In my opinion, to write about a
national or even a global tragedy such as the attacks on the World Trade Center
on September 11 2001, no matter the audience, one must present the facts and
the facts alone. If a person does not stick to the facts, and they go and tell
someone their opinion of what happened, as a fact, that person (the tellers
audience) will go and present what they heard as fact to another person and the
cycle will continue and essentially never end and lead to an overall ignorance
about the tragedy. For example, when George Bush reported the incident and
later announced the Iraqi invasion as a result of 9/11, people assumed that the
country of Iraq had attacked the United States when, in fact, it was Al-Qaeda,
which is a militant Islam terrorist organization centered out of Afghanistan.
Also, along the same lines of deduction, people thought that all Muslims
carried the same deep-rooted hatred for the United States as Al-Qaeda, when in
fact the Muslim religion is a very docile, calm, and inviting religion.
Al-Qaeda and organizations like it have extremist and radical views that are
only shared by very few Muslims, not all Muslims.
Audience is
a factor when it comes to age and education. You most certainly will not report
all the cold hard facts of a tragedy to a child; people just say “a bad guy did
something bad” to a child, not “an extremist Muslim terrorist organization
hijacked four planes, flew one into the Pentagon in Washington DC, one into a
field in Pennsylvania, and two into the World Trade Centers in Manhattan.”
However, when talking to someone of age and of an education level higher than
high school you can say all of those things and more and they will understand.
The uneducated person is the person you have to watch out for. If they know
nothing of the subject they will most likely believe everything you say. If you
told an inept human being from Appalachia that the American government planned
the entire thing as a publicity stunt, they would most likely believe you and
spread it to their other inept friends and eventually get to an educated person
and then fights ensue and that’s not good.
When it
comes to reporting tragedy to an audience, no matter the race or social
background, other than age and education, in my opinion it’s the best to
sensitively report nothing but the facts and try to keep emotion out of it as
much as possible. Emotion disrupts rational thinking and one cannot report
accurate important information about something devastating and catastrophic
when they are not thinking rationally and clouded by tons of emotion.
I agree that the facts are important. One must never misconstrue the truth and must keep their audience in the know. However with 9/11 being such a vicious and tear jerking topic, do you not think one's opinions matter or just that they are unnecessary? Even though one is clouded by emotions if they are still grieving from a truly devastating account, is it not justified?
ReplyDelete