New 9/11 photos released

[RJDiogenes]

The pictures have the beauty of a volcanic eruption; beautiful from afar and devastating on the scene.

There should be no censorship of images or information. It should not be sanitized lest people forget how horrible it was, and that it is only a fraction of what religious extremists want to inflict on civilization.

IIRC, the NYC police chief was in that helicopter hovering near one of the towers and there were people on the roof signalling for the pilot to come pick them up. But he couldn't because of all of the antennas on the roof. All he and the chief could do was watch as the tower disintegrated beneath them.

I can only imagine how horrible that must have been. Those people will be scarred for life.

 

[RogerWaters]

Amazing pictures. Terrible pictures. I glad they are being released, but I wish I could stop myself from looking at them.

 

[May 20]

Stunning photos.

I agree with both sides of the issue. Some things just don't need to be seen because they are too graphic, too terrible, too horrific. But who gets to decide that for the population at large? Censoring the media can set a dangerous precedent, so what do we do? I don't have the answer, but it does raise a good set of questions, doesn't it?

What a terrible day that was for all of us. Now I will go drown my memories in a basket of laundry and a cup of tea (normalcy).

 

[DangerMouse]

Let me give you a scenario... you are at home watching television and a news readers says: "the following footage includes images that some viewers may find disturbing." You have your five year old child playing in the living room, so to be on the safe side you flip over channels for a while. But it's a news item you really wanted to see and you know that however terrible the images, you really want to know what's happening. At 9pm when the news is on again and your child is in bed you watch the news item.

However, the next day a newspaper falls on your mat. On the cover is a horric image of the same terrorist attack that was featured on the news the night before. It's just lying there face up on the mat. You're making tea so you don't realise it's arrived but your other nine year child runs to the door to pick it up.

Or perhaps it's you that's really sensitive about seeing such images. The problem is that by the time you realise it's not a picture you want to see, you've already seen it.

Yes, the media does on occasions decide things as a collective - either through the code of conduct or just a collaborative decision. But there are very different considerations for print and broadcast journalism.

 

[WillsBabe]

The problem is that by the time you realise it's not a picture you want to see, you've already seen it.

Very true.

Yes, the media does on occasions decide things as a collective - either through the code of conduct or just a collaborative decision.

Thanks for that. I think it's a tricky question of what to show, when to show it, and what to censor. I feel that realistically there are things that I don't want to see and I don't want my (theoretical) 9 year old seeing. I think my question was born out of my concern that somewhere there is someone who decides what can and can't be seen.

 

[Lindley]

There were too many people in the building to evac them all by helicopter anyway; those things have limited weight loads. Maybe 3 evacuees at a time are all that would fit. Odds are if they did land, the thing would just be swamped anyway.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

OMG, images -- videos or pictures -- of that day are still totally surreal for me.

ETA:

It's a shame that helicopters (like the one that took the photos) couldn't land and rescue anyone. I think they did try, though. I saw footage of an NYPD helicopter trying to land but it couldn't get close enough because of the fire and the smoke.

IIRC, the NYC police chief was in that helicopter hovering near one of the towers and there were people on the roof signalling for the pilot to come pick them up. But he couldn't because of all of the antennas on the roof. All he and the chief could do was watch as the tower disintegrated beneath them.

The chief wasn't up in the helicopter (he was down on the street with Rudy and his entourage). The footage I saw was just two regular NYPD pilots.

 

[May 20]

Let me give you a scenario... you are at home watching television and a news readers says: "the following footage includes images that some viewers may find disturbing." You have your five year old child playing in the living room, so to be on the safe side you flip over channels for a while. But it's a news item you really wanted to see and you know that however terrible the images, you really want to know what's happening. At 9pm when the news is on again and your child is in bed you watch the news item.

However, the next day a newspaper falls on your mat. On the cover is a horric image of the same terrorist attack that was featured on the news the night before. It's just lying there face up on the mat. You're making tea so you don't realise it's arrived but your other nine year child runs to the door to pick it up.

Or perhaps it's you that's really sensitive about seeing such images. The problem is that by the time you realise it's not a picture you want to see, you've already seen it.

Yes, the media does on occasions decide things as a collective - either through the code of conduct or just a collaborative decision. But there are very different considerations for print and broadcast journalism.

DM, I agree with your scenario and have lived it several times, not just with 9/11. My DD was 3 when 9/11 happened. She didn't even know about it until about three years ago when the school had a memorial day on the anniversary. And I won't be showing her these photos.

But there are times that we as a population need to know what has happened or what is happening so that we can either be prepared or can make a very critical decision. So, I need to be able to trust those in journalism to make sure that what they are telling me is all that I need to know. And right now, I can't do that. It's a quandry for me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't believe in sanitizing information like this. Being swift, quick and ruthlessly efficient in getting the info out to the public is, IMHO, the way to go. Let everyone know, and more importantly, don't let anyone NOT know. Everyone will find out eventually, so might as well make sure they have all the facts.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Yes, the media does on occasions decide things as a collective - either through the code of conduct or just a collaborative decision. But there are very different considerations for print and broadcast journalism.

Life decides things for us. The people who were in New York, including the children, surely did not want to see this. I surely didn't. But it's there. Sometimes you can't hide, no matter how old you are.

 

[Yassim]

I agree that embargoing images of such a catastrophe is wrong. What justification is there to censor images?

Because no one in the photos has consented to being in them.

Personally, I cannot imagine the horror of identifying someone you know, someone you love, in any image of 9/11. While you know, intellectually, what happened that day, you do not need to see a photograph, and do not need to know that others have seen a photograph of their final moments.

I would say there's a very easy argument against any photo of that day that has any identifying detail of a person in it. It's not an argument for censorship, it's an argument for respect for those who died, and those close to them.

 

[DangerMouse]

I don't believe in sanitizing information like this. Being swift, quick and ruthlessly efficient in getting the info out to the public is, IMHO, the way to go. Let everyone know, and more importantly, don't let anyone NOT know. Everyone will find out eventually, so might as well make sure they have all the facts.

Let's be clear, I'm not talking about information and facts - just images. (For the purposes of this discussion. The decision to withhold certain details in a matter is a totally different consideration/discussion).

 

[PKTrekGirl]

I don't believe in the sanitation of images by the media either.

But that is just another symptom of their overall wussiness of recent years, anyway.

After all, these are the same media sources who agreed when Dubya and his handlers asked them to 'pretty please' not show the coffins coming off the planes from Iraq.



As someone who grew up during the Vietnam War and who has vivid memories of the coffins coming off the planes from S.E. Asia being shown pretty much daily on the evening news, I can tell you that this country would have been lurched into reality with regard to this war A LOT sooner if the media had done their frakkin' JOBS, instead of kissing Dubya's ass like the bunch of weenies they are.

We don't want you to 'sanitize' anything for us. Just do your jobs and report what is really happening, as objectively as possible. We want the WHOLE TRUTH. Not the bits and pieces of the truth that some suit decides (for whatever reason, legitimate or not) that we can 'handle'.

 

[Pingfah]

I agree that embargoing images of such a catastrophe is wrong. What justification is there to censor images?

Because no one in the photos has consented to being in them.

Personally, I cannot imagine the horror of identifying someone you know, someone you love, in any image of 9/11. While you know, intellectually, what happened that day, you do not need to see a photograph, and do not need to know that others have seen a photograph of their final moments.

I would say there's a very easy argument against any photo of that day that has any identifying detail of a person in it. It's not an argument for censorship, it's an argument for respect for those who died, and those close to them.

If you are mandating it, it is an argument for censorship regardless of the motive.

 

[Deckerd]

Terrorist atrocities come under the same 'public interest' umbrella as war photographs and natural disasters. They basically belong to everyone because of the numbers lost to humanity.

 

[May 20]

I don't believe in the sanitation of images by the media either.

But that is just another symptom of their overall wussiness of recent years, anyway.

After all, these are the same media sources who agreed when Dubya and his handlers asked them to 'pretty please' not show the coffins coming off the planes from Iraq.



As someone who grew up during the Vietnam War and who has vivid memories of the coffins coming off the planes from S.E. Asia being shown pretty much daily on the evening news, I can tell you that this country would have been lurched into reality with regard to this war A LOT sooner if the media had done their frakkin' JOBS, instead of kissing Dubya's ass like the bunch of weenies they are.

We don't want you to 'sanitize' anything for us. Just do your jobs and report what is really happening, as objectively as possible. We want the WHOLE TRUTH. Not the bits and pieces of the truth that some suit decides (for whatever reason, legitimate or not) that we can 'handle'.

And I agree with this, too...

...but I want enough warning, so that I can decide what to show my children. This is the conundrum that many of us face -- not how much we can handle, but how much we are willing to allow our children to be made to handle before they are old enough to understand what they are seeing.

This is why I either DVR my news or watch the late news, now that I'm actually watching the news again.