Skip to comments.It's Me in That 9/11 Photo
Posted on 09/14/2006 12:28:14 PM PDT by Naptowne
Yesterday, Slate posted this piece criticizing Frank Rich's New York Times column about the 9/11 photo shown here. The picture was taken by Magnum photographer Thomas Hoepker on the afternoon of 9/11. Calling the image "shocking," Rich suggested that the five New Yorkers were "relaxing" and were already "mov[ing] on" from the attacks. Slate's David Plotz disputed that characterization of the picture, arguing that the subjects had almost certainly gathered to discuss the attacks and to find solace in others' company. Rather than showing callousness, as Rich suggested, it depicted civic engagement. But since neither Rich nor Plotz knew exactly what the five New Yorkers in the photo were doing or thinking, we invited them to contact Slate and tell us.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Frank Rich is an arrogant ivory-tower inhabitant who thinks he knows the mind of everyone, thus can sit in judgment even of an anonymous group in a photo.
Always good to see frank rich reaffirm what a POS he is.
We were in a profound state of shock and disbelief, like everyone else we encountered that day. Thomas Hoepker did not ask permission to photograph us nor did he make any attempt to ascertain our state of mind before concluding five years later that, "It's possible they lost people and cared, but they were not stirred by it." Had Hoepker walked fifty feet over to introduce himself he would have discovered a bunch of New Yorkers in the middle of an animated discussion about what had just happened. He instead chose to publish the photograph that allowed him to draw the conclusions he wished to draw, conclusions that also led Frank Rich to write, "The young people in Mr. Hoepker's photo aren't necessarily callous. They're just American." A more honest conclusion might start by acknowledging just how easily a photograph can be manipulated, especially in the advancement of one's own biases or in the service of one's own career.
Still, it was nice being described as a young person. I was forty at the time the photograph was taken.
He was 40 and considers himself young. I'm almost 52 and I consider myself young, too......
Frank, when you assume, you make an a$$ of u and me...
|Based on an amused spectator's list
Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list
|The List of Ping Lists|
But I repeat myself...
I saw the original article and remember wondering how Rich could tell that these people were indifferent.
Guess Rich will use the "fake but accurate" defense.
Frank Rich, FOAD.
The NYT's favorite tactic.
Hmmm. Wonder what Frank Rich was doing that day? Wonder how he would objectively characterize his actions?
Wonder how he would characterize the actions of the photographer, who was obviously so callous about the day's events that he was out sniffing around for a photo he could sell?
Rich was the Times' theatre critic. He got the job on the editorial page because he's Pinch's boyfriend.
All of them are focused on the discussion, every one of their bodies are directed at the voice.
If I were walking up on this group I would be aware that I was interrupting an intense discussion.
Another cousin is a Newark fireman and when he came off-duty he and his bretheren reported to Ground Zero and would spend days sifting through and looking for survivors.
At the time I worked for Praxair in Dallas. One of our Associates who was the warehouse forman for the medical supply warehouse in Hoboken NJ, responded heroically. He knew that supplies would be needed so he filled up a semi with emergency rescue air breathing cylinders, O2 hospital cyclinders and other gas supplies. He didn't have any invoices but knew the paperwork could wait but the supplies must move NOW! When he tried to cross the George Washington Bridge was stopped because he had no permission slip and Manhatten was locked down. He was able to "sweet talk his was past the guards and deliver these urgently needed supplies.
Dumb @ss Rich was propably in an editorial meeting where the topic, "How to Blame Bush" was the order of the day!
Meanwhile we've almost completely forgotten the people who celebrated the attacks that day IN THIS COUNTRY.
And they may have been small in number, but certainly did exist.
One employee of the city of Houston gloated in an email exchange. He was later terminated (I think over a prostitution solicitation charge stemming from another email).
I bet if you look at the next Frank Rich column, you will be able to find the letters that will spell "I made a mistake." Of course they may not be in that order, and there will be other lettes between them.
Gee the NYTimes is 100% wrong. How unusual.
Wow - this approach could be BIG! Rather than a reporter projecting on to others their own prejudice and cynicism's, they could find out the truth of the situation.
It's such a novel approach.
I'll bet other would even enjoy reading about such things -- collections of such writings could be organized. It would be fun to read them...
Better than our world where liberal reporters project and conclude that everyone is as petty, shallow and insensitive as they are...
Wow, Frank Rich continues to solidify his standing as one sick scumbag each and every day.
He is an absolutely perfect fit for the New York Times.
If you were a Democrat, you would sue him for slander and own him.
Remember the photo of a "Palestinian" yoot who was supposedly being beaten by an Israel policeman? It was taken near the Temple Mount.
For anyone who missed it:
Turned out that the so-called Palistinian was a Jewish student (American citizen). He had been attacked by a gang of Arab thugs (he was yanked out of a taxi IIRC). The policeman was holding up his stick to Pali yoots (who had to be behind the cameraman!) in defense of the bloodied Jewish man. NYT made it look like an Israeli policeman was beating a poor helpless Pali yoot with a stick.
This was exposed when the student's relatives saw the photo in the slimes and recognized this Pali yoot as their nephew/cousin.
Anybody have that pic? No matter what false info came from the cameraman, the slimes should have seen that the young man most definitely did not look like an Arab.
As if making an uniformed judgement about people he knew absolutely nothing about wasn't enough, Rich also found no problem taking a slap at the the character of his own country on one the darkest days in its nation's history. How entirely predictable for such a piece of human sewage as Frank Rich, but I'm sure they ate up his "wisdom" when he recounted his idiotic interpretation of the photo while his fancied around on the Manhattan cocktail party circuit.
If we could all view photos of fat Frank, Maureen Dowd, and friends from every minute of the day of 9/11, I'll bet there were LOTS of times when they looked far more disengaged than these people. It's absurd to have tried to read anything into the thoughts of the people in that photo - what are they supposed to do, run in circles waving their hands and shrieking 24/7???? I'd love to publish a photo of Fat Frank looking bored, tired, etc. and say "Frank Rich Displays His Indifference to Fate of 9/11 Victims!" That would be typical for the DBM when they want to trash people for their own agenda.
I think it goes like this: when you assume, you make an a$$ of u-m-e.
You're probably right, though I could see how some assumptions might call for the other.
It's a little like when they attacked the President for not getting up immediately and running in circles when he found out about the attack.
for late arrivers:
It's worth the time to read the linked Slate article.
Just take your blood pressure medicine first.
I was in New York at the time, fairly near ground zero, and I did some subway riding the next few weeks. I can testify that the usual rules broke down, and people who never would make eye contact normally were comiserating with each other over the tragedy.
A good friend of mine was taken by boat from Battery Park City (a hairy experience) and then finally to a hospital in Newark after a day without food and water out on Liberty Island. She said that as she approached the hospital in Newark, a tough place, she had never seen so many scary-looking punks, thugs, and muggers waiting outside. It turned out that they were all lining up to give blood. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that nobody was mugged for several days after it happened, there was such obvious solidarity.
As it turned out, blood donations were not needed, because the dead were in no condition to benefit. Hospitals stood by ready to deal with all the emergency victims, and hardly anybody showed up, because they were dead.
But the blood donors turned out, and flooded the whole system, just because they wanted to help in any way they could. Details the mainstream press would rather forget.
Actually, I used to say it the way you wrote it until my daughter corrected me, (many times, I might add!).
The two lines are from the apparent photo site to the WTC site, and to the eastern piers of the Mahattan and Brooklyn bridges, which nearly line up in the photo.
The photo site is a concrete apron on the riverfront. There did seem to be some shrubs there, but I didn't go as far as trying to match them up to the photo.
Correct. That's not a very well travelled part of the East River waterfront, so the views look a little unusual.
I watched it all from my front stoop. You could have snapped a shot of me at several points during that day and I would have looked "indifferent" to ol' Franky Boy.