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.