9/11 TEN YEARS AFTER

Chuck McFadden

From Pearl Harbor to 9/11:
We're now better informed

By CHUCK McFADDEN
of TheColumnists.com

 

COMPARISONS between the terrible events of September 11, 2001 and Pearl Harbor were abundant in the first days after the tragedies. There are similarities, of course. The sudden attack; great loss of life; the anger and determination of Americans to wreak vengeance.

But, oh, how the country, and the organizations that report the news, have changed in the past 60 years.

When John Daley interrupted his network’s programming on that long-ago December 7 Sunday to tell listeners that Pearl Harbor was being attacked by the Japanese, there was no extensive, immediate appraisal of how calm he was, or how well he relayed information, or how reassuring he was or was not. The Associated Press, International News Service and United Press rushed out bulletins as fast as they could gather scraps of information. Rumors spread that the Japanese were coming ashore at Santa Barbara.

What a difference six decades makes. Not only do we report the news, we have reporting on reporting.

News organizations, particularly television networks, are critiqued on their performances. If you do something stupid, you’re probably going to get clobbered. We read of how Peter Jennings of ABC looked tired after many hours before the camera…of Dan Rather’s homilies…of Tom Brokaw’s professionalism…of how often the networks repeated the horrific footage of the airliner crashing into the second tower and the explosion…of how the media passed on a rumor that later proved to be unfounded…of who secured the most heart-rending interview …of each network’s graphics.

The world changes before our eyes, and on top of that we get what are reviews of how news of the change is brought to us.

I suppose it’s because “The Media” are a much bigger part of our lives and certainly more diffuse today than they were back in 1941. Then, it was radio, news magazines, newspapers and newsreels. Now, it’s radio, newspapers, broadcast television, cable television, satellites, the Internet and news magazines. You’re reading this in a medium no one even dreamed about in 1941.

The fact that media occupy a major portion of our lives, that they not only report on events, but in so doing help shape them, is much better recognized, and reported on, than it was in 1941. The media are acknowledged as a powerful American institution and are dealt with as such. That involves getting blasted when you falter.

Ironically, the critique of one part of the media’s performance principally comes from, what else, another part of the media. Newspapers and magazines critique television news coverage; newspapers take on magazines; magazines criticize newspapers; radio takes on television; once in a very, very great while newspapers even take on other newspapers.

Is that good? You bet. When you have critics out there assessing your performance, it tends to concentrate the mind.

We’re a better country now than we were then. Sixty years ago it was: Attacked by the Japanese? Throw Japanese-Americans into domestic concentration camps, bippety-bap, no problem. That was 1942. Today, no one is talking about throwing American Muslims into concentration camps. We are a more judicious, sophisticated and tolerant society now and part of the reason is that we’re much better informed. While there are still major media screwups, the quality and quantity of available information is stunning.

Today, virtually all serious news outlets put their stories in some sort of context. We are told the history of the Taliban, of Afghanistan, of Islam. We’re told of the problems the Bush Administration faces in striking back. There are editorials and columns warning us about the dangers of scapegoating American Muslims because of what happened at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. We’re told how people around the world feel about the dominance of the United States, and how much millions of them resent us.

That sort of marvelous reporting did occur back in 1941. There just wasn’t as much of it.

For every Gary Condit story in the tabloids, I can show you a story in The New York Times that makes our world more understandable; for every Rush Limbaugh, I can show you a Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings, or Dan Rather, or Jim Lehrer.

Critical review of the news media’s performance takes a little getting used to for some of us. But we’re better off for it. And we’re going to need Peter, Tom, Jim and Dan on their toes in the months to come.

©2001 by Charles M. McFadden. The illustration is ©2001 by Jim Hummel.