[VOA]

9/11/01 as the media doesn't want you to see it

I'll give the tip of the hat to USA Today. Last year (the week before the 1st
commemoration), they did a fair examination of how the media (including themselves)
had engaged in some self-censorship about the graphic details. They also did a good
investigation of how many people did choose to jump (rather than burn) and published
a few breath-taking photos of those souls.

I'm sure some of the mainstream media is dealing in moderate revisionism,
but I suspect many sectors are doing it to
1. be kind to the sensitivities of surviving family/friends
2. not be accussed of inciting mainstream America to go after Muslim neighbors.

Thanks to the Internet, I suspect some years from now, the revisionsists will
face challenges that they wouldn't have even 10 years ago.

[Wolfstar]

As I've been telling "biblewonk," I'd buy that argument if there weren't literally hundreds of examples of the media showing blood and gore, and not giving a dam about anyone's sensitivities. "Biblewonk" pointed out that it may be a matter of where one lives. I live in the Los Angeles media market where local programming is frequently interrupted for non-stop live coverage of often-deadly police car chases. They NEVER worry about the sensitivity of any family members who happen to have the news on while their loved one's car suddenly gets smashed by a fleeing jackass running from the cops.