Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's Me in That 9/11 Photo
Slate ^ | 9/14/06 | Slate

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911; 911anniversary; 911attacks; biasequalslayoffs; culturewar; disaffectedyouth; fakebutaccurate; fakephotos; frankrich; goebbelswouldbeproud; ivorytower; jaded; lyingliars; makingitup; media; mediabias; postmodernism; propaganda; thomashoepker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: Naptowne
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.

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...

21 posted on 09/14/2006 1:17:03 PM PDT by GOPJ (Note to MSM - when dems say "jump", you don't always have to ask "how high".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Naptowne

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.


22 posted on 09/14/2006 1:23:42 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

If you were a Democrat, you would sue him for slander and own him.


23 posted on 09/14/2006 1:31:57 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Naptowne; dennisw; Yehuda
The NYT's favorite tactic.

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.

24 posted on 09/14/2006 1:35:57 PM PDT by Thinkin' Gal (As it was in the days of NO...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: weegee
conclusions that also led Frank Rich to write, "The young people in Mr. Hoepker's photo aren't necessarily callous. They're just American."

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.

25 posted on 09/14/2006 1:44:48 PM PDT by Libertarian444
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Naptowne

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.


26 posted on 09/14/2006 1:52:55 PM PDT by Enchante (There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Mainstream Journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal
Frank, when you assume, you make an a$$ of u and me...

I think it goes like this: when you assume, you make an a$$ of u-m-e.
;o)

27 posted on 09/14/2006 1:54:03 PM PDT by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: It's me

You're probably right, though I could see how some assumptions might call for the other.


28 posted on 09/14/2006 2:07:48 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (OUR schools are damaging OUR children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

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.


29 posted on 09/14/2006 2:09:32 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Freedom of religion means freedom to practice IslamĀ®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Naptowne

for late arrivers:
It's worth the time to read the linked Slate article.
Just take your blood pressure medicine first.


30 posted on 09/14/2006 2:16:44 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Naptowne

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.


31 posted on 09/14/2006 2:18:26 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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.


32 posted on 09/14/2006 2:21:41 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal

Actually, I used to say it the way you wrote it until my daughter corrected me, (many times, I might add!).


33 posted on 09/14/2006 2:41:11 PM PDT by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: martin_fierro
Call me crazy, but that seems like a phony photo. Where the h*ll does the East River provide a view like that? Perhaps the perspective in the photo is throwing me off and it is real, but I'm not buying it just yet...
35 posted on 09/14/2006 4:18:36 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Every single day provides at least one new reason to hate the mainstream media...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
It checks out with Google Maps. I used Google Earth to make the screen shot below, but Google Maps had a better raw image, particularly for the bridges.

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.


36 posted on 09/15/2006 5:38:31 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

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.


37 posted on 09/18/2006 6:18:23 PM PDT by vikk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson