Replies

If it is live, it is news. If not, it is history. Actually, I'm still upset that the networks decided NOT to show people jumping from buildings. That softened the event. We are entitled to honest depictions of the horror of such an event ... but that is a whole other debate.

I saw the second plane hit the South tower and understood along with the rest of America what was happening. I saw reporters in the street barely able to breathe and felt what was happening. I saw it all live and still was able to read what you did later.

I think there is a great deal to be said for live pictures of an event. I used to read Richard Nixon's Watergate speeches the day after he gave them. They were pretty good. But I had seen him deliver the speech with his nervous twitches and sweating lip. I got a whole lot more from the live event than could be gotten from reading it later.

Don't try to argue that there is no value in live pictures. It is a non-starter.

well, you just pay your money to the left's hollywood movies and television. how much are cable tv and movies? and then people on the thread complain about it!

i would argue that there need to be limits. it's called "decency". children should not be seeing this.

from what i read in the new york times, mexican and south american television did not edit the jumping from the towers. it's a different culture. but, some of those people down there enjoyed seeing american get hit by terrorists, and believe it or not, celebrated.

kids are watching too much violence on tv, imo.

i have better things to do with my time.