9/11, The Guardian, and memories.
So, finally, it’s the 10th anniversary of 9/11, 11/9, September 11th, whatever. Ten years ago, some events unfolded in New York that killed hundreds of people from various different countries in a war cry and statement against American, and a wider “Western” foreign policy that, arguably, harked all the way back to the late 19th century. Ten years on, the Western world is busy remembering the events of that day in differing ways. There’s the usual ceremonies - crowds crowded in squares and around monuments in London and New York - there’s a load of press coverage featuring roundups of the events of ten years ago, and then there’s more innovative stuff like a little twitter feed created by The Guardian that tweeted the events as they unfolded ten years ago, in real time. Somehow, people took offence to what is clearly a really creative use of social media. A real life, real time timeline feed to thousands of followers through the most modern of communication methods. Is reducing the events of 9/11 to a series of 144 character updates disrespectful? No. There is no shame or disrespect in being succinct. The difference of the content of the form is minimal - be it a film, a full blown book, or a twitter feed; there’s no reason to view any representation of a past event in a different light to another just because of the nature of its presentation.
Nothing runs the risk of being eclipsed by personal feeling like an event such as 9/11. The rhetoric in the days, months, and years following it shielded policy and law changes that will be with us for decades, when in fact the key to moving forward from 9/11 always lay in the way we viewed, or failed to view, the events leading up to it. Not the days or months that were scrutinised in inquiry after inquiry, but the years and decades that led a group of radicalised Muslims to believe that such an act was their only solution.
