In your opinion, do you think the media seems to care more about the destruction of the WTC towers themselves, than with the people killed inside them?

No

I should've put in a Sometimes options. Dammit! How come none of you called me on that? Ah well, it's water under the bridge isn't it?

YES! I think this has been nagging at me for months, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was exactly. I hated how just about every news edition or special show focused on how destroying the towers was symbolic, and how much it would cost to rebuild them, blah blah blah.
But almost never that 30, 000 lives were lost. Or that little kids who now didn't have parents would be orphans.
What bugs me most about this whole thing is that nobody really cared about the WTC. Sure, when you were a silly tourist person you wanted to go up to the 108th floor and all, but they were such an esthetically displeasing landmark--and yes, all they represented--how could human beings even consider putting more importance on the fact they were blown up than that all those innocent lives were lost?

no, i think that they care about the people more

Well, my primary "media source" is the New York Times, and I'm going to have to say no. They have more stories about the people than the buildings.

Feh, they can pick "other" if they think "sometimes."

You're too nice to me Justina.

You're good people, and I don't know, something tells me that in your life you've gotten a lot of crap from people for... for no good reason at all. I'm drawn to people like you. You're the kind of person I'd like to hug, and then go out and get drunk with and show a good time.
Happy New Year. I hope the cosmos or whatever gives you all that you deserve.

I hope so. On top of getting fired and ripped off by the bank, now my uncle is facing charges for an assault that never took place, filed by a woman who was trying to rob him, now my young cousin's life is being threatened. The way I see it, the Universe fudging owes me! The only thing that could make things right betwen the unvierse and me is hot sex with Meredith Vieira.

Holy crap! Oh man, okay, let me realistically say, um, I hope the last three-quarters of your year goes well!
Can I share? Tonight (I've been at my mom's here in Ohio helping her recover from surgery), my best friend from childhood come over with her two-year-old son.
Mom keeps her medicine in those "daily pills for the week" things. She keeps it on the endtable.
Um, two hours into the visit, we had to take the kid to the emergency room because pills would up missing and we couldn't find them!
I felt/feel AWFUL! He showed no signs of actually having taken any (Xanax would have knocked that boy out), but we still had to feed him charcoal.
If I learned anything, it turns out I have a knack for feeding children charcoal. I had him BEGGING me for it.
My friend was completely understanding, but man. Ugh.

Yipes.

Well, all turned out well, and now I'm scarfing down Jello shots with rum. I don't like rum, but hell, my best friend brought them over, so, viva la Captian Morgan! ...with lime Jello.
Whatever works, that's my motto.

Yes, they no longer show the scenes they showed on the very first day of the people waving from the window or the one guy throwing himself out. I'm kind of glad as they were the most distressing scenes. Maybe the chose deliberately out of humane decency not to show them.

But more focus on the dead and families of the dead would make it clear that it was just the architechs who need feel upset (a recent documentary)

No - I think the towers are being considered as symbolic of US economic might (as the terrorists intended) but the people aren't being forgotten. Last Saturday there was an article in the Weekend section of the Guardian about the people in the restaurant at the top of one of the towers. About their last day there......

It's just easier (on the speaker and the ear) to say 2the destruction of the twin towers" than "the death of more than 3,000 people."

It was almost unbearable the coverage the first day - but I couldn't not watch. It was compelling. I don't think they should have shown the close-ups of peope falling. Not without a warning that they were about to show somnething even more shocking than what had gone before.

I see where you're coming from but no!

The symbolic value of the event, in a primitive and shallow world we live in, cannot be discounted. Things like flag burning, spitting on the Koran, etc. are often considered more important than whatever you say or who you are. Destroying specifically these buildings is like a kick in the balls to the US. It was deliberately challenging.

Sometimes it seems that way, but in all honesty I'm the kind of person that is ready to forget the whole thing already.

*the* media? Where? In Iceland? In Canada? Or Bangladesh?

My media (NYC metro region) has many more stories/biographies/pictures of those lost than of the towers. Maybe it varies by region.

Probably not, although the magnitude of two 110 floor buildings collapsing after two commercial jets crashed into them is somewhat overwhelming. I think the media did pay a lot of attention to the living relatives of those who were killed. I guess some of the scenes were too graphic to show on TV. I remember seeing people hanging from the windows and thinking what a terrible decision that was, to stay and burn, or jump. I think equal time is probably given to each, but it's the images of the towers on fire that are compelling.

I live in Queens! Where do you live??

I have no idea. The media I listen to and read doesn't.

Maybe you should pay attention to a different media source.

I think it is easier to talk about the attacks in abstract terms and refer to the towers when in fact, they are discussing the victims.

I have no more idea what the media cares about, than they have what I care about. We like to keep it that way!

In a way. It seems to me like they are more upset over the fact that there was an attack on America than the fact that people were killed. They are angry that people were killed because they were americans, not because they were humans. But, I mean, that's just how I feel.

I don't think that many people were killed.

AS OF MOST RECENT DATABASE UPDATE, 1/5/2002 1:36:29 AM:

CONFIRMED DEAD: 2698 • REPORTED DEAD: 188 • REPORTED MISSING: 130 • TOTAL: 3016

0 NEW VICTIM PROFILES HAVE BEEN ADDED • 8 VICTIMS PROFILES HAVE BEEN UPDATED
http://www.september11victims.com/september11Victims/victims_list.htm

Yeah, well, whatever. It's still a high number.

I think everyone cares about that whole thing too much.
So many other victims are getting so little attention, it's a shame.
I was really unhappy about the people who took their donations back from the Red Cross when they found out the Red Cross was using them to help victims of other disaster.

I know! I thought preparing for potential future disasters was smnart, but all these gredy fudges who only donate for a tax break have no concept of thinking ahead!

Maybe a bit. But all the media attention was HUGE and the people weren't forgotten.

Yes I do and I think that it's real sad.

I agree. The Red Cross does great work. There was plenty of money for the WTC victims. I think they should put some of the money towards other things. To donate and then take your money back doesn't make sense. Other people are in need too.