Posted on 09/16/2001 11:59:42 AM PDT by topher
My personal information about the tragedy that unfolded on Tuesday came from going to FreeRepublic on Tuesday. Matt Drudge must have still been asleep.
I was in the Cafeteria at work when I saw one of the World Trade center towers smoking with CNN having it as "Breaking news. By the time I got back to my desk, I checked Drudge, then I checked FreeRepublic for information. There was an article that had that both Tower 1 and Tower 2 had been hit by planes. Shortly after this, someone called into work, and verified that Tower Two had been hit.
I was later to hear that one of the planes crashed near Pittsburgh via FreeRepublic before any Internet sites or national media had this story.
With people in the office telling about the plane crashing into the Pentagon, I had a better picture of events than most in the media -- just by turning into FreeRepublic. Note that Freepers exercised good judgement and there were very few "bogus posts at this time.
It seems, given the lawsuit by the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, FreeRepublic is a far better source of information, and much of this is by people watching TV or "sharing information". Some of it comes from the Drudgereport, wires services, and newspapers such as Washtington Times, and other newspapers (worldwide).
Given what happened on Tuesday morning, and how FreeRepublic provided a service "vital" to the United States, there should be grounds for a countersuit for the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times if they used FreeRepublic as a source for stories. It is possible that they did.
I don't know if this is true or not. I know that one of my buddies in the office was desparate for news, and he could not get to any news site -- CNN, NBC, CNBC, CBS, FOX News, etc -- on the Internet. Drudge did not have "upto the minute reporting" (well Matt can be caught off guard catching some sleep).
But I had a better picture, literally, than most in the United States because I was able to piece the picture that FreeRepublic gave me in concert with one cable station and one or two local radio stations (while I was at work).
I think there may be grounds, if it can be proven that news outlets "browsed" the FreeRepublic site at that time, for countersuit.
Additionally, even if they didn't, FreeRepublic provided a service not found elsewhere in the US during that day.
Finally, with FreeRepublic imposing censorship "freely" by its members, it is acting more patriotic than "traitorous organizations" such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and CNN. All of these, in a heart beat, would betray the United States and its military "to get a headline".
Perhaps this is an argument that can be added to the FreeRepublic Lawsuit.
Remember there was a lot of confusion that day -- reports of jets making low level passes down the Potomac (might have been fighters).
Freerepublic, in combination with other sources, gave a much clearer picture than trying to look at the cable "pictures".
It was in just one FreeRepublic thread that both World Trade Towers had been hit -- not too long after seeing the first one in smoke.
If you were to turn on all the cable news TV stations, you still would miss local TV reports, plus Local Radio reports.
That is the edge FreeRepublic has.
In short, I think you are "very wrong" to assume having "TV pictures" to look at gave a good picture of the situation. There was no pictures of the Pittsburgh crash, but I am sure the TV station had reports from many eyewitnesses calling into the TV station.
If you are right, then go watch CNN all the time, and stay off FreeRepublic. According to your theory, you would get more information from CNN.
No way could I have gotten any viable info here, and did finally give up.
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.