every channel nearly 24 hours straight and saw ONE shot of a person jumping...and I only saw it once.

You're lucky...you can turn off the tv any time you want and escape it. Those of us who live and work in NYC cannot escape it...EVER.

There isn't a channel on the air...at least not in NY, that isn't focused entirely on the rescue/recovery, volunteer effort and the hunt for those responsible. Will the footage of the crash be shown again, and again..you bet. It hurts...it makes me cry to watch it...but we can never EVER be allowed to forget.

I am angry. Angry at who did this, the heartless monsters. And at the moment, i'm angry at how obtuse your being. but I understand that it is hard for you to even begin to comprehend what we see here. You just can't expect the world to "go back to normal" only 4 days after the greatest tragedy on American soil took place.

*This is for you Glen....we won't give up until you are found*

[This message was edited by Jennasis on Sep. 14, 2001 at 03:33 PM.]

suzy

Sep. 14, 2001, 12:50 PM

>>> I have YET to see any of my journalistic brethren SENSATIONALIZE anything that has happened so far.

I think that what Velvet is getting at (and she can jump in and correct me as needed) is her displeasure with the constant re-running of the crash footage. I've viewed it once, was totally appalled and heartbroken, and don't EVER need to see it again. It is etched in my memory FOREVER. I don't need to have it beaten into me again and again and again. I watched one half hour of TV coverage of this event and that's it. I am choosing to listen to the radio instead because I want to know what's going on, but I don't want to be repeatedly bombarded with such horrible images.

>>>You don't know ANYTHING about journalism, or what it takes to put together a newspaper or a news broadcast so step the heck off with your media bashing.

My knowledge of journalism is limited too, but like everyone else, I am entitled to my opinion on what's appropriate to show or print. That's why I've turned off my TV set. I respect that your opinion is different than mine.

>>>Over 4000 people are missing and most likely dead and you have the GALL to complain about news coverage??????

Whether I agree with Velvet or not, I will defend her right to question the news coverage.

>>>You're lucky...you can turn off the tv any time you want and escape it. Those of us who live and work in NYC cannot escape it...EVER.

Even though I wasn't there first hand, I am a US citizen and can no more ignore what has happened than you can. This problem belongs to ALL of us. Sure I can shut off the TV set, but that doesn't make the tragedy go away nor does it relieve me of the problem. Those of us in the USA cannot escape it -- EVER.

>>> Will the footage of the crash be shown again, and again..you bet. It hurts...it makes me cry to watch it...but we can never EVER be allowed to forget.

This is where you and I differ. I don't need to see it more than once. My guess is that Velvet shares that feeling which is what prompted her posts.

>>>I am angry. Angry at who did this, the heartless monsters. And at the moment, i'm angry at how obtuse your being. but I understand that it is hard for you to even begin to comprehend what we see here. You just can't expect the world to "go back to normal" only 4 days after the greatest tragedy on American soil took place.

I don't think that anyone with the ability to think rationally thinks that things can go back to normal. We have entered a new era. I understand and appreciate your anger but think that it is misdirected. Let's keep the real enemy in sight and not waste energy elsewhere.

Brookes

Sep. 14, 2001, 01:04 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaori:
.
A war isn't necessary to do that; it would be Vietnam all over again.

Kaori dear, this isn't anything at all like Vietnam. Trust me. Vietnam had absolutely nothing to do with American freedom and the right to protect our homeland and noncombatants. Vietnam was a foreign civil conflict that we chose to stick our faces into. Yes it did deal with communisim, however there was never at any time a real threat to our country. Tuesday's events are an obvious threat to our country's national security. That is the difference.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!

Kaori

Sep. 14, 2001, 02:10 PM

when I was saying this would be like another Vietnam, I didn't specify the nature of the similarity... I was thinking along the lines of how unnecessary it is/was.

The combat techniques and roots in history are too diverse to draw any similarity. Each are very unique.

There are other ways of bringing down leaders without waging war on innocents. It is a shame that we are terrorized, yet we are on the edge of embarking a very similar mission.

**Spel chekers, hoo neeeds 'em? Alan James Bean**

Beezer

Sep. 14, 2001, 02:33 PM

I'm a print journalist. I've been one for f-ing ever. This week has been so beyond bearing, so beyond wounding ... and, yet, as much as a big, huge part of me wants to slam you, I cannot completely bring myself to. Because while I do not agree with you (I, for one, cannot bear the thought of watching "Fraiser" or "ER" at this point in my life, though I do agree that Animal Planet has been a welcome relief at 2 a.m.), I can intellectually understand where you are coming from. And while I, too, cry during the interviews with survivors, I feel like the worst kind of pond scum for watching -- and for asking these people to open up about what has to be the worst kind of pain no one can imagine.

But apparently, those are the kinds of stories people want ... which I find sadly ironic, because usually in the aftermath of a disaster, most people attack the media for "victim stories"; now, everyone wants them.

Even though I am an editor, the magnitude of this atrocity has forced me back to the newsroom's front lines. I have had to make endless phone calls to victims' families and have had to cajole and coach reporters into making even more -- including to the family who lost a little boy. I have had to talk to rescuers, escapees and people so very desperate to do *something* to help that they are calling my paper to beg for information on where they can go and what they can do. And don't forget to mix in a few calls from idiots who think all the Muslims should be rounded up and put under guard on abandoned military bases because "they" are all out to kill "us" (you have no idea how my tongue bled from my biting it) and people so terribly afraid that they think they see terriorists behind every tree.

There is a part of me that feels unspeakably dirty. But it is my job. And in some small, tiny way, I am doing my part to tell a horrific episode in my world's history.

I told myself that even as I essentially pushed one of my brightest young reporters on the first plane out of a local airport yesterday -- despite his longtime reluctance to fly, which is now only more magnified -- because we were the first place up and flying, and we needed someone on that plane. He wound up in Atlanta; he'd barely touched down before I had him on another flight to Florida to go get the story on the flight school that trained some of these bastards.

That's his job. Fortunately for my paper and its readers, he is good at it. Very good. He makes me very, very proud. Unfortunately for him, he has no clothes with him, no cash, no clue about where he's going to be staying for the foreseeable future and no idea when he might be home. And no end in sight to worrying about the fate of several of his -- and my -- colleagues who were at "ground zero."

None of us WANT to be doing this. None of us WANT to be covering an act so hideous as to be beyond words. I can honestly say I don't know of anyone who's "getting off" on covering this story; we really aren't a bunch of unfeeling wretches who get our jollies from reporting on others' agonies. Frankly, and not to be overly macabre, but I would, at this point, like to have some time to watch the TV coverage, to absorb and process what has happened. I would have liked to have watched the memorial services today; but I have a job to do.

But this isn't about me. It isn't about ANY journalist, as the wonderful young photographer who took the incredible shot of the firefighters raising the flag at the WTC said so eloquently this morning. Believe it or not, it isn't even about you, the viewing and reading public.

We are simply trying to do our jobs, to tell a horrific story that no family -- even one as big as the American family -- should have to endure. Our job is to tell that story. I know we have made mistakes. I know that we will make more. I know that people will listen with only one ear, read and watch with one eye, and that will lead them to *think* they have read or seen or heard whatever that is patently not true; lord knows I've dispelled more than my share of rumors these last awful days.

I am sorry if the job we are doing disturbs you. I can only hope that it will sear into our collective conscious that real people have died, that real people have suffered unimaginable losses.

That is the only thing that matters. The only thing any of this job is about.

Now excuse me. I have to get back to work. Please, everyone stay safe.

****Bulletin Board Goddess****

Canter

Sep. 14, 2001, 02:39 PM

I luv ya Beezer. Thank you.

Erin

Sep. 14, 2001, 02:39 PM

Amen.

OlmosHeaven

Sep. 14, 2001, 02:46 PM

As I posted earlier, I'm not always proud of the profession I've spent 30 years in. But today I'm extraordinarily proud of it. The compassion, bravery and determination of the print and broadcast media to bring this story and all its ramifications to the world have been extraordinary.

Heidi

Sep. 14, 2001, 02:47 PM

I too would like to join the Beezer Fan Club. Thank you for sharing with us your most eloquent perspective.

I'd echo your wishes to stay safe - along with a great big virtual hug.

DMK

Sep. 14, 2001, 02:54 PM

Sign me up for the Beezer Fan Club, while you are at it Heidi!

Bethe Mounce

Sep. 14, 2001, 03:42 PM

then change the channel or turn it off. This is history in the making and no news company in it's right mind is going to stop covering it, no matter how horrific it is.

Frankly, I have been glued to CNN and Fox since my husband called me at the farm on Tues morning. I thought I had lost a friend who is a lawyer in Manhattan. Thankfully I did not. She was not in court that morning for whatever reason.

This has touched me in a very deep and emotional way. More so than I ever realized. I find myself hungry for any news of survivors whether I know them or not. I find myself angry that I live in my own little world and fail to realize the dangers out there.

Our President has risen to the occasion. I have no doubt he and his administration will find the culprits (actually I would like to call them something else, but I must refrain my emotions here) responsible for this atrocity and punish them appropriately. I leave it up to him to decide.

I don't think any journalist likes covering tragedy; it is news and that is what their job is. I think though, there will be some mental fall out for some. I applaud their efforts in letting me know that despite the tragedy, there are some real heart warming stories of heros coming out.

I am proud to be an American and this time it will be, in the words of John F. Kennedy: "...ask what you can do for your country." She needs us now to stand united as one as we march into a battle that may never end.

May whatever God you pray to keep you and your families safe as time goes on.

beameup

Sep. 14, 2001, 03:59 PM

thank you for your eloquent words.
What we must remember is that we may very well be hovering on the brink of World War 3. Dear God, i hope not, as does every decent inhabitant of this planet because we have nuclear technology at our disposal, unlike anything we've been able to wield before, along with the prospect of a continuation of terrorist acts within our shores.
The anguish, pain and loss of life that occurred is unfathomable. I think what justifies our interest in the personal stories is that the media of television has brought citizens of this country and in fact, of this world, closer than they have ever been. Television and newspapers have become our "Village square" where we can gather close and learn the news of our global family. This is a good thing, because as we draw closer, we realize that our differences are small and our common humanity is the most important thing we have.
These past few days are mightily significant, and will have far reaching ramifications, maybe more than any of us can possible imagine. We need to record everything we can for posterity. It's that important. And as for the coverage becoming overwhelming - well, these were terrible acts of carnage, compelling and horrifying. Maybe the very best it can do is at some point in the future, galvanize the world into putting aside murder as a political solution and exploring more humane avenues. I pray for that day.

Merry

Sep. 14, 2001, 04:11 PM

Ain't my lil' sister great? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And she even schools me at horse shows! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If World History in the making has to be covered and documented... and indeed it does... then let's be thankful for decent, compassionate journalists like Beezer and her peers, who are represented here on the BB and elsewhere.

"Charter Member of the Baby Greenie Support Group of North America"

heelsdown

Sep. 14, 2001, 04:22 PM

I am in complete and utter agreement with you. May I hope to have 1/10 of your talent of expressing myself as you do. Your words echo my own. Being involved with the press at a much lower level I have been involved with covering this as well and it is chilling but it is history.

Brookes

Sep. 14, 2001, 04:35 PM

Geez Beezer you're good!

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!

Trixie

Sep. 14, 2001, 04:47 PM

I agree with Beezer and Jennasis. It's harsh news coverage but we've got a job to do. When I was out there taking pictures at the monuments, I was alone and I told myself to turn off my emotions and get my job done. Fortunately, I had the strength to do that. I took my pictures, got in my car, took them in, and then let myself feel again.
I'm still pretty shell-shocked and it's really hard not to break down and start crying when you're out there taking pictures and when you're writing your story -- you learn to type through your tears. It's really emotional stuff and believe me, the media is not all hard-edged, heartless monsters. We're feeling it just as hard as you are, maybe harder because we're right there in it, maybe not, but believe me, we're feeling it.

It's very difficult to turn off your emotions while you're out there. At the moment, most people want their continuing coverage and it is our duty to bring it to you. And in order to get that job done, we have to keep our composure while we're on the job. But speaking for my office, when we get home, we're exhausted and wrecked, totally emotionally drained.

I think it's disgusting that any of you have the gall to say we're not feeling this. You don't know that. And equally disgusting for you to blame us for any of this. You're pointing fingers, and that's almost as bad as the people that are throwing bricks at Muslims. I'm going to ask you nicely now to stop speculating, and remind you that it is ok to turn off your TV.

dogchushu

Sep. 14, 2001, 05:28 PM

Sign me up for the Beezer fan club! Do we get free posters? Anyway, Beezer I wish I could express myself as well as you do. But I guess that's why you're the journalist and my copywrighter colleagues cringe when they see me coming with edits! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cactuskate

Sep. 14, 2001, 07:51 PM

Thank you Beezer, I was reading along, trying to come up with some rant.

All I was prepared to say to Velvet was,

Why don't you get all of those "folks" together that as you said, you hang around with, have an f-ing tea party, and we will give you a wake up call when it is all over.

You and Jennasis said it much better, well duh!!! being professionals and all.....thank you both for doing the very hard jobs you do.

"The older I get, the better I used to be, but who the heck cares!"

Velvet

Sep. 17, 2001, 10:35 AM

Catuskate, I won't even attempt to dignify that with a reply.

All I have to say is, I'm glad they did see sense and finally stop. Pretty much right at the time I was fed up, everyone else was as well...obviously.

And, as for sending people into war zones to report the news, why is that heroic? Isn't that a job choice? Are we all heroes for starting young horses and risking our necks?

Also, how many reporters does it take to report a story? Why do so many have to go to the same place? Because it's a competitive "business." News is business. There is no altruism in this. People are paid for it. The problem I have is when they risk their lives for the awards, and sometimes also risk the lives of others who have to protect them--from themselves.

Okay, go ahead and flame out. I'm getting very used to it. But I've also realized it is not just my group of friends that agree with me. I've run into MANY people on the street who are voicing my same opinions.

*heavy sigh*

AHC

Sep. 17, 2001, 10:38 AM

I would like a charter membership in the Beezer fan club.

Velvet, I can't even think of a response to you anymore.

Heidi

Sep. 17, 2001, 11:30 AM

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"See, I told you so!"

"Cause I wanna!"

"I'm always right!"

"Cause I said so!"

"see, see, d'you see what happened?!?! I told you I was right!"

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Coreene

Sep. 17, 2001, 11:47 AM

I applaud our own reporters, and Beezer's and CNN's and everyone else's.

It's very simple to turn off the tv or radio if you don't want to hear it. Or not pick up a paper if you don't want to read it.

AWIP

Sep. 17, 2001, 12:33 PM

I can see where you are coming from. I stopped watching the news last friday and only started looking again today. Why? Because I was exhausted and a nervous wreck from the constant barrage of imagery. If enough of us turn off our tvs then the onslaught will slow if not cease. I'm definitely not the only who was affected like this.

Beezer,
You're right too. The media has done an incredible of covering these events. But in the world of the soundbite, remember the thousands if not millions caught by these images like deer in headlights watching the explosions over and over and over, powerless to look away. When there is nothing new on the topic to report, then why keep blasting us with video imagery that is increasingly explicit. This is what some tv media has been doing with the statements that they have worse that they are holding back. (of which I have no doubt) Many of these images are traumatizing enough when in text format or spoken of, let alone if punctuated by stills.

I think the print media has done an amazing job, so has radio ... but in some cases tv has resorted to images that served no real purpose but to further horrify and torment those watching.

Duffy

Sep. 17, 2001, 12:42 PM

Sign me up for the Beezer Fan Club as well, please. Thanks for being here.

Jennasis

Sep. 17, 2001, 12:58 PM

It's like talking to the walls.

Hey Beezer! You me and Trixie should form a support group. Maybe some day, the uninformed will stop bashing the media, but until then, we who KNOW what goes into our jobs will just have to tough it out together.

Velvet, perhaps you'd like to be the one to tell the family of my now deceased photographer comrade (who perished in the collapse of Tower 1), that he was "IN the way"?

There wasn't a SINGLE member of the media who impeded the efforts of search and rescue teams or ANYBODY else. I still can't even believe someone would think that was the case. The media is kept well behind established "crime scene" perimeters. In fact, there is a report that the one reporter who attempted to get beyond the established press area is now in jail for his actions. The rest of us know better, thank you very much.

Perhaps I should stop reading the replies in this thread...it is really upsetting me, and there is MORE than enough going on right now that ACTUALLY MATTERS to upset me, without having to listen to the banter of the grossly misinformed.

Duffy

Sep. 17, 2001, 01:03 PM

Hang in there, Jennasis. Most of us DO appreciate your efforts! Thank you for being there and here.

Snowbird

Sep. 17, 2001, 01:22 PM

At least you live in a country where you have the right not to listen and not to pay attention to TV. Fortunately, the last generation saved you from being disciplined by Big Brother they died and they crawled through mud to give us our world today.

Your TV has an off and on switch and there is no monitor saying you are a bad girl because you don't want to see the ugly facts of life and death.

But for me as an American the missing and dead 5300 are like my own children, and I care what happens to them. They are America's children and America cares that they were murdered. And as their Mom I want to know the whole story and not just the nicely tailored little film clips that make it look like it wasn't so bad. Mothers want to know how their children spent their last minutes if they are going to die without them.

Because this is a free country you can put some lovely happy movie in your VCR or play some gentle classical music and I won't condemn you for being shallow or hard hearted.

While I am sure that you have friends, and that some might share your distain for the visual news, in a democracy your opinion is not the only one that counts. I think the reporters struggled to not be vulgar in their presentation but they did a huge service to this country. They brought us the facts before the spin doctors could change them.

Did you notice there were no commercials, that these stations at their own expense produced for us complete coverage? They didn't whine because they lost their antenna, and did their best to stay out of the way. I wouldn't have wanted to miss the reunion of the couple who were reunited after two days of thinking each other was already dead, they now can have their golden anniversary.

This week of "time out" taught us all a great deal about why we need to be a family. I think the benefits for this America will be so great to re-invigorate our patriotism that it may be the only good reason for so many to have died.

You may choose to be cynical and see our flaws more than our good character, and that makes me sad for you. I think this was a revolutionary week because it proved how good most people really are to each other.

So Velvet, thank God! that you live in a country where we all can make our own choices. Scandal journalism doesn't appeal to me so I just don't buy it or read it. And, it is wonderful that I have that choice. There are people who do enjoy it! That's their choice. I think all the ball games where people bat little white balls or use rackets or clubs are virtually worthless in the big scheme of life. But, that doesn't mean that I should demean those who love the sports or those who play the sports. Yes! some of the salaries are obscene to me, and even more so when you compare them to firefighters, policemen and God Bless the First Aid Squads.

AWIP

Sep. 17, 2001, 01:44 PM

"Because this is a free country you can put some lovely happy movie in your VCR or play some gentle classical music and I won't condemn you for being shallow or hard hearted."

Most of us are far enough away that we can't do anything but agonize. Is disconnecting and escaping so that we may continue functioning in something like a normal state of mind shallow, hard-hearted or merely survival for any of us. I know alot of people at my workplace who are wrecked today simply becuase they felt they couldn't disconnect. What is this gaining them? What is this gaining anyone?

Has anyone considered that the reason Velvet put up this thread is because seeing all this hurts her so g-d much and maybe thinks the onslaught is causing others even more anguish? Stop being so flipping cruel! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

suzy

Sep. 17, 2001, 01:53 PM

Not wanting to see any more images has nothing to do with being hard-hearted; it's actually the contrary. I was reaching a point where I could hardly function because the footage was so disturbing. I can't help the people who are gone, so I want to focus my attention on better understanding the Middle Eastern countries and their leaders. Maybe by better understanding the many and complex issues here, I can in some very small way be a part of the solution instead of just another useless observer at a horrendous "car wreck."

N&B&T

Sep. 17, 2001, 02:26 PM

...is entitled to focus their attention on whatever they like or need. Right now, I'd bet almost everyone in the world is focused on Tuesday's terrorist attack and its implications for the future.

Velvet--there is quite a lot of information and analysis available on the internet via the news services, including news services of other countries, which are particularly enlightening.

If the images are, understandably, extremely disturbing to you, why not turn off the TV and use the internet to select the news etc. that you need or want?

And we all need ways to comfort ourselves during this period. I suspect many if not all of us have a variety of resources in our lives in addition to television, as useful, valuable and entertaining as that medium can be at times.

At the risk of upsetting you further--people are not obliged to agree with you, nor to need or want or take the same path to coming to terms with this tragedy and potential crisis as you do.

As I've said in a number of ways on a number of threads, my own feeling is that we should be as careful with each other as possible while discussing this among ourselves.

Jennasis

Sep. 17, 2001, 02:43 PM

Just learned that my station will not allow video of the plane crashes to be shown anymore. However we continue to do live shots from ground zero, updating on the search effots etc.. Our focus has mainly turned into the government response.

Velvet

Sep. 17, 2001, 02:46 PM

Thank you. That is what I felt. I admit, I have since been posting from a more defensive position, after feeling attacked (which is everyone's right!). But that was one of my biggest problems. It just did not seem right, to me.

Thanks to everyone else, too, who understands.

Oh, I could continue with callus replies in response to those who want to argue over what neither of us will see eye-to-eye on, but maybe it's time to stop and seek those friends of mine with open minds and hearts. The ones who whether they agree or not, can discuss the issues with me and present a perspective that is undiminished by their capacity to understand the fact that people often simply disagree. (And that this is what makes America great, and what makes Americans--Americans.)

[This message was edited by Velvet on Sep. 17, 2001 at 07:29 PM.]

Velvet

Sep. 17, 2001, 03:21 PM

Well, it improves what I think of the media. But now I'll have to avoid discussing politics and what the government is doing...in the event I disagree. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Beezer

Sep. 18, 2001, 12:23 PM

I promised myself that I would not return to this thread. I've got more to do right now than to try to set a few records straight. (And I'd like to say a great, big THANKS to the supportive posters here.)

But I am tired. Really tired, dispirited and really, really, REALLY cranky. And those are the times that, for some bizarre reason I've never been able to figure out, I tend to tilt at impossible windmills when I should be escaping in the other direction. So please forgive me if I don't make a whole lot of sense at this point. And please excuse what will probably prove to be a long post.

Velvet and others, I can -- as I've said before -- intellectually understand where you are coming from. But please, and while I hate cliches, this one is apt: Don't attack the messenger just because you don't like the message.

A couple of factual points: Media outlets *are* sharing footage and reports. Much of what you see on CNN, Fox, the major broadcast networks and other outlets is pool footage. It's generally provided by the local stations in New York, though in this case much of it has come from your average folks out doing the tourist thing on what turned out to be the wrong morning. That is not to say that each of these national/international networks do not have their own reporters and camera people in place; they do -- that's WHY they are national/international networks. (Did you know that the only Western TV journalist in Afganistan is a CNN reporter? I don't know about you, but I'm damned glad that he is there.)

I don't know much about how TV news operates, but I do know THAT much.

Newspapers work virtually the same way. Most of the "local" papers are making use of wire services to cover this tragedy; the wires may pick up stories and photos from freelancers who just happened to be on-scene, from papers that are close enough to staff it, from those unfortunate tourists, and from the major national/international papers that have the resources to cover it because THEY ARE national/international papers: The New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall St. Journal and my own.

Each media outlet chooses the footage/stories that it elects to run. If you're seeing the same images over and over, it's because -- for once -- most people in the media agree on just what *is* news.

I may not agree with the choices. I may, in fact, think that it was a little silly of one of the local network TV affiliates out here to send a reporter by car to New York while all the planes were grounded. But I simply don't watch his reports or read the stories that I think are trivial. I've even worked to have a couple of stories at my paper "killed" because I felt they were out of place in the scope of this tragedy.

As for your money-making contention, again, please don't confuse news with network TV. Yes, a network wants to make money; its shareholders rather like that. A news division really doesn't give a damn about the bottom line. The same with newspapers. My own paper, for example, has been spending millions more on covering this horrible attack than it could ever hope to recoup. Plus, the corporation has set up a $25-million matching aid fund; they've guaranteed that that's the minimum they'll deliver.

Yeah. We're all in it for the money.

Ah. Now for that "we're all in it for the awards" point. If you honestly, deeply in your soul feel that way, then you are so terribly jaded about my profession that nothing I could possibly say could sway you.

But I will tell you this: I was trapped in my building during the Los Angeles riots. Several of my colleagues and I were herded into the basement by security guards and had the door locked behind us while a mob circled the block and tried to set the place on fire ... and you know, by damned, I was thinking to myself the whole time: Heck yeah, I'ma gonna gets me one of them Pulitzers!

PLEASE.

I was trying to figure out what the HELL was going on in my city. TO my city. Why the world had suddenly gone utterly, completely mad. And I had to figure out a way to help my reporters explain that to our readers. Did we win a Pulizer? Yup. We also won one for covering the Northridge Earthquake. And we sure were salivating over documenting all that death and destruction.

Sorry for the sarcasm. But it truly, deeply bothers me that you would have so little understanding of our jobs and feel the need to be so harsh toward those of us who do a job you don't understand. I probably shouldn't let it bother me, but I do; I hope that pleases you.

To put it in relative terms, I've never ridden a dressage test; never done a three-day event; never done an endurance ride. But that does not mean I cannot appreciate the effort, hardiness, courage and dedication to do any of those pursuits well.

Yes, covering the news is my job. I'm good at it. Some days, I'm better than good; I'd like to think a few of those days have been during the last godawful week. I *could* have done something else with my life, but I doubt I would have been as good at it. Journalists, like everyone else, tend to gravitate toward the professions that will make the most use of their talents.

Finally -- and yes, I know that this post is reaching novel-length proportions -- it probably won't matter to you, but this catastrophe is on very channel in pretty much every country that doesn't have government-controlled television. It's in every newspaper. My cable company carries BBC news and we're all they're talking about; it carries four Mexico stations, and we're "it" on them, too. France, Germany, Italy -- pretty much everywhere in Europe, South America, Australia, Canada, wherever, and they're seeing the same footage you are.

It's news. It's history. It's US, for God's sake.

Frankly, I can't help but feel that you realize that you've struck a nerve with your posts on this thread. That skewering people -- and getting a rise out of them -- somehow pleases you. If that's the case, might I suggest that you've missed your calling and should have been a commentator.

Or perhaps you already are.

****Bulletin Board Goddess****

Canter

Sep. 18, 2001, 12:57 PM

Once again, I applaud you Beezer! I could only wish for a small, very small percentage of your writing talent.

I too am very appreciative for that one CNN correspondent based in Afghanistan. Nic Robertson (is that correct?) is a hero as far as I'm concerned. He could do his job from anywhere in the world, and yet he choses possibly one of the most dangerous assignments on the face of this earth.
Information is power - information is powerful.

Coreene

Sep. 18, 2001, 01:10 PM

On the advertising side again, we are starting to lose some contracts. A few companies have canceled their ads and asked if they could reschedule later, feeling either that their line of work and/or their particular campaign may be in poor taste, given what has happened. We are strapping ourselves down, too, from the other side of the US.

My parents' travel business is also taking a huge hit.

Celia

Sep. 18, 2001, 02:37 PM

If you need to breathe and wish not to be informed, turn off the television. Don't blame the news media - that's their job.

Velvet

Sep. 18, 2001, 02:44 PM

I understand your position Beezer. I don't completely understand the job and choices made, but I understand what you are saying and how YOU feel about it. No sarcasm, no major disagreement. I get it.

And I will also add that I was feeling very good this morning when Katie Couric (sp?) said that she felt ashamed for some of the things they had said and done on NBC during the course of last week. That actually improved my perception of the media. For once (from all that I've seen) I saw someone truly chagrined.

As for the comments on the risks some journalists take...I don't know that my opinion will change, but I'm open to understanding "why" people do it. If not for the reasons I previously stated (in my jaded opinion), then why??? Truly, why??? There have been times when people are put at risk through no fault of their own. Others do it to help save people and property. Why do reports think they have to do it?

I am, seriously, interested in finding out.

lilblackhorse

Sep. 18, 2001, 02:49 PM

drat, I just posted a long reply and lost it. This morning I watched/listened to bits of the today show while I made kid's lunches. They showed a long segment of the news that got "missed" over the last week, pre-empted by the tragedy. A track team from Wyoming that was killed in an accident, etc. Afterwords, Katie sat stunned and made some comment about how the world, or at least these folks, had continued living their lives. And then she said she wished they had balanced this other stuff essentially instead of focusing so much on this one topic.
I thought that was interesting...no one is blaming you Beezer for doing your job-I don't honestly think that was the intention of the original poster. I think the whole topic has gotten way off the course altogether-yes, one can just turn off the tv, but it does help people to move on when it is just the breaking news being discussed instead of the same grisly photos of planes hitting buildings and people leaping out of windows. JMHO....I think that some of you have been fairly cruel in your remarks-everyone is patriotic in their own way and is dealing with the pain, anger and frustration in different ways. Lighten up.

Celia

Sep. 18, 2001, 03:17 PM

Velvet - perhaps you would feel better if you channeled your anger towards something more constructive or at least towards the terrorists! The media DID NOT coordinate the attacks of last week. As an American and a journalist, I am insulted that you would take the time to bash reporters for simply doing their jobs. Could you clarify for me which team you are rooting for because your posts have me confused.

I applaud Beezer's words!! I tried to ignore your comments and get back to my work but the anger I felt after reading your posts got to me. At a time when our country needs to be pulling together, it seems you are doing your part to be destructive. Haven't we endured enough already?

As far as why we do the job, I can only speak for myself. The love and sheer desire to tell the story as accurately as possible tops the list. To find some way to offer a positive slant on an otherwise "bad news day." To give dignity to the innocent lives lost. To inform and help preserve history. Without a record of events, our future generations have no way to teach young people about our previous mistakes and therefore avoid them in the future. How would you have learned about Pearl Harbor, WW2, the assassination of world leaders, etc.? It is all about educating, enlightening and asking people to pause for a moment, take a deep breath and think about the events taking place in our great nation. If people choose to be uninformed - that is their right but don't attack those for offering something more to those who NEED and DEMAND more from our media.

Velvet

Sep. 18, 2001, 03:30 PM

Just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water... *shrug*

There's a difference between enlightenment and and a feeding frenzy.

[This message was edited by Velvet on Sep. 18, 2001 at 06:44 PM.]

Celia

Sep. 18, 2001, 04:06 PM

I wouldn't define it as a "feeding frenzy" but I suppose sharing knowledge, informing and helping others understand the truth is open to individual interpretation...

suzy

Sep. 19, 2001, 06:19 AM

It's the media blitz of the same information over and over again that was bothering me. Of course, we need to record this event for future generations. I don't think anyone is arguing THAT point. However, to see the constant rerunning of the planes hitting the towers was too sickening for some of us. I opted for the radio where I could actually learn more about Bin Laden, the Islamic religion, Middle Eastern tensions, and more. A body count and repeated gruesome images does not enlighten; it just creates a mentality of hatred. This is just my opinion, but I think that we need to better understand the Middle East in order to deal effectively and humanely. I find that I'm learning much more by listening to radio programs and reading the paper than I am by watching TV. This is just my own personal choice since I've never been the type of person to stop and gawk at a car wreck (or any other tragic accident).

Velvet

Sep. 19, 2001, 07:19 AM

I see that some people have not understood my replies, yet again.

Yes, I disagreed with the media feeding frenzy/blitz. I think they need to show some good judgment (and therefore, think they are lacking in any judgment but poor--most of the time). I think we need information, but not to be overwhelmed by it (as suzy so eloquently pointed out). I do know that my TV has an on/off switch, and I do use it...I am concerned about the people who don't seem to know they have one, or as the cliche goes, they don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain.

I also don't always believe that the media has to run into a burning building to report it. Again, my opinion. I just don't see that sense. I understand history needs to be recorded, but it has been well recorded in the past--without camera crews and even photos. Would you think the Spanish Inquisition more horrible if you had pictures instead of words? Or how about the Revolutionary War (to relate this to the U.S.). Maybe I just have a good imagination, but I don't think it would add to the impact for me.

*HUGE sigh*

Erin

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:08 AM

Velvet, you're certainly entitled to your opinion... but I find it kind of offensive that because YOU don't want to see certain things, you don't think anyone else should. Many, many people here have said they were glued to the TV for most of last week. I read a story in the paper about how many people are actually going to "ground zero" because they want to see the devastation in person. Many have said they felt weird about it, but felt they "needed to do it."

If you prefer not to see it all, fine... but why on earth do you think you should dictate what everyone else sees? I don't want anyone but ME to decide how much news I should have. I want the news stations to offer absolutely all the information they can.

I also find your comments about protecting those who might not be "smart" enough to understand all this downright disturbing, so I'm just not going to go there.

Yes, I want them the news stations to be sensitive to their impact on people, and they probably need some lessons in that. But who was prepared for this? Certainly not the government, not the airlines, not the public... why do you expect more of the media? Why do you expect them to have behaved with some kind of far-reaching foresight within 24 hours of this kind of inconceivable event that happened in their backyards?

And I honestly don't understand your problem with news crews reporting at the scene. Do you think the talking heads should just sit at their news desks and describe for us what is going on? Why in the world should we have television if we're not going to use it??!

I have not heard one single report of a news crew needing to be "rescued" from the WTC. I doubt they were charging up the stairs with the firefighters. Yes, they were there on the scene -- like the rescue workers, when everyone else is running AWAY, they are running TO the scene. THAT IS THEIR JOB. And it wouldn't surprise me to hear that some had tried to sneak around police barricades or something -- it's wrong, it's stupid, but it probably happens. I'm sure there were regular citizens trying to do the same thing.

And yes, as is so sadly evident by the person who died from Jennasis' station, I'm sure that just like the emergency workers, some were lost when the building went down. But, like the rescue workers, IT IS THEIR JOB to be where the news, and the danger, is.

If you don't like it, don't try to get a job as a cameraperson or reporter, I guess...

Colin

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:16 AM

I'd watch it....Erin is a redhead, you know..... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Velvet

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:31 AM

I see, now, Colin. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for seeing other peoples points of view, well I never said that they shouldn't cover it 24x7. I just thought that not every single channel needed to cover it (except that each thinks their the only one who is able...I guess...or was it for ratings).

I still disagree with it being a part of their job description that they have to run to ground zero--I don't see the necessity. And, you're right, I'll never work for the media, probably because of this...and because I don't like their professional ethics in the majority of situations(personal issue here again). It's like the OJ Simpson trial. Why in the world did we all need to see it and have updates every second of the day? Just because he was famous. What about other cases and normal people? Why don't they rate? Why are their plights ignored? The media could bring other issues to the forefront if they wanted, but instead they go for what's easy.

Okay, enough in that vein. I'm never going to agree with the majority of the people who are now replying to this thread (there's no knowing what some of the lurkers are thinking--if they agree or disagree with me).

As I have stated a couple of times already out here...I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Robby Johnson

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:35 AM

Why don't you lock the thread, Erin?

In fact, I vote we lock all of the Terrorist Attack-related threads, maybe leave one, and start filtering back to horses.

Robby

Snowbird

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:39 AM

I appreciaate your reflections. Somehow, it is important that we all learn that there are different strokes for different folks. That's what this great country is all about.

I have been glued to the TV listening to all the stories about who these hijackers were, the history of Bin Laden which I admit I didn't know at all. I too resent the "big brother mentality" which thinks it needs to protect those not so clever as the poster. And the same "big brother" which might want to sanitize the news that I hear.

I think there is an assumption by some that we are not intelligent enough to make a proper decision. Like sheep we can be stampeded and I have more confidence in our national intelligence than that.

I think it good for children to see what a real disaster is, and how people can pitch in and help each other. I think that it has been wonderful for them to see our police and firemen doing their real jobs well. What a relief to have these service units considered heros instead of some ball player whose talent is simply ssmacking a little white ball better than anyone else.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if little children got back to wanting to be policemen and firemen and volunteering for First Aid squads. Wouldn't it be wonderful if when they grew up they at least learned all those skills. Isn't it better than all the news about corruption and selfishness which demans those who are really caring and dedicated.

I get from the news a great pride in how truly generous the people in this country can be. I am thrilled after all these years that people feel they want to sing songs which glorify this wonderful land. Imagine to actually be able to play the National Anthem and have everyone stand quietly and respect it.

I think the media has been spectacular in bringing us the stories of all the good things people are doing. What a relief from years of hearing nothing but how bad we all are.

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:39 AM

Respectfully disagree, Robby --

I for one have no interest at all in discussing horses right now - it just seems too trivial to spend time on.

On another thread, it's very interesting to follow Snowbird's posts, and others as well.

Perhaps you could start a thread for those who want to discuss horses, and "lock" these threads for yourself - i.e., don't open or read them. There's certainly room on the bb for many topics; if horses are the one you want to follow, go for it!

moose

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:43 AM

You know what Robby, while I want to agree with you on one level, on another I so desperately don't. I also agree that a BB about horses is not exactly the most appropriate place to always discuss it. However, over 5000 people were killed with one savage act. The goal was much more. I feel just a bit strange discussing horses in light of this, even though my interest in them keeps me drifting to this board. This is deadly serious and has only just begun. I realize we can't really control anything in our day to day lives, but I find it just a bit strange to go on discussing day to day activities with out what is occurring outside creeping into my thoughts, as they should be.

Erin

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:49 AM

I'm not going to lock this thread... there's no reason to.

I think, as in other areas of life, the BB will eventually start to drift back to normal. But I'm not going to make an arbitrary designation of when that will happen. I think it'll happen on its own.

Canter

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:52 AM

Please, lets not jump all over Robbie. It's great that he's ready to move on. Unfortunately, many of us aren't ready yet.
So why don't we leave it at that, rather than debate it? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Heidi

Sep. 19, 2001, 09:31 AM

With the news that there are, in all likelihood, members of Bin Laden's terrorist group still remaining in the U.S. who have established sufficient roots within their American communities not to raise suspicion, I admit that I feared the violence such a disclosure would undoubtedly unleash.

As has happened, I was concerned that this news would incite some to personally retaliate against anyone of eastern Asian, Arabic and Islamic cultures and religion. Upon further consideration, though, those who would react with violence against innocent Arab, Indian and Islamic-Americans and Canadians are utter morons whose racism justifies, in their minds, any and all acts of violence under the guise of a perverted patriotism. They're more an indication of the violent society that we've lived in for decades than an indication of the media's purported 'irresponsibility'.

I'd also add that there are greater numbers of people who've now been made aware that our fellow North Americans are being threatened, beaten, their mosques burnt and pillaged - who will rush to the assistance of these innocent Arab, Indian and Islamic-Americans and Canadians.

I do believe that awareness breeds safety and precaution and it is better to know that there may remain clear and present dangers than to continue to live under the false pretense of national and personal safety. For 'arming' us with information, I thank the media for enabling us to keep ourselves even a tad safer.

(Oh and an addendum, we may not agree about some things Snowbird but, in response to your post above, amen and halleluah!)

InWhyCee

Sep. 19, 2001, 09:39 AM

Thank you, Erin, for NOT locking these threads. As much as I would LOVE for my life to get back to normal, the fact remains that the past week has been unprecedented for everyone. While I'm (finally!) returning to the barn tonight, that won't mean a large part of my me won't still be concentrated elsewhere. Eventually the "horsey" posts will return, but until then I'm very interested in what everyone else (even Robbie) has to say about life outside the stable.

Robby Johnson

Sep. 19, 2001, 11:46 AM

How hard would it be, Erin, to lock a "WTC" thread at 500 posts and start a "WTC2" and so forth and so on? I'm not suggesting people quit talking - just that you do a little bit of management and "wrangle in" this plethora of OT posts.

I personally think one post to discuss the plethora of events is appropriate (as I recommended) on this bb, but a sea of them isn't. That doesn't mean I'm hardened or unaffected by the tragedy - that is far from the truth. I am following news reports hourly on my home page, and would prefer not to see them here as well (particularly since much of what is posted here is insinuation and unconfirmed fact).

But I respect everyone's wish to grieve and please know that I am in no way attempting to prevent that process. I'll continue to read what I choose to read.

Robby

Sep. 19, 2001, 11:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Everyone has their ass on their shoulders ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you need to protect Robby - he seems to be quite capable of defending himself.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Robby Johnson

Sep. 19, 2001, 11:54 AM

Since you clearly have your ass on your shoulders! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Robby

Sep. 19, 2001, 12:00 PM

Cool, Robby!

Hey - do you need a flashlight? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Heidi

Sep. 19, 2001, 12:02 PM

Since I don't have an ass but have been advised by dear Robby that they've migrated to my shoulders, does that mean I have to dig out my power suits from the early '90's with the uber-shoulder pads?

Hephaistion

Sep. 19, 2001, 12:03 PM

Anything but that Heidi! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Robby Johnson

Sep. 19, 2001, 12:06 PM

But, then again, I've never been one to speak in riddles.

Heidi-ugh ... you know shoulder pads were big in the 80's. The 90's were all about the deconstructed look. Think John Galliano for Christian Dior.

Robby

moose

Sep. 19, 2001, 12:08 PM

umm, well... bite me Robby..(meant in as comical a way as can possibly be perceived)

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Dementia 13

Sep. 19, 2001, 12:09 PM

Well Velvet, now that you mention it, I've been lurking on this thread and I disagree with you. Rather strongly, in fact.

Canter

Sep. 19, 2001, 12:21 PM

Robbie, is your thong is a little too tight today darlin'? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif (meant in as comical a way as can possibly be perceived) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

pt - you are so right!!! Robbie can take care of his own LOL!

Erin

Sep. 19, 2001, 12:28 PM

Suggestion noted, Robby, and I might do it later on. I just think it's too soon to try to rope these topics in, so I'm going to leave them alone for the time being.

Velvet, I'm going to address one more point... at the risk of not agreeing to disagree. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Honestly, I'm not trying to argue... I'm trying to explain.

Let's back up from 9/11 for a minute. Why do you think the Chronicle spends the money to send reporters to horse shows all over the country and the world? (Trust me, sitting at a H/J show in Podunk, Idaho, is not everyone's idea of fun! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Because being there is integral to being able to tell, and show, the story.

The Chronicle can and does cover some shows by phone if budget or time doesn't allow someone to go in person. The reporters call up people who won, interview them, get photos from photographers who were there, and put a story together. But what's missing is the details that good reporters weave into a good story. All the "news" is still there -- but those intangible little details are missing.

Beezer's paper won a Pulitzer for their stories on the riots because they were there, and were able able to make the readers understand what it was like to be there. I'm sure they could still have informed their readers about the riots without actually living through them (I'm sure they would have PREFERRED that it happened that way!) but, by being there, their stories had that something extra.

Reporters go to the scene because they want to show the scene, and they want to talk to the people who are at the scene. The fact that any news organization that can get a reporter and a camera there is allowed to do so is a GOOD thing. This means that no one single entity is able to control or skew the coverage. (A la the official government "newspapers" in countries where the press is severely restricted.)

You said you don't see the necessity of having reporters at "ground zero"... You said those reports don't add to the impact for you. Fine and dandy. But for some of us, they do, and I'm glad the reporters are there. I hope you wouldn't deny me my right to get the news in the way that I would prefer, just because it's not the way you would prefer.

BTW, I don't think anyone would hold the OJ fiasco up as an example of the media's finest hour. But, again, it's easy to criticize in hindsight and it's a different story when the drama is unfolding live...

Also, why did ALL the stations have 24/7 coverage? Because it would seem ridiculous to talk about anything else. That's why Leno, Letterman, et al were off the air last week. They couldn't just pretend all of this wasn't going on.

ONE more thing. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I take exception to your statement that the media goes for what is "easy"... OJ, for instance. Sorry, but no news organization worth its salt is just going to decide NOT to cover that story. It's big, it has to be covered.

But if you look a little closer, you'll see the media trying to champion the little people sometimes... I know the Chronicle tries to do this. Yeah, they have to write about Ms. Big Bucks when she wins at Big Horse Show on Milliondollar Moe. But if someone has a good story, they'll tell it... although I wonder sometimes if anyone actually reads those. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, and I'll be the first to agree that there are some real pinheads in the media. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif But please don't just brush off what they do as being unnecessary without trying to understand it.

suzy

Sep. 19, 2001, 02:03 PM

I can always count on you to keep me up-to-date on the latest fashion trends and trendy designers. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Robby Johnson

Sep. 19, 2001, 02:33 PM

You know what I always say ...

When in doubt, wear the Gucci.

xoxo

RJ

Velvet

Sep. 19, 2001, 02:56 PM

Points taken. I know I shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but sometimes out here conversations devolve into generalities when things get heated.

As for the Chronicle, I think horse shows are different than these dangerous events. If someone is already there and the event happens, they should write about it, but I don't see why someone needs to run into a burning building to describe what it's like to be on fire. (One of those points where we have to agree to disagree.) I mean, telling me what it looked like, and what other people who experienced it because they had to (they were involved as victims, or they were firefighters and policemen/women) makes more sense to me. And, for the Chronicle's part, they need to go to all the shows, because no one else in this country covers the same events.

When I see every one of my local stations sending people to Washington and New York, that's when I see it as a feeding frenzy, or a battle for ratings. Usually they just repeat each other, and then I wonder why they are all bothering and not just pooling their resources (ah, but it's a business...)

I don't necessarily think that they should have been showing "Jerry Springer" instead of covering the news, but why can't they have someone in the background putting together more in-depth (instead of picking up on rumors) stories on the events and then putting them on TV.

I think the WB did the right thing by showing some innocuous movie the next night, and letting the other channels duke it out. I actually wish (yeah, this is a pipe dream) that the other channels would have gotten together and each decided to cover one aspect so people could just go to what interests them most. Maybe then the repeating of the image over and over wouldn't have bothered me because I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't want to.

I'm just rambling here. I'm not really annoyed anymore; just still disappointed by the behavior I saw the evening of 9/12 and all of 9/13 (not 9/11). Then again, hearing Katie Couric also made it better. When they admit to their mistakes, it shows that someone out there is actually aware of it and is willing to take responsibility. It's when they go into the overkill mode and don't seem to think there's anything wrong with some of the things they show and the image that they project ON TO (I use that term because most American's are passive viewers of news--and that information is in many studies) the public.

I'll repeat it again (and I know you get it, Erin) this is--JMHO.

Velvet

Sep. 19, 2001, 02:56 PM

A DQ never admits that she receives fashion tips from anyone else. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Midge

Sep. 19, 2001, 03:49 PM

is they die if no one is interested in replying. If people DO reply, then it is a viable thread.

Jennasis

Sep. 19, 2001, 05:16 PM

There's lots of things I wish I didn't have to do as far as covering news is concerned...but let's remember...it is my job. That's what they pay me to do (and the reporters too). We DON'T like it. We usually try very hard to convince the higher ups that it is a bad idea to go to the disaster sight. And don't forget the all important police line. WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO GO AS CLOSE TO THE "SCENE" AS POLICE DEEM SAFE. (sometimes it still feels too close.)

We hate knocking on doors to ask the recently widowed woman how she feels to have lost her husband...

We hate going to funerals and looking like vultures...

We hate going to crime scenes...

We hate standing out in blizzards and hurricanes warning people to "stay inside at all costs" while we freeze/get blown away...

We are being paid to do a job, and the job is often unpleasant. Just keep that in mind when you think about news. Don't be angry with the reporters, or the photographers, or the cameraman. It is never our idea to be there. Be angry with station managers, news directors, editors, and producers. They are the decision makers...

Beezer

Sep. 19, 2001, 05:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jennasis:
Don't be angry with the reporters, or the photographers, or the cameraman. It is never our idea to be there. Be angry with station managers, news directors, editors, and producers. They are the decision makers...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! I resemble that remark!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

****Bulletin Board Goddess****

Jennasis

Sep. 19, 2001, 05:43 PM

OK...All news management EXCEPT Beezer! But you'd never send me into a burning building for a few lousy pics would ya Beez?

Trixie

Sep. 19, 2001, 08:05 PM

We've got to form a media clique!!!

Our paper is local, although the distribution's nearly that of the Washington Times, it's pretty much within the Washington DC/Metropolitan area, with the exception of a few places in Northern Virginia. Our editor went up to NY this weekend to take a look. Why? Because we paid him to? No, he went on his own time. He went up not because he'd get a pulitzer or any recognition for what he was writing -- let's face it, no matter how good our paper is, it's small, and our stories probably won't get mentioned to the big time.
However, he went up there because he wanted to understand his story and know what he was writing about. Yeah, we went to the Pentagon too (though that was easier). He said that he had some time and he wanted to see firsthand so he could report from beyond what's on CNN, with a firsthand view of it.

If they asked me to go, I'd do it. I know I won't win any huge awards for it, but to me, that's irrelevant. Why do I do this job? For me it's that taking pictures is one of the only things that makes me happy (besides riding) and writing a good story is another thing that makes me happy. It's a rush to see my stuff in print -- the good moreso than the bad. I love to write and take photos -- and this is a way for me to be able to do that.

I'm with Jennasis also -- none of us enjoy doing harsh news stories with sad endings. I've been blessed with the ability to turn off my emotions when I'm working with that stuff, but like I said before, when I go home, I feel it. And I'll say quite articulately that it really sucks to do that job, but someone's got to do it.

suzy

Sep. 20, 2001, 07:05 AM

Could we PUHLEEZE get back to talking about fashion and designers. Sheesh! Now, Robby, about Gucci... do the gloves and shoes and bag HAVE TO match this season?

Robby Johnson

Sep. 20, 2001, 07:31 AM

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Actually, I went to the local mall last night - something I do once each year whether I need to or not (and always incognito, since I would die of embarrassment if someone actually saw me there) - and there are some really cute things out now. I sort of quit shopping during my 3.5 years with Willow as her shoes and my garb were more important (I have 2 custom made riding jackets and a plethora of other "show apparel"). This year there are actually clothes that a 30 year-old male can wear and not feel like he's attempting to look like a thug.

Robby

Beezer

Sep. 20, 2001, 01:37 PM

Velvet's question about *why* journalists do what they do is a good -- and important -- one. And I honestly value her opinions, no matter how much they might personally bother me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I work with photographers but am not one, nor do I assign them to stories -- since I feel can't I can truly speak "for" them, I'll stick to reporters and editors; I'm also talking only about print folks here -- I don't "know" TV and radio.

Reporters and editors (who generally used to be reporters) are born with more than their share of curiosity. They're nosy; they're amateur detectives; they want to know why and how, what "that" means and how "this" works. They like stories; they like to hear them, they like to tell them.

Other facets of their personality -- and life experiences -- dictate what area of news they turn that curiosity on: "investigative reporting" (think Watergate, the Olympic bribery scandal), "hard" or "breaking" news (that'd be your cops and robbers, criminals and courts, fires and floods), civic affairs (government, including all its endless agencies), business, environment, science, "soft news" (those would be the ones who do the "lifestyle" stories, travel, food and -- yes, for Suzy and Robby -- fashion).

Foreign correspondents are a whole 'nother breed. Ditto war correspondents -- who are usually foreign correspondents lucky or unlucky enough (depending on one's viewpoint) to be posted to a country that the rest of the world suddenly turns its eye on. They are generally the best of the best, the elite reporters who are enmeshed in the lives, policies and politics of the country they are assigned to. Many U.S.-born reporters heed that call; in many other cases, U.S. media outlets hire the best and brightest of the local journalists to be their eyes and ears overseas.

Anyway....

We're also really, really good observers -- a personality trait that our training builds on. "The human condition" fascinates us. We're intrigued by that old "who, what, where, when and why," and we have a talent for explaining it to those who may also want to know but don't know how or have the time to find it out.

On a story of this magnitude, yes, we are all tripping over ourselves. We can, do and will make mistakes. But consider us part of the team that is trying to find out the "who" and "why" and "how" so that it never happens again.

One of my reporters is a Vietnam vet. He is a wonderful character, even though most of the newsroom considers him a bit of a loose cannon. Having dug under the bluster, I've discovered a very kind -- and while he'd rip me a new one for ever saying this, even though he'd be blushing at the same time over the praise -- a very, very sweet, tender man with great wells of compassion for the people he interviews.

He -- like all of us -- took these attacks very, very personally. He's mined every source, tapped every tip, in hopes of rooting out a few terrorists. Silly? Perhaps. But it was a mission to him. A war to him. One he needed -- indeed, was compelled -- to fight. He "found" that a couple of them had lived locally; he uncovered details of their lives that even the police had missed. He shares with the FBI, the FBI shares what they can on the record and what they can't off the record, and the public gains.

I'm not sure if I've helped explain or just made things worse. But I am truly very, very proud of the work my reporters, and my paper, is doing. And I am reminded of just how important it is when I get calls like the one I fielded yesterday, from the teary-voiced woman calling to thank us for the stories we are doing. She had me crying, too, before she was done. Not that it takes that much to do that these days.

****Bulletin Board Goddess****

Lily

Sep. 20, 2001, 02:10 PM

I for one was truly grateful for the 24-hour coverage. I was away in Massachusetts last Tuesday. Had I been home I would have been walking through the trade center at 8:45 AM on my way to my office in the world financial center. Being able to watch the events unfolding back home helped me out enormously- because phones weren't working all that well in New York City (if at all), that was my only link to friends and family back home. I watched constantly for a glimpse of anyone I knew.

If you don't like the coverage, don't watch it. But don't take it away from those who are looking for any detail about missing friends, family, coworkers.

Someone early on mentioned the pictures of people jumping out the windows of the WTC. As awful as those photos are, they are most certainly news. A friend of mine was nearly hit by a body when leaving his building.

Now, over a week after 9/11, I'm quite glad that stations like MSNBC have continued their continuous converage, but glad that some TV has gotten back to normal- particularly stations catering to children. But I honestly can't imagine being interested in soap operas or music videos right now- I'm certainly not.

I think the news coverage has been excellent thus far. I think there's been a good balance of hard news and more personal stories. How can anyone watch Howard Lutnick of Cantor Fitz talk about his missing brother and coworkers without feeling his pain? One other particularly touching moment that stands out in my mind was when Tom Brokaw first saw the picture of firefighters raising an American flag at ground zero and started crying. Even after all these years in journalism, he's still unable to hide his emotions when it comes to this. That says something.

One thing that I do wish is that the networks would do differently is to use a different shot of the ground zero area. What I've been watching here in NY on NBC is a shot of essentially West St.- which in a way I don't mind because I see my building all the time. But that's really just looking at the street, and not the actual area where the towers stood. But until you see the aerial shots, you can't comprehend how large the disaster area is- and how tough this is for the rescue workers, firefighters, and everyone else involved, no matter how remotely.

[This message was edited by Lily on Sep. 20, 2001 at 07:04 PM.]