Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

I ain't going nowhere near that video. The guy wants it to be seen, it is his selling point against all other "go into somewhere where people won't carry weapons and kill as much as you can" instances that happened. The Taliban didn't care about the cameras it could've happened that no clear shot of the impact existed as there are only few sources.
 
Number 6 said:
It isn't any different. Watching 9/11 footage is also not okay.
Click to expand...

The 9/11 footage was on the news back then, though. Everybody watched it live. I did have a bit of an odd feeling back then, seeing how such a terrible tragedy was sensationalised as an event, but not watching it was like ignoring it or questioning the significance.
 
Perun said:
The 9/11 footage was on the news back then, though
Click to expand...

Yeah as I've said in another topic; had afternoon classes and didn't have to wake up early, stumble out of my room eyes half shut only to see my entire family fixed on the TV like it's 1991 all over again. Someone just turned to me and said "they attacked America".
 
Number 6 said:
Doesn't matter. Sensationalist journalism is disgusting.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the difference between then and now. Then it didn't exist. Internet wasn't in everyone's life, it wasn't the medium for news and round'o'clock news were a fairly new thing in the US let alone the rest of the world.

Back then everyone would gather up to watch 8 o'clock (20 PM) news on TV. Programming being interrupted, in the middle of the day, to show footage from another continent was one hell of a deal.
 
Number 6 said:
Doesn't matter. Sensationalist journalism is disgusting.
Click to expand...

This went quite a bit beyond sensationalist journalism. At the time, everyone was convinced that this was some sort of military attack on the US; a new Pearl Harbor. Nobody actually knew what exactly was happening or who was doing it, but there was a general consensus that whatever it was, it was something that would fundamentally change the world we lived in. There was a need to know what was unfolding there.
 
This will sort of be reiterating what Perun said: the World Trade Centre attacks were also of global consequence. It was an act of war by a terrorist organization and affected the lives of people who were not on one of the flights, in one of the towers or friends/family of someone who was there. It was such a massive thing that everybody had to see it to even begin to comprehend it. It wasn't self-filmed or voyueristic smartphone footage either. It was something that had to be seen to be believed. It was a JFK moment.
 
People weren't as desensitized to violence and shocking images on TV as we are today. It was absolutely nothing like anyone had seen before.
I was in Germany at the time, just back from an early shift at work, and I watched the second plane live with a dozen other Eastern Europeans I used to share a flat with. Nobody knew what was happening or what was to come, but we were all scared shitless.
 
Perun said:
There was a need to know what was unfolding there.
Click to expand...
You don't have to show what was going on the way the World Trade Center attacks were shown for people to understand it. There's footage, official footage of dead people. To show the attack (the plane colliding with the building) is one thing, but to show the chaos, destruction and death surrounding the aftermath of it the way they did is extremely sensationalist.

The 2002 film 9/11, which shows footage of the incident from the point of view of the New York City Fire Department, is a nice example of a terrorist attack perfectly documented without having to resort to cheap sensationalism.
 
Zare said:
You don't understand the difference between then and now.
Click to expand...
I do understand the difference. The thing is, sensationalist journalism isn't exclusive to TV, or the Internet. It has always been there — people just didn't know it was what they were looking at. The fact that you're saying it was different because this kind of thing "didn't exist" back then only proves my point: that sensationalist media is manipulative and people had no other sources but it to know what was going on.

Again, showing footage of the attack the way that they did is just wrong and disrespectful.
 
I'm not sure we agree on what was on tv at the time. There wasn't much footage of dead people on the live news. There was some live footage of people jumping out of windows, but this came as shocking and surprising to the camera people as to anyone, and I don't remember anyone actually holding the camera there intentionally.
 
Number 6 said:
I didn't say there were dead people shown all over the place. You're right, there wasn't much. But there was, and it bothers me.
Click to expand...

There wasn't, at least not on CNN International, which was what I was watching. I watched the whole thing from when the news broke that a plane had hit the WTC (ca- 15:00 CET) to deep in the evening. I was very sensible to dead bodies on tv at the time, and all I remember is a brief shot of people jumping out the windows that was pretty much immediately cut away from when the horrified presenters realised what that was. I'm not sure what dead bodies you're talking about.
 
I'm obviously not going to look for this kind of thing rn, but I remember watching news reports from that day for a school project, and some of them showed the aftermath of the attack in detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top