Tragedy

Writing about tragedy requires perhaps the most skill and rhetoric out of all possible topics. Even objective reporting services like journals have to change their tone and attitude to appropriately address a sore topic, which the events of September 11th, 2001 are and will always be. Writers must achieve a balance between objectivity and an appropriate amount of sympathy and empathy. If the New York Times published an article right after the 9/11 attacks detailing all the information that was currently known about the situation, but they treated it like a review of last week's NFL games, it would upset a lot of readers because they want to be given that information with a sense of humanity, not a cold, clinical analysis like an autopsy. On the other hand, If they had one of their leading journalists write and article about how angry and sad the attacks made him or her, that would serve absolutely no practical purpose to the public.

Just like how the writing depends on the topic and the feelings attached to it, it also heavily depends on the speaker and the audience. If I were telling my friends about what happened, I wouldn't worry too much about how I state the facts, as long as the story itself is true. However, if some co-workers were having a discussion about it, I would have to be much more careful about how I stated my views on the events as well as all parties involved. If I were the president's assistant and I had to tell him what had just happened while he was doing a book reading for Pre-schoolers like Bush was, I would know that the facts are all that matter and I wouldn't have to include careful language to soften up my audience. However if the president flew to New York to deliver a speech to those who were finding survivors, clearing rubble, etc, sentiment would be almost more important than the actual content of what he was saying.