On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Joe Coughlin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It's easier to let it go when there aren't people still dying as a > > result of the events of that day. > > I get your underlying point, but the fact is that (and this is *not* a > slur or slam) most of these people live in the tri-state area. Again: > I completely agree with all the locals dumping the national show and > taking local coverage. But from a national perspective, I fear we've > crossed the line between grieving and wallowing. It deserves > mentioning, but I don't see the national morning shows heading to OKC > on April 19. If PGage is around, I'd be intrigued by his thoughts on > this. > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Mark Jeffries <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Let me throw this out--don't you think that the righteous indignation > over > > what NBC did was enflamed by the fact that it was Savannah Guthrie > > interviewing a Kardashian? If "Today" had been doing a sober > examination of > > Romey and Obama's stands on the economy or a takeout on the Chicago > > teacher's strike, would there have been such a big hubbub? Of course, I > > realize that the morning shows (with the possible exception of "CBS This > > Morning," since they claim that they're doing real news now) *don't* do > > those kind of pieces at all after 8:00 and that the last time "Today" did > > serious pieces after 8 outside of breaking news was before "GMA" was > kicking > > its ass the first time (and when the hours aired out of order in the > Central > > time zone), but isn't the fact that it was a Kardashian while the > ceremony > > was happening exacerbate it? > > I think whatever they'd have been airing would've sent people into > vapors. The fact it was a Kardashian just happened to be the cherry on > top. I know NBC said they provided coverage of the anniversary > throughout the morning. I did not watch any of it. > I think the main indicator that Joe has a valid point is how difficult it is in most public settings in this country to even make that point without eliciting squeals of indignation. If in a family that had lost a father to a murder every member was forced every year to stop what they were doing on the anniversary of the crime and ritually repeat and reenact the grief of the initial aftermath, I think most mental health professionals would be concerned - even more if, when some of the now grown children wanted to miss the ritual to attend their college classes, or their work, or their own children's football practice, their mother responded with shrieks of indignation that the children never loved or cared about their father, or about her. None of this is to deny that individuals, families and nations can and in some cases ought develop meaningful and productive rituals to remember and honor past tragedies. Nor is it to deny that 9-11 was a profoundly important and watershed day in the US; more-so I think it is fair to say than the anniversary of other major terrorist events in or out of the US. This not because of the number of people killed, or their location, but because like nothing else before it cracked the American sense of entitlement to special immunity from the conflicts that roil the rest of the world. Whatever has happened in London or India, for example, those places have long understood themselves to be effected by the hatreds and anger and passions of others. But the idea that the entire country must stop every year and note the anniversary moment as one, and that anyone who does not is an asshole, is probably a symptom of some kind of national neurosis. It is entirely appropriate to have annual ceremonies marking the event, and for news organizations to cover these ceremonies in their nightly recaps of the day's events, and even to have annual roundtables on what the event means X years later. I know people who lost loved ones in the towers, and I try to let them know on that day that I am thinking of them (though, as one of our friends in that circle noted a few years ago, it is probably even more important that we let those people know that we are thinking of them on other days throughout the year too). Driving my younger daughter to the airport yesterday (to catch a redeye to NYC to visit her sister) we had a nice conversation about her memories of 9-11 (she was just starting 6th grade, and away on a school trip). These are the normal and healthy ways to remember a tragedy. But, in a healthy family that had lost a father to murder 11 year ago, I think the mother who noticed that her now adult children were actively engaged in their own productive lives and so not able to be present for a real-time reenactment of the family grief, and instead called her at the end of the day to check-in and share, would be happy, not angry, to see them moving on. Moreover, my own neurosis, with a daughter who has been in NYC on 9-11 each of the last six years, is that by making this date a national fetish we are almost inviting repeat attacks. On the other hand, any day that anyone on NBC news is interviewing the Khardashians should result in howls of indignation, as even on the 364 days that are not September 11 there are a 101 stories more important and deserving of the precious resource of national news coverage, and it is always obscene when those are ignored for the media whores. But that is another matter. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
