Tweet
How to Cover the 11th Anniversary of 9/11?
The pain, the outrage, the loss – these never fade. The amount of journalism, however, must. This is the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 – that infamous date in the history of New York, the nation and the world. Last year, on the 10th anniversary, The Times produced a huge special treatment – an elaborate Web presence and an ambitious special section, along with major stories on the days leading up to the anniversary.
This year, coverage in The Times will be far more muted, largely confined to news stories, like Sunday’s front-page story about the infighting among politicians over the future of ground zero, and coverage of the reading of names.
Is that enough to satisfy readers’ sense of what is appropriate? Does it fulfill the journalistic responsibility to note an important date?
And, if not, what are the alternatives? Although the intensity and the relative recentness of 9/11 bring their own set of issues, this is not a new discussion.
You might call it “anniversary journalism.” Every year, the anniversary of D-Day, the commemoration of Veterans Day and other important dates cause journalists to try to find the right balance between what readers think is appropriate and necessary and the lack of any actual news to drive the coverage.
Often, other than the local events surrounding an anniversary, there isn’t always much to say that is original. Yet, readers, understandably, want the dates remembered in a substantial way.
I talked to two key editors at The Times about the quandary.
“Some anniversaries offer a natural reflection point,” said Carolyn Ryan, the metropolitan editor. Last year’s 10th anniversary of 9/11 surely fit that category. “In subsequent years, we do have to mark these moments, but it will be in a more modest way.”
In every case, though, editors try to let news events or developments dictate how much news coverage an event will get – and sometimes that has nothing to do with a round number.
Two years ago, for example, on the ninth anniversary, there was major 9/11 coverage because of a controversy over whether an Islamic community center would be built near the site. That story led The Times’s front page during the anniversary week.
This year, editors say, coverage will be modest. A story today describes what is happening around the city. Wednesday’s paper will offer coverage of the reading of the names, an event at which emotional photos are very likely. One of those could easily earn its way to the front page, as editors evaluate the images of the day.
There is an important sense of duty about it, said Wendell Jamieson, the deputy metropolitan editor, but also an effort to bring something new to the readership.
“You look for an angle that has news value,” he said, “and you ask can we mark this day in a creative, exciting and journalistically meaningful way.”
The pain, the outrage, the loss – these never fade. The amount of journalism, however, must. This is the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 – that infamous date in the history of New York, the nation and the world. Last year, on the 10th anniversary, The Times produced a huge special treatment – an elaborate Web presence and an ambitious special section, along with major stories on the days leading up to the anniversary.
This year, coverage in The Times will be far more muted, largely confined to news stories, like Sunday’s front-page story about the infighting among politicians over the future of ground zero, and coverage of the reading of names.
Is that enough to satisfy readers’ sense of what is appropriate? Does it fulfill the journalistic responsibility to note an important date?
And, if not, what are the alternatives? Although the intensity and the relative recentness of 9/11 bring their own set of issues, this is not a new discussion.
You might call it “anniversary journalism.” Every year, the anniversary of D-Day, the commemoration of Veterans Day and other important dates cause journalists to try to find the right balance between what readers think is appropriate and necessary and the lack of any actual news to drive the coverage.
Often, other than the local events surrounding an anniversary, there isn’t always much to say that is original. Yet, readers, understandably, want the dates remembered in a substantial way.
I talked to two key editors at The Times about the quandary.
“Some anniversaries offer a natural reflection point,” said Carolyn Ryan, the metropolitan editor. Last year’s 10th anniversary of 9/11 surely fit that category. “In subsequent years, we do have to mark these moments, but it will be in a more modest way.”
In every case, though, editors try to let news events or developments dictate how much news coverage an event will get – and sometimes that has nothing to do with a round number.
Two years ago, for example, on the ninth anniversary, there was major 9/11 coverage because of a controversy over whether an Islamic community center would be built near the site. That story led The Times’s front page during the anniversary week.
This year, editors say, coverage will be modest. A story today describes what is happening around the city. Wednesday’s paper will offer coverage of the reading of the names, an event at which emotional photos are very likely. One of those could easily earn its way to the front page, as editors evaluate the images of the day.
There is an important sense of duty about it, said Wendell Jamieson, the deputy metropolitan editor, but also an effort to bring something new to the readership.
“You look for an angle that has news value,” he said, “and you ask can we mark this day in a creative, exciting and journalistically meaningful way.”
