Has the Media Made Too Much of 9/11?
Published in La Libre
(Belgium) on 9 September 2011
by Jean-Paul Duchâteau (link to original)
The following is an interview between Jean-Pierre Jacqmin (RTBF ) and Marc Lits (Director of the Observatory of Media Reporting (UCL))
Why has the RTBF dedicated so much effort into the celebration of Sept. 11, 2001?
Because when commemorating important events, you have two objectives: first, to recall what happened (10 years is not just some blip). Also, it is not just about remembering how two planes flew into the towers, but in talking about what’s happened and showing that in the world we live in now.
Has there been an editorial debate to fulfill?
On the appropriate coverage, no. We’ve occasionally had debates on commemorations less important than this one, asking ourselves if we should or should not do something. But we couldn’t act as if we have no memory. I think that we tend often to put a lot of blame on ourselves for any memory gaps in order to break away from main idea to commemorate these type of events.
These subjects still have an audience 10 years later?
In any case, we don’t really see the audience dropping. We can’t say there is an increase, either; it’s a little according to the quality and interest in each sequence. We have released a series of documentaries and people have seen them because some of these programs also bring new clarity to the event. If we had more to remember the past, we would no longer do a lot of programs on the fictions of history; we have seen what interests people.
Don’t consumers of media have a taste for the morbid, though?
There is always some kind of curiosity. Now, I rarely stop myself at the crossroads just beneath my house when there is nice weather, but there is a collision between two cars, I’m going to be more interested because an “event” happened there. I don’t blame people who slow down when they see an accident on the highway to look because the day when people are no longer interested in that, what will they do then?
A lot say that we are making too much of a simple anniversary while other, more pressing questions don’t receive the same treatment. Your thoughts?
It's not as if we talk about Sept. 11 as we shrug off Belgium’s political crisis, the hunt for Gadhafi or other hot topics.
Haven’t we come to a point in a society of celebration that doesn’t root itself in the present or future ?
I could come back at that with “If you don’t remember where you came from, how can you know where you’re going.”
How do you, Marc Lits, Director of the Observatory of Media Reporting, view the attraction to numerous citizens for the idea that would put the blame on the reality of what happened that day?
In our journalism profession, we have to be suspicious of everything. Unfortunately, there is always a possibility for something to rock the boat. People sometimes feel they’re being manipulated. Our role as journalists is to clarify that as much as possible. Conspiracy theories, we have shown them. The public in general can sometimes be disconnected from what drives our world and can feel powerless and worried, above a base that takes advantage of it primarily for anti-American purposes.
How do you view the amount of time and space afforded to the Sept. 11 anniversary in the media?
We are seeing a rather heavy and growing attendance these last few years to engage in commemorations. We are there in logic. We do it more and more for a longer period of time. Here, what is troublesome, is that Sept. 11 is not yet here, and over eight days ago a flurry of articles on the subject began; there is no suspense — we know the end of the story — but keeps the interest of people by holding its breath. Moreover, I have been rather surprised to see that T.V. and radio are going to do some “direct” and some J.T. specials; what justified itself 10 years ago, does so a lot less now. There are some whiffs of commercialism in all of it.
On the qualitative side, have you read or seen anything that indicates a raising of journalistic standards?
Yes, because if we do a review of things, at the same time we try to contextualize facts.
Haven’t we entered into a celebratory society?
In any case, we are sometimes terrible at finding its roots and its identity — in Belgium, we are particularly well placed to know it. We see that the media tries to play this role because it is at the heart of society, and puts that there first because there is a need. In that we call the postmodern society, there are no dominant models anymore and citizens need marks. The media has in some way found a second career. The first, that’s to recount the news; second, is to without end recreate things, which allows the media classics to make better the difference between the web and social networks, which are more in the here and now.
Don’t you feel that people have a predilection for the morbid?
Sept. 11 is a monumental political event, that’s also an enormous aberration because a lot of people became victims, notably those people who threw themselves out the windows. We also come back to a lot of portraits of the parents of victims. We use the example where, that more than 10 years ago, we hadn’t practically shown deaths. Here, with distance, we can more easily talk about it and give voice to those moving testimonials.
What do you make of numerous citizens’ fascination with conspiracy theories?
Traditional media outlets are still relatively discreet on those who talk about plots, affirming that the towers have been sabotaged by the Americans themselves or that a plane had never hit the Pentagon, which always gets passed around. That reveals elements that never existed — “Hitler didn’t die in 1945” — but the development of the Internet lends itself to those rumors persisting. Theories like that have a lot of success on sites that can present itself in a way that has an alternative discourse in relation to the group of media that the most powerful.
Why has the RTBF dedicated so much effort into the celebration of Sept. 11, 2001?
Because when commemorating important events, you have two objectives: first, to recall what happened (10 years is not just some blip). Also, it is not just about remembering how two planes flew into the towers, but in talking about what’s happened and showing that in the world we live in now.
Has there been an editorial debate to fulfill?
On the appropriate coverage, no. We’ve occasionally had debates on commemorations less important than this one, asking ourselves if we should or should not do something. But we couldn’t act as if we have no memory. I think that we tend often to put a lot of blame on ourselves for any memory gaps in order to break away from main idea to commemorate these type of events.
These subjects still have an audience 10 years later?
In any case, we don’t really see the audience dropping. We can’t say there is an increase, either; it’s a little according to the quality and interest in each sequence. We have released a series of documentaries and people have seen them because some of these programs also bring new clarity to the event. If we had more to remember the past, we would no longer do a lot of programs on the fictions of history; we have seen what interests people.
Don’t consumers of media have a taste for the morbid, though?
There is always some kind of curiosity. Now, I rarely stop myself at the crossroads just beneath my house when there is nice weather, but there is a collision between two cars, I’m going to be more interested because an “event” happened there. I don’t blame people who slow down when they see an accident on the highway to look because the day when people are no longer interested in that, what will they do then?
A lot say that we are making too much of a simple anniversary while other, more pressing questions don’t receive the same treatment. Your thoughts?
It's not as if we talk about Sept. 11 as we shrug off Belgium’s political crisis, the hunt for Gadhafi or other hot topics.
Haven’t we come to a point in a society of celebration that doesn’t root itself in the present or future ?
I could come back at that with “If you don’t remember where you came from, how can you know where you’re going.”
How do you, Marc Lits, Director of the Observatory of Media Reporting, view the attraction to numerous citizens for the idea that would put the blame on the reality of what happened that day?
In our journalism profession, we have to be suspicious of everything. Unfortunately, there is always a possibility for something to rock the boat. People sometimes feel they’re being manipulated. Our role as journalists is to clarify that as much as possible. Conspiracy theories, we have shown them. The public in general can sometimes be disconnected from what drives our world and can feel powerless and worried, above a base that takes advantage of it primarily for anti-American purposes.
How do you view the amount of time and space afforded to the Sept. 11 anniversary in the media?
We are seeing a rather heavy and growing attendance these last few years to engage in commemorations. We are there in logic. We do it more and more for a longer period of time. Here, what is troublesome, is that Sept. 11 is not yet here, and over eight days ago a flurry of articles on the subject began; there is no suspense — we know the end of the story — but keeps the interest of people by holding its breath. Moreover, I have been rather surprised to see that T.V. and radio are going to do some “direct” and some J.T. specials; what justified itself 10 years ago, does so a lot less now. There are some whiffs of commercialism in all of it.
On the qualitative side, have you read or seen anything that indicates a raising of journalistic standards?
Yes, because if we do a review of things, at the same time we try to contextualize facts.
Haven’t we entered into a celebratory society?
In any case, we are sometimes terrible at finding its roots and its identity — in Belgium, we are particularly well placed to know it. We see that the media tries to play this role because it is at the heart of society, and puts that there first because there is a need. In that we call the postmodern society, there are no dominant models anymore and citizens need marks. The media has in some way found a second career. The first, that’s to recount the news; second, is to without end recreate things, which allows the media classics to make better the difference between the web and social networks, which are more in the here and now.
Don’t you feel that people have a predilection for the morbid?
Sept. 11 is a monumental political event, that’s also an enormous aberration because a lot of people became victims, notably those people who threw themselves out the windows. We also come back to a lot of portraits of the parents of victims. We use the example where, that more than 10 years ago, we hadn’t practically shown deaths. Here, with distance, we can more easily talk about it and give voice to those moving testimonials.
What do you make of numerous citizens’ fascination with conspiracy theories?
Traditional media outlets are still relatively discreet on those who talk about plots, affirming that the towers have been sabotaged by the Americans themselves or that a plane had never hit the Pentagon, which always gets passed around. That reveals elements that never existed — “Hitler didn’t die in 1945” — but the development of the Internet lends itself to those rumors persisting. Theories like that have a lot of success on sites that can present itself in a way that has an alternative discourse in relation to the group of media that the most powerful.