I’m not a fan of the media’s anniversary stories of disasters—natural or otherwise; and/or deaths of renowned people—normally as a result of violence or otherwise tragic and unexpected circumstances. Most of them seem to focus on the negativity of the initial event, which I find tedious. Perhaps the most high-profile recurring anniversary story, which will again make headlines in just a few weeks, concerns the intentional and deadly airplane crashes in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001.
Now, with the 10th anniversary of those murderous crashes close at hand, the predictable onslaught of non-stop, round-the-clock reruns of news accounts from that terrible day will be enveloping us yet again. The media’s lust for churning out anniversary stories of tragic or debilitating events, and the public’s apparent eagerness and passion for negative anniversary stories seems like a collective aphrodisiac for the media who readily produce them, and for the public who hungrily consume them. These kinds of news items usually seem negative and designed to bring viewers, listeners, and readers to their knees in a kind of contrived collective despondency.
Yet, in fairness, these kinds of anniversary stories can also be helpful in some ways, especially if: 1) they inform and educate younger people who weren’t ‘there’ when ‘it’ happened--to help them understand the national grief that gripped many people, maybe even their own family members, when the actual incident occurred; and 2) if the anniversary stories include insights learned and perspectives acquired by authorities--which, theoretically, might help prevent these kinds of disasters from happening again. Overall, then, I think anniversary stories of a terrible event can be complementary, healthy, informative, and potentially beneficial; especially if they include new, updated, and otherwise helpful information.
I think it’s unnecessary to recount here the details of the horrendous incidents of Sept. 11, 2001. Suffice it to say, though, the media, with its often robotic regularity, can be almost guaranteed to bombard and saturate themselves and the viewing, reading, and listening public with an overbearing barrage of print stories, photographs, T.V. footage, and dramatic radio clips from 10 years ago. From a human standpoint, of course we should remember what happened that day; as well as other tragic high-profile events throughout history, mainly because we might continue to learn from them. But do we really need to see, hear, and read about the horrifying events of Sept. 11, 2001 all over again in explicit, graphic ways—as likely will happen with predictable regularity on the upcoming anniversary itself, and for some time afterwards?
Frankly, too many anniversary stories of tragic events such as the airplane crashes of Sept. 11, 2001 just seem redundant--mainly reruns, reprints, and rehashes of the initial reports; sad story after sad story, which raises questions about media and business ethics, and media control. First, are anniversary stories of disastrous situations really just good for business? Media outlets make money from advertisers who know they can potentially sell more of their products and services if they hawk their wares during the anniversary stories. Second, do the media, collectively, control how and what the public feels and thinks during these anniversary stories, by cleverly manipulating people’s emotions and thoughts with dramatic film footage, still photographs, and oral and written storytelling?
Some might say this scenario epitomizes the proverbial ‘which came first, the chicken-or-egg’ question: 1) has the media, as a collective unit, created this overall situation, convincing themselves and the public these anniversary stories are essential to remembering the tragedies in question, and these stories are just responsible journalism? Has the media, collectively, created this situation mainly because it’s good business;? or 2) has the public created the situation by demonstrating—through their previous practices of viewing and listening to these stories, buying newspapers and magazines, and logging into online news sites, among other things--that they need and want these kinds of anniversary stories of tragic situations; and they want the media to seriously influence their emotions—for better or worse--with anniversary stories, even for events that happened long ago?
Now, with the 10th anniversary of those murderous crashes close at hand, the predictable onslaught of non-stop, round-the-clock reruns of news accounts from that terrible day will be enveloping us yet again. The media’s lust for churning out anniversary stories of tragic or debilitating events, and the public’s apparent eagerness and passion for negative anniversary stories seems like a collective aphrodisiac for the media who readily produce them, and for the public who hungrily consume them. These kinds of news items usually seem negative and designed to bring viewers, listeners, and readers to their knees in a kind of contrived collective despondency.
Yet, in fairness, these kinds of anniversary stories can also be helpful in some ways, especially if: 1) they inform and educate younger people who weren’t ‘there’ when ‘it’ happened--to help them understand the national grief that gripped many people, maybe even their own family members, when the actual incident occurred; and 2) if the anniversary stories include insights learned and perspectives acquired by authorities--which, theoretically, might help prevent these kinds of disasters from happening again. Overall, then, I think anniversary stories of a terrible event can be complementary, healthy, informative, and potentially beneficial; especially if they include new, updated, and otherwise helpful information.
I think it’s unnecessary to recount here the details of the horrendous incidents of Sept. 11, 2001. Suffice it to say, though, the media, with its often robotic regularity, can be almost guaranteed to bombard and saturate themselves and the viewing, reading, and listening public with an overbearing barrage of print stories, photographs, T.V. footage, and dramatic radio clips from 10 years ago. From a human standpoint, of course we should remember what happened that day; as well as other tragic high-profile events throughout history, mainly because we might continue to learn from them. But do we really need to see, hear, and read about the horrifying events of Sept. 11, 2001 all over again in explicit, graphic ways—as likely will happen with predictable regularity on the upcoming anniversary itself, and for some time afterwards?
Frankly, too many anniversary stories of tragic events such as the airplane crashes of Sept. 11, 2001 just seem redundant--mainly reruns, reprints, and rehashes of the initial reports; sad story after sad story, which raises questions about media and business ethics, and media control. First, are anniversary stories of disastrous situations really just good for business? Media outlets make money from advertisers who know they can potentially sell more of their products and services if they hawk their wares during the anniversary stories. Second, do the media, collectively, control how and what the public feels and thinks during these anniversary stories, by cleverly manipulating people’s emotions and thoughts with dramatic film footage, still photographs, and oral and written storytelling?
Some might say this scenario epitomizes the proverbial ‘which came first, the chicken-or-egg’ question: 1) has the media, as a collective unit, created this overall situation, convincing themselves and the public these anniversary stories are essential to remembering the tragedies in question, and these stories are just responsible journalism? Has the media, collectively, created this situation mainly because it’s good business;? or 2) has the public created the situation by demonstrating—through their previous practices of viewing and listening to these stories, buying newspapers and magazines, and logging into online news sites, among other things--that they need and want these kinds of anniversary stories of tragic situations; and they want the media to seriously influence their emotions—for better or worse--with anniversary stories, even for events that happened long ago?
I was studying for my Master’s degree in Halifax, Nova Scotia when I learned of the first intentional airplane crash in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001; and writing an essay for one of my courses, around 9 a.m. that day. I turned on the small television beside my computer, as I often did when writing, and saw for the first time, on NBC’s Today Show from New York, not far from the crash site, what had happened just minutes earlier. Like most people, I was mesmerized. Strangely, at that moment, New York City seemed just around the corner, thanks to the immediacy and power of television. I suddenly felt sad. My heart sank.
I felt as though I wanted to be there and do something, anything, to help someone else and/or me feel better in some way but there was nothing I could do—or wanted to do—but watch the television screen. I set my essay aside for a few minutes, watching the television in stunned silence. I was focused too much on that catastrophic news story, anyway, and knew I’d be wasting my time trying to write. Before long, however, I knew I had to turn off the T. V. if I was going to finish and hand in my essay that day; first things first, I told myself. As one who’d worked in the media, I also knew that story would still be happening when I finished my essay; it wasn’t going away anytime soon; and of course it hasn’t.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, there’s been a string of often-repetitive anniversary-and-related stories published and broadcast over the years. Most of these kinds of stories mainly seem to rehash old information, and can potentially be mentally and emotionally exhausting and even psychologically trying for many people, depending on each person’s situation. Of course people don’t have to pay attention to these anniversary stories. But human nature being what it is, many of us seem drawn to drama—even or especially if it involves a real-life horror of unimaginable proportions such as the events of 10 years ago. There might not be all-encompassing answers as to why this happens, but here are some suggestions:
- Maybe we hope to gain some new understanding, insight or awareness of the Twin Towers air attacks because they were so extraordinary and dramatic; even though we've seen or heard them many times before;;
- Some people who think they don’t have much in their own lives might immerse themselves in these high-profile negative anniversary stories to help themselves feel they’re part of something significant;
- Perhaps humans, collectively, are gluttons for punishment: we know we might feel terrible after hearing, watching, and reading too many stories about the Sept. 11, 2001 tragedies, and others such as the violent death of Diana, Princess of Wales nearly 15 years ago, but we do it anyway;
- We might relish these anniversary stories with some satisfied smugness—an ‘I’m glad it was them and their family member/friend, not me or mine’ attitude. If so, we’re not exactly taking pleasure in others’ misfortune, as the German word Schadenfreude denotes; but we’re glad we weren’t in that location when the disaster occurred, and we can also--perhaps unconsciously—be glad it happened to ‘them,’ not us.
Yet, despite the repetitive nature of many such anniversary stories, they can also help us remember other important situations. For instance, in thinking recently about the impending 15th anniversary of Diana's death, I recalled a special incident with my daughter Heather, when she was nine years old. One afternoon a day or so after Diana died, Heather and I were walking toward downtown. She’d seen me watching T. V. coverage of Diana’s death so I asked her if she knew who she was; she said she did. I told Heather many people in the world were very upset and sad, and crying, because Diana was very famous, popular, and young and died in a terrible car crash, she had two little boys, and a lot of people liked what they saw of her on television.
“Did you cry too, dad,?” Heather asked, catching me off-guard. For a split-second I didn’t know what to say because traditionally in our society men aren’t 'supposed to' admit to perceived ‘weaknesses’ such as crying for fear of ridicule. But a few negligible seconds later I replied, comfortably, “Yes, sometimes,” and put my arm around her shoulder as we walked. “Oh,” she said. I think that simple exchange was important for both of us: for Heather to know something personal about her dad, that he actually has feelings as she does, as though he’s almost like a real person; and for me to share that with her in an unguarded moment.
Now, as the seminal 10th anniversary of the airplane crashes of Sept. 11, 2001 approaches, we can anticipate the predictable onslaught of heartbreaking film footage, regurgitated broadcast and print stories, photographs in newspapers and magazines, and in online news sites; and the unending regularity with which they’ll be foisted upon the public. Of course the media don’t and can’t force the public to heed any of the anniversary coverage of this or other events; but no doubt the public will gobble it up anyway, as always.
As for me, I’ll likely watch or read some of the coverage, especially if there seems to be some new or updated information, but I expect I’ll do so in small doses. Watching and reading as those stories unfolded in the hours and days after the actual air attacks on the Twin Towers in New York was often overwhelming and breathtaking in a negative way. I watched too much film footage of the same debilitating scenes, and too many of the same stories that were being rehashed and repeated even then. I was reluctant to stop watching; likely afraid I’d miss something important if I turned off the T.V.
Now, I don’t want to let the media have that kind of control over me and my emotions, on such a grand scale, again. So for me, the old adage, ‘everything in moderation,’ seems a more-relaxing and healthier approach this time around.
No comments:
Post a Comment