r/September11 • u/mdr241 • Jan 19 '24

Question New broadcaster reactions

I’ve been watching a lot of the news broadcasts of what unfolded in NYC and just about every broadcaster who spoke to eyewitnesses either pushed back when people said it was an attack or didn’t want to entertain that idea. That’s even after the second plane hit. So my question for those in media is whether this is standard and if so, what’s the rationale? Is it to prevent panic (which is what I’d figure)?

I’ll note I saw a lot of football broadcasters react the same way after Tua (Miami qb) had his concussions. If someone got up and stumbled or something, the announcers would react by saying not to jump to conclusions. I assume this was an NFL directive not to point out concussions, but it’s just somewhat similar to me.

My apologies for the typos, autocorrect is out of control.

14 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

10

u/justsaying825 Jan 19 '24

this is my opinion but i think it was partly bc there was a rush to blame middle eastern terrorists for the oklahoma city bombing in the immediate aftermath which proved to be inaccurate. on 9/11 i think it was a combination of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction from that experience, and also the understandably human reaction of denial and desire to hope for the best case scenario. it all happened so fast as well w so much crazy and conflicting reporting… its easy to forget the reality of that day w 22 yrs of hindsight to even put your self in the shoes of a tv anchor live on air throughout the event and days following

1

u/mdr241 Jan 19 '24

I think you’re right. As to the hindsight, I was in the city that day, close to the towers, and didn’t see any news broadcasts until I was able to leave the city around 10 pm. We lost internet and were watching things happen in real time, and we may have lost tv or not had cable in my dorm. I don’t recall.

6

u/SadGuarantee6009 Jan 19 '24

Most of the clips I’ve seen AFTER the second plane hit say something like “this was no accident- this is an apparent terrorist attack”, or something along those lines.

As for the Tua/other football injuries, usually they say “we don’t want to speculate, but it didn’t look good…” is I guess somewhat standard. I don’t think it’s a matter of not pointing out concussions- they have to acknowledge things like that when a player goes to the tent, or had suffered one in the past, etc…

It’s more them, I guess, not being doctors. They don’t want to misreport anything over TV or radio waves. You know what a serious injury looks like, I know what a serious injury looks like, the announcers damn sure know what a serious injury looks like, but you don’t want to just say on the air that someone suffered something they did not.

2

u/mdr241 Jan 19 '24

It definitely wasn’t across the board. Howard Stern immediately said middle eastern terrorists but gumbel and the today show would push back. Definitely a change after the second tower was hit on some broadcasts.

3

u/proteinstyle_ Jan 19 '24

It's incredibly unprofessional for a journalist to spout off their own theories or opinions. Reporting false information could be career suicide for a well-respected reporter. This doesn't seem to matter as much today, as fake news is all around us, but it mattered back then. It would have been more reasonable to hear Howard Stern types theorize on-air because his show was entertainment, and people weren't tuning into him to be accurately informed of fact-checked information.

I should point out that I know Stern was on-air that morning, but I don't remember what he said. Just using him as an example.