CNN:
CNN around the time of the second crash is devoted entirely to the subject of the Twin towers disaster. Instantly noticeable is the fact that there are no live shots of anything other than the towers. The entirety of the broadcast is made up of towers, smoke, a few text notes, and voice-overs by the CNN reporters, commentators, and called in informants. There is a definite sense of confusion and lack of information, though the reporters very effectively manage to maintain their professionalism and detachment, even going so far as to interrupt a more anxious phoned in interviewee in an effort to prevent a sense of panic on the channel/among viewers.

The footage from the 17th is very different in tone and perspective. Where the original broadcast was raw, and present, and  badly understood, the later broadcast is polished, edited, and mostly focused on analysis and opinions of the now intimately familiar 9/11 disaster. The onscreen images portray new, largely positive feeds associated with the crashes, the search and rescue efforts and such. Some examples include a giant flag,  even various messages scribbled on walls, of support, loss, etc. In a way, the reporters are more emotional now than during the initial broadcast, as the implications of the attacks have had the time to sink in.  

BBC
The BBC broadcast on the day of seems similarly confused, though with fewer immediate sources of information. Notes on the screen about the disaster focus on the physical destruction of parts of the buildings. In a sense, its perspective is slightly more distanced temporally than the US broadcast. The focus, rather than being on the action of the crash, is on the physical results of the crash, a focus on the past rather than the present. The dearth of information leads the descriptions to become fairly repetitive, though whether that is to get new viewers up to speed, or because of a lack of other things to say is unclear.

The BBC broadcast from the 17th, like its american counterpart, is substantially more polished and edited than the week before. Unlike the American story, however, which focuses on the  local/personal aspects to the tragedy, the British focus piece has shifted to the more objective global impacts of the attack, namely, the beginning declarations of then president, George Bush’s  ’War on Terror,’ and the reopening of the New York Stock Exchange, the, “ravaged center of the world’s financial system.” There are also much cleaner graphics and transitions, which add to the more professional/objective feel.

September 11, 2001: WUSA (CBS News). Washington D.C.  8:50-9:00AM EDT

The coverage window begins with CBS covering a story about a woman, Sandra Posey, who has just received a brand new home from Fleetwood; this appears to be the most recent segment of “A Week of Wishes”. Overall, the mood of the news seems to be typically light-hearted, and the tone of newscaster covering the stories reflects this; she narrates the footage with a calm, soft voice.  The coverage of “A Week of Wishes” progresses in a quick, yet casual manner as a woman named Donna is helped fulfill a promise she had made to her late husband to scatter his ashes in South Dakota. It continues to show an elderly man named Scott Butler fulfilling his dream to see Pearl Harbor in person before he died; Scott was also made an honorary member of the Kentucky State police, even being promoted to Colonel by the Governor himself. It is difficult not to drown in the pathological appeal made by the segment. All kidding aside, it seems like just another morning where a local news station is trying to showcase material that encourages viewers to persevere through the daily struggles in their own lives. At 8:52AM EDT. The tone of the show immediately shifts into high gear as the breaking news out of New York comes in about the North Tower being struck by a plane. Bryan Gumbell proceeds hastily, attempting to inform the viewers as much as possible in the shortest time. He maintains control of his voice and presentation, however, you can tell on closer observation that he is clearly perturbed by what he is seeing. The coverage of the event itself is almost entirely centered on one image of the North Tower burning. The station does not dare shift the attention away from the World Trade Centers. The true gravity of the situation did not strike me until CBS entirely cut off one of the commercials that are supposed to run at regular intervals throughout the show. Since I know from outside discussions how much money and time are allotted to marketing products and services, I knew that when a major new station immediately stops airing one in order to continue coverage that this was indeed serious. Gumbell tries to proceed and interviews an  eyewitness; the man attempts to recall what happened as best he can but in the chaos of the moment and hindered by a semi-distant vantage point, he is unable to provide much reliable information. Gumbell rapidly transitions to another eyewitness who is in the lobby of his hotel, which is directly between both of the Trade Centers. You can hear him scribbling notes down as the witnesses recount what they saw. During the graphic account told by the second witness, you can hear sirens wailing in the background. Both the frantic pace of the interviews and their content significantly contribute to the surreal aura surrounding the whole scene; even though my family and I watched the broadcast live on FOX (albeit at a different time), it does not seem like this could actually be happening.

September 11, 2001: BBC (BBC World). London, England. 8:50-9:00AM EDT

The broadcast segment begins with coverage of sports, beginning with the local Soccer teams and eventually scoping out to detail sports play from across the pond. To my surprise, the universe thought it would be funny to include some coverage of the then (and oddly enough, now) defending NFC Champion New York Giants, who happen to be my favorite NFL squad. The bit of familiarity served to settle me even though it was a bit uncomfortable watching a new news station for the first time. Unfortunately, the Giants managed to lose game they showed (i.e. settled feeling = gone).The news progressed in a much more efficient manner compared to CBS. In fairness, CBS focused its coverage on a single story at this time, whereas BBC seemed to be wrapping up the past hour of news at the top of the hour drew near. BBC also used a text slideshow to cover some of the less urgent stories. This served to inform the reader of what was important while not over stressing the significance of some less pressing matters. As they transition to the coverage of the plane crashing into the North tower, the mood shifts from a more formal, business attitude, to that of a somber, stunned tone. It seem like the BBC reporters as just as shocked as the Americans are. They voice over video of the smoking tower and narrate what the viewers are seeing. I wonder if they are doing this in order to mask their own uncertainty, and to keep the viewers as calm as possible. Overall, the coverage by both BBC and CBS is loaded with uncertainty, as details are just now flooding in about the first crash. They both use narrated video footage to show and detail the story, as well as shroud their own uneasiness for the good of the audience.

September 17, 2001: WUSA (CBS News). Washington D.C.  8:50-9:00AM EDT

This segment contrasts with the earlier one on September 11^th as the United States and her people are no longer caught off guard. Contrasting images of destruction and sadness, CBS opens the 8:50-9:00AM window by placing the emphasis on resiliency, and how the American people embody the term. The broadcast is laden with narrative elements meant to inspire hope .They show images of the memorials and tributes paid to the victims of 9/11 while playing inspirational music in the background. “God Bless America” and traditional Scottish bag pipes can be heard in the background as President Bush offers words of hope and victims recount the events of the day. The ethos and pathos on display are quite poignant, and are most effectively conveyed by the imagery, which provides a stark contrast of the apocalyptic scene with those of displaying Americans united under the duress. In addition, as “God Bless America” concludes, they show a powerful image of a golden star on top of an oscillating American flag along with the words: America Rising. At the same time, CBS shows how life still goes on even in the midst of great tragedy; the Patriotic montages are dispersed between coverage of local news.

September 17, 2001: BBC (BBC World). London, England. 8:50-9:00AM EDT

In contrast to the CBS coverage at the same time, the mood in the BBC broadcast that covers the events remains as one of solemn, reverence.  The time frame begins with coverage of the New York City’s clean of effort. Unlike its United States counterpart, the BBC makes little effort to reassure its audience that everything is going to be alright. Instead, they stick to a more factual based evaluation of the situation; this is not to say that they are not sympathetic to the plight of the American people, in fact, considering that they are a foreign new source, this is understandable. The BBC coverage focuses primarily on covering the President Bush’s meeting with his cabinet on how to respond to the attack. Again, the reporting is relatively measured and provides a wealth of information. Instead of merely allowing images to dominate the broadcast, BBC provides in-depth narration of the circumstances interspersed with commentary from the participants. In other words, they utilize the vocal, logical appeal rather than the one centered on the pathos and ethos that the American station employs.

8:50-9:00 a.m.

CNN

CNN cut from the middle of a commercial to breaking news of the burning tower. There were solely shots of the tower burning for the entire 10 minutes (with the second one added when it was hit later), minus an eyewitness who was on camera. The content evolved from the idea that it might just be a plane crash into, when footage of the second tower hit came in just after 9, that it was no accident. It was the same repetition of facts and was repeated just as the hour changed and viewers were tuning back in. CNN was lucky to have a vice president as an eyewitness of the entire first plane hit, and he was the first source on the phone, who described the plane as a passenger jet. The coverage was panicky and uncertain, and you could hear commotion and chaos in the newsroom (which, I think, is a feature of 9-11 coverage, in that the noise is always heard). There were also glitches with signals and sources who had trouble hearing themselves or seemed tense and panicky, which made for tight interviews and increased panic on the viewers’ part.

BBC

The BCC had a schedule playing but cut from it to a more poised anchorwoman on camera telling people the news before it cut to shots of the two towers. At this point, just one had been hit. BBC also started broadcasting the news a few minutes after CNN, and mainly had one shot in the first few minutes. Its first minutes of broadcast were repeating facts that it had picked up from other sources and did not have eyewitness reports. BBC – perhaps because it was without the eyewitness sources and had an anchorwoman presenting the news instead of cutting to it – seemed less panicked and more poised.

 7:00-7:10 a.m.

ABC (WJLA)

Starts out with images of Americans, families, flags, very patriotic. The anchors are sitting in New York, in their studio with an American flag draped in the background. Diane Sawyer is wearing a red striped shirt. You see their faces; one anchor says that he hopes everyone had a good weekend and were able to process the tragedy. It’s the news anchors reaffirming their friendship and comfort with their audiences. What a contrast to the panic of just a week before and the frazzled newscast in a frazzled time. It then examines different factions within the story such as Americans going back to work, professional firefighters, Pentagon news and dealings with the Taliban. It’s all segmented and planned out, though, and all in the motion of going back to work.

NHK Tokyo

NHK was one of the only international stations that had a 7:00 program, but it too had a shot of the middle of New York but one more gritty, the Ground Zero shot that ABC had not explicitly shown. It spent most of its program detailing Bin Ladin and even talking to people on the street in Afghanistan, again emphasizing the contrast between American and British television that have graphics of patriotic American images, while NHK Tokyo was really digging into it – perhaps less comforting about the issue because the target audience was not Americans but people who wanted the straight news who didn’t experience firsthand the disaster as many who watched other stations did.

In conclusion – the visual elements are always very telling in television segments. In the former scenario in the middle of a breaking news crisis, it was evident that there was panic – graphics barely changed, shots were monotonous and anchors were frazzled. But perhaps that was for the better, and reflected unintentionally exactly what the audience needed to see – shots of the sole focus, the Twin Towers, and a reflection that no one knew what was going on. That was the story it told, though not meaning to. And for the week after, coverage was American propaganda and pride, with many flag shots and shots of the streets, still remembering the events of just a week ago and yet, a cover of comfort for the very scary idea of going back to work and starting our country up again after sheer terror. The propaganda tried to sweep up the sentiments of fear, but because of the contrast, made them glaringly more obvious.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001 – 9:40 a.m., WJLA (Washington, D.C.)

The first thing I noticed about the broadcast from Washington D.C. was how calm and reassuring the anchor was while reporting on the tragedy. Each reporter seemed to be concerned, but not in panic; a majority of the reports were speculative and there were very few solid facts that could be confirmed by the news team. I chose to examine 9:40 a.m. for this feed because 9:40 was the time at which the Pentagon was struck by another hijacked airplane. I would’ve expected much more frantic field reporters and anchors considering that the most recent attack was so close by, but it seemed to be the opposite way. Mostly, reporters were more confused than shocked, in my opinion. Visually, there were no “talking heads”, but just a visual feed of the attack sites, with plumes of smoke rising from the damaged buildings. To me, this seemed to serve the purpose of emphasizing the victims and the overall emotion of the situation rather than the reporters simply telling viewers about the attacks.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001 – 9:40 a.m., NEWSW (Canada)

Visually, the Canadian feed was almost identical to the Washington D.C. feed. No faces, just images of burning buildings. I found that the Canadian anchor seemed to be speaking much more quickly than the Washington D.C. anchor, and the reporting was more focused on facts rather than speculations over the motivations and groups behind the attacks.

Monday, September 17, 2001 – 9:40 a.m., WJLA (Washington, D.C.)

Because I chose 9:40 a.m. to examine again, the news feeds I investigated were almost entirely based around the economic impact of 9/11, due to September 17th being the first day that the NYSE was opened following the attacks. Right away, I noticed that the stories being reported on were being presented in a much more usual manner, with a balance of footage from the exchange itself and shots of the network reporters in the news room. Additionally, reporters were back to speaking with very little emotion, as were the people taking part in interviews of analysis of the stock market. The references to 9/11 were still very frequent, as one would expect, but it seemed that the narrative being presented was being presented in a much more normal way.

Monday, September 17, 2001 – 9:40 a.m., NEWSW (Canada)

Similar to the WJLA feed, the NEWSW feed was focused around the NYSE opening again; however, the news team was more focused on the stock market’s impact on Canada’s economy as well as how the attacks of 9/11 were impacting the Canadian political environment, discussing foreign policy changes and terrorist threats. Again, the reporters were back to speaking with little emotion, and the visual presentation was more conventional, with a mix of camera shots.

BBC News – 2:00 PM

On September 11th itself, the “story” of the day was distinctly lacking in a narrative structure. The footage displayed, the time delay between shots playing and audio all revealed the apparent and understandable lack of cohesion in the report. Although Osama Bin Ladin’s involvement was already suspected in the attacks, but the blame game was running rampant through the program; the shots cut jaggedly from Palestinian protestors in the streets of East Jerusalem to confident analysts in suits. Still, there was an air of attempted journalistic integrity. Between the interviews with Yassar Arafat and Hamas’s spiritual leader, was an activist laying out his hope, tragically in hindsight, that the Arabs and Muslim religion wouldn’t be blamed collectively. It contrasted strangely with the depiction of Palestinians as ostensibly obvious collaborators in the terrorist attacks.

If the first clip was chaotic, the second was just bleak. It showed carefully cut images of the New York stock exchange opening, with the “decimated skyline” of downtown Manhattan. This time there was a story to be told, and it was one of a tragically slow recovery for New York and the United States. Everything the viewer was exposed to was broken and disillusioned, which contrasted sharply with the feelings of unity so pertinent in my own memories. In a lot of ways, I found it far more depressing than the initial reaction, as the BBC’s story only seemed to bring a greater sense of hopelessness and loss, perhaps replacing the confusion that marked the actual event.

CBC- 8:00 PM

On 9/11, the eight o’clock news began with a recap of the day, initially focusing on the Pentagon in Washington DC. It was well structured, edited and fluidly told. The point was clear: motives, political implications and anything to happen in the future was not yet known, so speculation was kept to a minimum. Discussions of evacuating DC with coupled with clips showing it. Every voiceover was matched with a corresponding piece of footage. The sequence of the day was all that made sense, but I have actually never seen such a comprehensive recounting of it. It was straightforward, calm and incredibly informative.

The second clip nationalized the incident, focusing almost exclusively on Canada’s reaction to the attacks. Detailing the lively debate in Canadian parliament as well as the latest figures coming in from the stock market, this segment was mostly sound bytes from politicians and economic analysts. It was really interesting to consider how the United States’ neighbor grappled with military spending, respect for international law and moral obligations to Western values in the face of 9/11, and the number of points of view packed into the segment definitely revealed the diversity it was attempting to explore. As somebody who experienced 9/11 from DC, I gave little time to consider the impact it had on country’s not directly involved in the attack and its aftermath (US, Iraq and Afghanistan). Yet, the economic and philosophical questions permeated every aspect of every society, as shown so eloquently in this piece of news.

Tuesday September 11th, 2001:  9:00am on NBC

The biggest thing I noticed about the coverage at this time was that it no longer showed the reporters speaking, it only showed the live videos of the burning Twin Towers.  We were still able to hear them talking, but it appears the main priority was showing viewers what was happening.  Also, we heard emotional eye-witness accounts of what was happening as well.  At this point in time everyone was still very unsure of what was happening, so the news was not as organized as it usually is.  The is due to the fact that most of the facts were coming in while the reporters were live on the air.  There was a lot of interruption, clarification, and emotional reactions.

Tuesday September 11th, 2001:  9:00am on BBC

Again, here the coverage at this time no longer showed the reporters speaking–it was just voice-over with live videos of the burning Twin Towers.  The biggest difference here to me was that on this station, the reporters were much less emotional.  They spoke in a calm, very factual tone of voice.  The only sense of emotion I heard was the eye-witnesses account.  Another difference is that this station seemed to be a bit delayed.  For example, on NBC, when the second plane crashed, the reporters responded almost immediately.  But on BBC, nothing was said about the second plane crashing until almost a whole minute after it was caught on video, and even then, all that was said was that it appeared that the second tower was ablaze as well.

Monday September 17th, 2001:  9:00am on NBC

The first thing I noticed when watching this segment was that we saw the reporters’ faces again.  The news flowed much more smoothly, and they were back to using previously recorded stories.  The reporting seemed to have gone back to normal.  Because several days had passed since the incident of 9/11, the reporters were much less emotional, and more factual.  The stories were still about 9/11, but they focused not on the tragedy itself but on America getting back on its feet.

Monday September 17th, 2001:  9:00am on BBC

This segment was very similar to NBC’s. We saw the reporters’ faces again, and there were stories that were already prepared.  The segment flowed smoothly, and seemed to be back in the normal reporting format.  Again, the reporting was less emotional and more factual, and was more about America rising up from the ashes.

Tuesday, Sept. 11. 9:02

This was the moment the second plane hit. I chose this moment because I find it to be the most “real” moment in news coverage of that day. What I mean by that is, when the first plane hit, no news cameras were on the scene. No one was live covering the towers. So when they first aired the footage, even the most affected broadcasters had a moment to gather themselves and prepare for coverage.

When the second plane hit, this was not the case.

I actually watched three streams of the second tower being hit – one from a Japanese station, WJLA in DC and the BBC. I will focus on the last two because I believe I got the most from those two. But I would like to point out that in each one, the anchors were on the phone with someone who was on location the moment it happened.

The BBC had very little to go on. I noticed that they just kept repeating the same facts over again: it was a jet engine plane, no one knows the number injured. Not without emotion but certainly told with the same amount of anchor detachment and professionalism that comes with the job of being a news anchor, especially on live tv. WJLA, while they didn’t have facts, at least had the familiarity with the area to be able to provide insight and context. Not only did they discuss the frequency of low-flying planes (and the fact that a New York pilot would know where the towers are), they discussed the terrorist bomb that had been planted in the basement of the towers a few years previously.

The reactions during the moment of impact were suprisingly different. I expected the reaction from WJLA to be stronger, but the BBC anchor did not even know it was happening. She must not have been watching the live feed because she continued to ask a question as if nothing had happened, and it took a very long time for her to understand that a second plane had hit.

WJLA, meanwhile, had the kind of raw and unfiltered shock that, even 11 years later, still really brings this tragedy home for me. They reacted the exact same way I did – sharp gasp, cries of ‘oh my God.’ This strikes me as the point in the day when all of the pieces begin to fall into place. I believe the female anchor even says that it is now clear this is some sort of organized event.

As far as the footage, both the BBC and WJLA varied wide and close-up shots. Meanwhile, the station in Tokyo used primarily wide shots, showing both the buildings on the skyline. From a journalism ethics perspective, this might have been to protect the viewers from seeing up close anything gory or offensive – especially in Tokyo, newscasters are probably more sensitive to their viewers. It may also just be a matter of what story they’re trying to tell – the BBC and DC station wanted to show the direct impact, what was exactly happening, in an up-close-and-personal way, while the Japanese station wanted to show it as a part of the bigger picture and how the city and country may be shaped.

Sept. 17th, 2001, 9:00 a.m.

CNN coverage at 9 a.m. one week after the terrorist attacks took a look at how people were immediately affected afterward. Coverage focused specifically on businessmen and workers in New York who seemed to be going back to the office for the first day since the attacks. According to the report, thick soot was still in the air, and you can even see it on the footage. A moment of silence was scheduled to take place at 9:15. They had three different on-the-scene reporters in different areas that had been affected by the attacks to show what life was like as a result of the attack. The coverage also addressed “America’s New War” in a logistical manner, through charts, words, and numbers. I didn’t see any real footage of action.

Iraq’s coverage at 9 a.m. EST (or 5 p.m. in Iraq), on the other hand, was very different. There were no shots of New York or DC, and there didn’t even seem to be any real discussion of what had happened or what the aftermath was. Instead, the coverage seemed largely to focus on actual footage from war – I can only assume these were invasions by America that happened directly after and as a result of the terrorist attacks, but my knowledge of exactly what or when invasions took place is a bit foggy. In any event, Iraq’s coverage is largely different from CNN’s, because it used real footage, actually showing the dead bodies and guns rather than facts and figures. A much more realist and direct approach that applies much more directly to the pathos.

It seems both channels were telling a different story about the same general topic – each focusing on how viewers would be directly impacted. But interestingly enough, neither channel showed footage of the actual day. It is my guess that by that point, the video wasn’t necessary to tell a clear story, and showing it would only cause more anger or sadness in the viewers, though the reasons the viewers would be upset might be different in each case.

CNN Sept 11, 2001 (12:00am EDT)

Basic information about the event has been displayed, but things are still very much in disarray. The video at this point is relying on an earlier footage of the Towers, possibly due to evacuations and restrictions set in place, so there is still some confusion as to what is going on at the present time. The station appears to have leapt to the worst conclusion, posting still incoming information (the second lost flight) beneath the distressing headline”America Under Attack.” Moving beyond visual information and observation though, the anchor has begun to question government response. The chaos of the situation is still evident, as he is unable to even get in contact with the White House correspondent for some time.

CNN Sept 17, 2001 (12:00pm EDT)

All information regarding 9/11 has been thoroughly covered, as the station is not even bothering to recap. The CNN hotline number supports this fact, as it creates a forum situation for the exchange of OPINIONS rather than information. Everyone is expected to know the full details of what happened already, although this hotline allows for further details to come to light if possible. Note that the new headline is “America’s New War,” indicating leaders have already recovered from the initial shock of the event and made their response. Comparing the two headlines shows general opinion of the event. Rather than seen as an attack by individuals or a small group, the enemy is seen on a larger, nationwide scale.

Iraq Sept 11, 2001 (2pm EDT)

One of the guest speakers is a professor in political science, already setting the tone of political tension. Little information as to the actual event itself is given in the introduction, and no images are shown. All speakers are subdued, again referring back to said tension. While they refer vaguely to the attack and deplore the event, they do not go into specific details, and skirt around summarizing anything.

Iraq Sept 17, 2011 (2pm EDT)

The tone here is much more defensive, while still acknowledging 9/11. The speaker is more assertive and plain loud in his speech. While he doesn’t deny or seek to undermine the events that took place, he seems understandably focused on averting a national conflict, discussing alternate terms. It would seem that Iraq’s mind has already been decided, as there are no longer political advisers assisting the speaker.

9/11      9:00am/CNN Atlanta, GA

The first thing I saw when I tuned into this station was a picture of the World Trade Center on fire and smoke filling the blue day sky.  The headline read: Plane Crashes into World Trade Center.  While watching one thing I noticed the camera angle(s) being used.  Throughout the footage clip I was able to conclude that when the newscasters were stating the facts about the incident the camera would zoom in slightly, and then right back out to an overview of the city. On the other hand whenever they would interview an eye-witness or talk about those who were lost they would tend to zoom in. in addition, when they showed the clip of the World Trade Center going up in flames and smoke the camera angle had a tendency widen.  I felt that this was their main objective in attempt to increase the awareness and so that those who weren’t there could feel their pain and share their sympathy. As they spoke to witnesses over the phone some were calm and others were loud and frantic.  In the background of these calls you could hear people yelling, screaming and panicking for help as the debris fell from the crumbling building.

9/11      9:00am/BBC World, London

When I tuned into the footage of the September 11^th attacks on the London station much was the same, but at the same time there were some differences.  The broadcaster, in a cool calm and collected voice announced that a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center in New York.  Simultaneously, the screen flashed the imaged of the tower going up with smoke on the screen.  A few seconds later it quickly zoomed in to the hole where the plane had crashed.  As the broadcast went on they continued to speak, and mainly about the facts.  I felt as if in this video, compared to the news cast in the U.S, they were a little less sympathetic towards the tragedy in the sense that the use of the camera angles were few and far between and most of them did not necessarily make us feel devastated about the situation.  One of the visuals I remembered was when the tower went up in smoke and not a few seconds, so it seemed, later did we see the second plane crashing into the tower as well.  At that point the building went up in immediate flames.  As told by the eye witness, “The building physically shook.”  You could hear people screaming, chaos erupting, bangs firing and ambulances sounding.

9/17      9:10am/CNN Atlanta, GA

Six days following the attack on the World Trade Center the headlines in New York read, “America’s New War.”  The screen then quickly filled with images of the flag of the United States of America as if to say, “You may have caught us off guard momentarily, but WE ARE BACK!”  I found that while watching the video footage the day’s main focus and point of concern was the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).  Anything involving the NYSE the news seemed to right on it.  From the ½ percent rate cut to talking to the stock workers about the changes that were about to happen, the world was tuned in for all of it.  One of the screen shots shown were of people working and trying to speak over one another (I guess that’s a typical day at NYSE!).  Not only did we see this visual but were privy to many of the headlines: “Analysts differ over direction of economy after attacks” and “Insurance, airline sectors expected to take hit at it.”  From where I was standing (well, I was actually sitting!) it seemed that they were less focused on the attacks and more on the money (no reason they say that money is the root of all evil!), less on the people who were effected and more on how the economy would be able to capitalize on this tragedy.  This clip made me think, “Are we focused on the right thing at a time like this?” Hmmm….

9/17      9:10am/BBC World, London

Well…. On the other side of the world on the day about a week after the attacks, all you could hear was dramatic and upbeat music playing, in the background, as they transition to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).  This particular day marked the day that the NYSE was to reopen.  In doing so it marked the longest closer since the Great Depression in the 30s.  I feel that the approach of playing music and flashing somewhat bright images across the screen attracts and engages the viewer.  As in the U.S .video, the reopening of NYSE was a message to the criminals of the 9/11 attacks.  The London news had a tendency to spout of more facts.  For instance, 180 bodies were found and 5097 people were still missing.  If this doesn’t cause some kind of reaction (an Oh or Ah) then I do not know what will.  One of the images shown to us was of people entering the city, by subway and ferry, but being handed U.S. flags and maps to help lead them around the chaotic city, but by far the most memorable, at least for me, was when the United States flag popped up on the screen, while commentary was being cited in the background, and morphs itself in the image of the Statues of Liberty.  This, to me, represented a symbol of hope and togetherness that we would soon overcome

September 11^th, 2001

BBC London:  9:00am

Because the event has just occurred there is very little information about what has happened except for a few eyewitness accounts and a live video stream. The female news anchor repeats the small bits of information that the BBC has gathered as they stream several different views of the burning towers. There are no statistics on deaths or injuries and very little known about emergency services. At about 9:02, just as the camera zooms out, the second plane enters the frame and collides with the south tower. The reporter with whom the news anchor speaks gives an account from a nearby café on another man’s cell phone. He elaborates on the type of airplane that hit the first building, the floors that are visibly affected, and the rush of people streaming out and away from the twin towers.

WJLA(ABC) Washington DC:  9:00am

The male news anchor remarks on the number of small airports in the area, but clarifies that all local pilots are clear on where the World Trade Center twin towers are located. The female news anchor elaborates that many commercial aircraft come close to the city, but all routes are a comfortable distance from the towers. The video is a live, close-up stream of the north tower as smoke billows out. Sirens can be heard in the background as the emergency services respond to the disaster. They confirm that it was, in fact, an aircraft and it hit between 8:40 and 8:45am as thousands of people arrived at the towers for work. The anchors remind the viewers that there is an observatory and a restaurant atop the towers in which tourists may also be trapped. They are hesitant to speculate on terrorist activity. When the second plane is seen hitting the south tower at 9:02, the male news anchor seems to label it as an attack on the World Trade center. There are sounds of people gasping and crying out in the newsroom as the plane collides. They replay the clip to confirm that it was another airplane. The emotional response is clear and they use words like “horrifying” and “helpless” to describe the feelings of those watching the clip with no way of stopping the events.

September 17^th, 2001

NEWSW(CBC) Ottowa, Canada:  7:10am

The newswoman finishes reporting the weather and comments on hockey games, adding that a local team is volunteering to assist the Red Cross by “passing the hat” to collect donations. She reports that three games have been rescheduled and a golf tournament will be played a year later due to the events on 9/11. A newsman asks a representative from New York to explain how the people of New York will be able to move on and go about their business as the wreckage stands and the search and rescue mission is underway. She explains that there could be 20,000 people that are still out of their homes due to the disaster and they may not be able to return for weeks. The city must first find a solution to that problem. They then move on to the loss of office space (the equivalent of ALL the office space in Toronto) and how business will go on. They report on the reactions of people who work/worked in the area, some of which said they want to show that terrorism won’t get them down and others which said that they can’t work somewhere that is such a target. The representative says that most people just want to get back to their lives and those who are most concerned are those who work in the Empire State Building, another potential target.

MSNBC New York:  7:10am

The newsmen talk about Bush’s proposed investments for the upcoming War on Terror. This is the first time a war has been mentioned in the news so far and a ticker along the bottom mentions the Taliban. The ticker also shows the confirmed dead (hundreds at that time) and missing (thousands at that time) in the WTC attacks and a poll saying that 81% Americans would prefer that the US wait until they have proof of the perpetrators before they attack. There is a lot of talk about war, who to fight, and how to protect the US and world economies. Will companies buy back their stocks, is it a good idea, how will the US stock market stay afloat? They predict more spending on information technology and reduced spending on travel and leisure in the US stock market. There are concerns about the stock exchange that day; there are potential technical problems due to destruction of lines and slowness, but the online brokerage should be unaffected. The emphasis is on the ability of America to get its business back on its feet, if not that day, then the next.

Comparison

At 9am on the day of the attacks, the Washington, DC channel (ABC) were at first calm and collected, with some shock at the events, but their main concern was getting facts on the people inside and how the rescue was going. The London channel (BBC) had a similar reaction, but they had much less information and a harder time getting play-by-play on the attacks. At 9:02am when the second plane hit the towers on the live feed, there was shock, horror, and high emotions on the American end while the London channel remained calm and factual in their report. Both channels showed a continuous live feed of the burning towers with just audio of the news anchors. The morning of the 17^th, both the New York channel (MSNBC) and the Ottowa channel (CBC) are most concerned with business carrying on in New York. Surprisingly, the Canadian news station seems more concerned with the human side of life returning to normal while the American station was more concerned with economics. This contrasts with the reactions on the 11^th when the foreign station remained informative and factual while the home station allowed emotions and confusion to enter the newsroom. In all cases, the focus was on the World Trade Center attacks with no mention of the Pentagon or the flight 93 crash.