I know the concept is to avoid some kind of bad coverage, but over the hours between the first impact and the last, all of the coverage should be the same thing, as everything was so unknown. We were all staring at the same thing wondering what was going on.
IMHO, it would not be until it was identified as a terrorist attack where the media biases would really take over. So that would depend on how long you cover it. In all honesty, you should be covering the headlines of all sources, if you can.
I was hoping you’d be able to get the BBC stream, as it was the one I don’t recall seeing anything from on the day. I was in the office with no live TV feeds, so we were bouncing from news site to news site trying to get more information. I’m not sure the CBC feed would add much other than a bit more coverage on the diversion of so many trans-Atlantic flights to Gander from their original destinations. Beyond that, I’m agnostic as all the US networks of the day seemed very similar from my perspective.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t download the hours-long videos for this 24-hour stream for the BBC. That’s why it’s now out of the poll.
And the Canadian reactions. And what happened near my home at the border. It’s actually quite the interesting coverage. About as good as ABC’s, I dare say.
You’d be surprised. Choosing between CBC and ABC was a surprisingly difficult choice for me to vote on. And everyone seems to be somewhat familiar with CNN’s coverage. CBS and NBC? Not much, especially with NBC. FOX covered the Pentagon attack more extensively than other major networks did.
Even back then, I wasn’t much of a TV-watcher, so perhaps my opinion should carry little weight here. I have a few vivid memories of the second strike from one of the networks, and the collapse of the first tower from another, but the identities of the networks didn’t matter as much as the story unfolded (except for the couple of morons wondering aloud on national TV how two aircraft could possibly be so far off course as to “accidentally” strike the towers).
Yes, I felt much the same way. A single plane strike on a tall building in broad daylight? Fantastically unlikely to be an accident. Two plane strikes on adjacent tall buildings? So obviously enemy action that anyone making a case otherwise must be assumed to be on the other side.
My childhood best friend (also a Canadian) was on a flight out of Boston that morning and was on the same path as the flight that didn’t strike its target. I didn’t hear from him for several days, as he was out of contact due to landing well away from his destination.
And regarding the attacks, the big question in my mind that day was who was responsible. My sister and I were in the middle of discussing that when we saw the second crash live.
That day, I thought Hezbollah was responsible, my sister said al-Qaeda. Guess who got it right…
As I drove home from work that evening – along remarkably quiet highways – I was afraid of what the US reaction to the attack would be. It wasn’t as bad as I feared, although the last 18 months have been more like what I worried about on the way home nearly 20 years ago.
@klkevelson1 I don’t have 24-hour videos of that, as much as I wish
And I get to point out the biases of the coverage during the stream. And I want to show it in the same way as I do for my America at war! thread. See it as they did back then and we can talk about our experiences as well. Consider this a class of sorts.
Mmm…On 10th September I received my ticket to go to San Francisco for a course plus I wanted to see the Thunderbirds. After the attacks there was a defiant big part of me which wanting to go anyway as effing terrorist shouldn’t control my life. Strange reaction maybe but a lot of people took other risks like racing home.
but a lot of people took other risks like racing home.
