Anniversary Journalism

"The New York Times ran a 1A story Sunday about the battle waged over the 9/11 memorial/museum, which was at one time expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary but now won't be finished until 2014 at the earliest. The story easily could have held for today's newspaper."

This is actually one of the smart things the Times does -- getting its stories timed to a certain date out there the week beforehand, before the coverage is saturated elsewhere. You'll see this over and over again, little coverage on the day itself but a lot leading up to it.

 

There are folks who get annoyed if Pearl Harbor is not on the front page (or promoinently somewhere else after 71 years.)

 

A couple of thoughts:

1. I bet the anniversary stuff is out there tomorrow.

2. I initially thought the NYT was being holier than thou, but the Post didn't have it on the front either. The News did.

3. Was this something your readers were talking about today? Judging by social media, yes it was.

 

While I agree with this, it's not exactly what I was saying.

It boils down to this for me:

If you're someone whose 9/11 experience was watching on TV from a distance and feeling some kind of "fear" that your cornfield/beach/home/amusement park/etc. far from the East Coast might be attacked, would you be able to meet someone from NY who lost someone that day, look them in the eye, and try to sell your remembrance as something important?

 

If were using social media as barometer for news heaven fucking help us!

My FB and Twitter feed was filled with the I-remember-where-I-was-when-the-planes-hit - but living rural West By God Virginia I can tell you no one was ANYWHERE near Shanksville, the Pentagon or NYC.

Yeah social media was talking about it, but no one I had a real conversation with today was. No. One.

JPsT summed it well:

 

What if there's a different twist? I'm not sure if this was posted anywhere else but another site I frequent I saw this story linked:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Father-s-note-changes-family-s-9-11-account-3850490.php#page-3

 

While the thread is about newspaper articles, he was specifically bitching about comments on "social media" which generally is our circle of friends.

 

Who did that? I've never seen or heard of anyone doing that.

 

Yes, communication on social media is usually restricted to a small group of people.

I'll be happy to amend my previous statement to include any and all individuals who had nothing to do with 9/11, but who still act like their day on the farm or in the classroom was profoundly affected by it. This applies to anyone, not just those on social media.

That was the sound of my point whizzing by. Can still catch it if you act quickly.

 

This was the view here last night.

www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tribute-light-aim-skyward-7-11p-m-article-1.1156800

 

Evil: To me, social media is the new water cooler.

I think it's a perfectly legit way to measure people's interest in news.

Why do you disagree?

On a separate topic, I really don't get the idea that this is a geographic issue. I see it as a national one. Everyone was touched in one way or another, especially with the wars that followed.

 

Measuring people's interest. Ok.
I don't think it measures squat in terms of people's interest in news.
Twitter is pretty much mindless chatter. FB is almost the same.
Again, no one I had a real conversation said mentioned 9/11.

I think people Twitter to - I don't know - keep busy or kill time. These are the same people who post what's for lunch and dinner and Click Like if you want to remain my friend.

Look, if you have a legit story it's news, but covering the 11th anniversary for the sake of covering the 11th anniversary, well ... ...

http://www.wowktv.com/story/19518902/new-study-says-majority-of-american-ready-to-move-forward-from-911

God I hope you are wrong about Twitter.
If Twitter is the new watercooler, I'm going to the break room to get a soda.