How to Cover the 11th Anniversary of 9/11?

September 11, 2012, 8:00 am

By MARGARET SULLIVAN

The pain, the outrage, the loss â€" these never fade. The amount of journalism, however, must. This is the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 â€" that infamous date in the history of New York, the nation and the world. Last year, on the 10th anniversary, The Times produced a huge special treatment â€" an elaborate Web presence and an ambitious special section, along with major stories on the days leading up to the anniversary.

This year, coverage in The Times will be far more muted, largely confined to news stories, like Sunday's front-page story about the infighting among politicians over the future of ground zero, and coverage of the reading of names.

Is that enough to satisfy readers' sense of what is appropriate? Does it fulfill the journalistic responsibility to note an important date?

And, if not, what are the alternatives? Although the intensity and the relative recentness of 9/11 bring their own set of issues, this is not a new discussion.

You might call it “anniversary journalism.” Every year, the anniversary of D-Day, the commemoration of Veterans Day and other important dates cause journalists to try to find the right balance between what readers think is appropriate and necessary and the lack of any actual news to drive the coverage.

Often, other than the local events surrounding an anniversary, there isn't always much to say that is original. Yet, readers, understandably, want the dates remembered in a substantial way.

I talked to two key editors at The Times about the quandary.

“Some anniversaries offer a natural reflection point,” said Carolyn Ryan, the metropolitan editor. Last year 's 10th anniversary of 9/11 surely fit that category. “In subsequent years, we do have to mark these moments, but it will be in a more modest way.”

In every case, though, editors try to let news events or developments dictate how much news coverage an event will get â€" and sometimes that has nothing to do with a round number.

Two years ago, for example, on the ninth anniversary, there was major 9/11 coverage because of a controversy over whether an Islamic community center would be built near the site. That story led The Times's front page during the anniversary week.

This year, editors say, coverage will be modest. A story today describes what is happening around the city. Wednesday's paper will offer coverage of the reading of the names, an event at which emotional photos are very likely. One of those could easily earn its way to the front page, as editors evaluate the images of the day.

There is a sense of duty about it, said Wendell Jamieson, the deputy metropolitan editor, but also an effort to bring something new to the readership.

“You look for an angle that has news value,” he said, “and you ask can we mark this day in a creative, exciting and journalistically meaningful way.”

I want to thank readers who responded to my Sunday column with suggestions (and some encouragement, and some early criticism). I've read them all with interest. Those of you â€" and there were many - who responded to my blog post last Tuesday on fact-checking may wish to look for my column in this coming Sunday's Review section on “false balance,” a related issue.

A number of grammatically savvy readers wrote to me about the opening quotation in the column from Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor: “I look forward to you trashing me.” On this point, I cede the floor to an eloquent reader, Peter Kehoe:

Dear Ms. Sullivan,

Congratulations on your appointment as Public Edito r.

Since you are of Irish extraction, I imagine that you have in your DNA an appreciation for the simple, elegant, clever and grammatically correct English that we got from Wilde, Shaw, Beckett, Gus Martin and Joyce before he left Ireland and that we used to expect from those who wrote for The New York Times and other first-class papers. I hope that you will press privately for literacy in the paper, to the extent that you can without coming across to your colleagues as a pedant.

I realize that propriety would not allow you to edit the quip by Mr. Rosenthal, who should have written, “I look forward to your trashing me.” … Perhaps it was a printing error, but it certainly lowered the tone!!

End of aggrieved whining!

The error, I'm sure, was mine, not Mr. Rosenthal's. For clarity's sake, I should note that his remark was spoken, not written.

Finally, I was remiss in not mentioning, in that column, my four predecessors in the rol e of public editor: Daniel Okrent, Byron Calame, Clark Hoyt and Arthur Brisbane. Each contributed, suffered his share of slings and arrows, and helped form the position that I am now taking on; I'm indebted to them all.