Language, Symbols, and the Media

Communication in the Aftermath of the World Trade Center Attack

Robert E., Jr. Denton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781412805513
• eBook ISBN: 9781351509763
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 created a new political landscape and a new era of warfare. Language, Symbols, and the Media, now in paperback, offers insights into the impact and influence of 9/11 upon our cultural, social, and political life. The book opens with an introductory chapter on communications, media language, and visual symbolism in the immediate wake of the attacks. The second chapter considers the challenge to religious pluralism, analyzing the grounds for the immediate backlash against Islam. Chapter 3 reviews several crucial historical and contemporary Supreme Court rulings relevant to the limitations of free speech in times of war and national crises. The consideration of First Amendment rights is continued in chapter 4, which places the Patriot Act in historical context by comparing the legislation and its interpretation of it to other legislation passed in response to past American crises. The immediate aftermath of the attacks witnessed many calls for an end to "the age of irony" and a return to "traditional values." Chapter 5 considers some contrarian responses and analyzes the impact of irony as a rhetorical device in American culture. The unifying role of sport in the post-9/11 healing process in America is examined in chapter 6. Chapter 7 examines the reactions and responses of young adults to the events of 9/11 one year later. Chapter 8 demonstrates how politicians received a public "makeover" of their careers. Chapter 9 explores the impact of 9/11 on the rhetoric of advertising, while chapter 10 focuses more closely on how it affected the tourism industry. A concluding chapter examines several instances of media self-censorship and its implications for the policymaking process during times of crisis. This volume will be of interest to cultural studies specialists, sociologists, journalists, political scientists, historians, as well as general readers.

1
The Language, Symbols, and Media of 9/11: An Introduction

Robert E. Denton Jr.

On that bright, clear, and fateful day of September 11, 2001, nineteen Saudis and al-Qaida operatives, wielding knives and box-cutters, hijacked four American aircraft. At 8:45 A.M. American Airlines Flight 11 departed Boston, Massachusetts in route to Los Angeles, California crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center with eighty-one passengers and eleven crewmembers on board. Just eighteen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175, also in route from Boston to Los Angeles, with fifty-six passengers and nine crewmembers hit the South Tower. At nearly 9:30 A.M., another flight headed toward Los Angeles, American Airlines Flight 77, departed Dulles International Airport with fifty-eight passengers and six crew members and crashed into the Northwest side of the Pentagon. Thirty minutes later, United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark, New Jersey, this time in route to San Francisco, California with thirty-eight passengers and seven crewmembers. The flight crashed in a field in Pennsylvania resulting from a struggle between the hijackers and brave passengers. Many speculate the target of this flight was the U.S. Capital or even perhaps the White House.

The attacks upon America on September 11, 2001 are being characterized as this generation’s Pearl Harbor. The comparison is powerful. Especially since the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day, there is a plethora of books and films commemorating the heroics of those who fought with courage, commitment, and sacrifice during World War II. In the words of Tom Brokaw (1998), they stayed true to the values “of personal responsibility, duty, honor, and faith” (XX). Quite simply, as he proclaims in his best selling book, they are the “greatest generation any society has produced” (XXX). The surprise attack upon our forces on the morning of December 7, 1941, characterized by President Roosevelt as “a day that will live in infamy,” changed the course of history and the lives of a generation of Americans. It took three hours before news reached the mainland of the bombs dropping on Pearl Harbor and more than a week before the New York Times carried the first pictures (Nacos, 39). The surprise, horror and magnitude of the attack forced America into a four-year war far away from the shores of the homeland.

For most Americans and many others around the globe, life was suspended on September 11, 2001. The perpetrators gained our attention and that of the world. They took control of our public agenda and even our private lives. Fighter jets flew over major cities; Air Force One flew evasive patterns throughout the day and the Secret Service kept Vice President Cheney in virtual hiding.

On the evening of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush (2001) acknowledged that “Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature” (738). Nine days later before a joint session of Congress, President Bush (2001) proclaimed

on September the eleventh, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars—but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war—but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks—but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day—and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. (760)

We were “at war.” President Bush announced that “our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated” (761).

Not since the assassination of President John Kennedy did so many Americans and others around the world stayed glued to their television sets. For the first five days after the terrorist attack, television and radio networks covered the aftermath around the clock. All four of the major networks (i.e., ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC) suspended regular programming and provided ninety hours of “wall-to-wall” coverage, exceeding the amount devoted to President Kennedy’s assassination in 1962 and the first Iraq war in 1991 (Glass 2002, 4). We followed the horror and minute-by-minute destruction of the World Trade Center buildings, people jumping to their deaths and running for their lives, the flames engulfing the Pentagon, and the Pittsburgh crash site of United Flight 93. The wall-to-wall coverage of events by the networks closely followed President Bush’s war rhetoric. The various networks competed for known celebrity talking heads. Within hours they were calling the attack “America’s New War,” “War on Terror,” and “War Against Terror,” to name just a few.

All the subsequent “war talk” by President Bush and members of his administration set the serious tone of the actions and form of our response. Forget the fact that only Congress has the constitutional power to declare war and that war is traditionally waged between states. The word—taken either literally or metaphorically—provided President Bush several advantages. In times of war, the public places more trust in elected officials. The idea of a nation under attack buys a level of goodwill for presidents that they otherwise would not enjoy. Presidents also become more protected from political infighting and personal attacks. Criticism by members of the opposing political party is usually silenced; we easily and mistakenly jump to the conclusion that it is unpatriotic to challenge the wisdom of political or military operations against a foreign foe. And citizens are asked to make personal sacrifices, which, after September 11, meant the inconvenience of tighter security and new restrictions on some civil liberties.

To be “at war” demands some form of action. At home, President Bush’s early pronouncements acknowledged our shock, anger, and promise of justice. Abroad, his war rhetoric generated cause for concern. French President Jacques Chirac, while visiting the White House just a week after the attacks to show solidarity with America, stated, “I don’t know whether we should use the word ‘war,’ but I would say that now we are faced with a conflict of a completely new nature” (Herbert 2001, E-1).

Bush’s early use of the word “crusade” to describe the fight against terrorism caused alarm among those in the Islamic world. For them, the term evoked images of Christian soldiers battling against Islam during medieval times. The White House even apologized for the word insisting that Bush intended the word to mean only “a broad cause.” The name the military chose for its anti-terrorism campaign was changed from “Infinite Justice” to “Enduring Freedom” because the former offended Muslim allies. To Muslims, only God can provide infinite justice (Herbert 2001, E-1).

The news media was also dealing with language issues. Should the attackers be described as “terrorists” or “freedom fighters?” There was even a debate within newsrooms across the nation whether or not anchors and reporters should wear flag pins or ribbons. Reuters news service instructed reporters to preface any descriptions of attackers with “so-called” (Irvine and Kincaid 2001). The major networks, except Fox News, decided that anchors should not wear flags or ribbons. After all, the news media are supposed to be “neutral,” “objective,” “non-biased” in perspective. The dilemma was real for the press. Did their patriotic duties override their more professional duties? Especially in a time of crisis?

The human and financial costs were real as well. The consequences and impact are with us today and will be so for years to come. The immediate loss was over 3,000 lives, many more thousand families impacted by lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles. From an economic perspective, billions were lost in the stock market, in company revenues, in retail sales, in insurance liability, and in tax intakes by state and federal authorities. Billions more required in clean-up costs, security and defense measures, supporting select industries and to stimulate the economy.

This volume examines the language, symbols and media of 9/11. Each chapter focuses on one or more elements of communication while investigating a wide range of topics from ranging from the use of humor and the role of sports in our healing process to the impact of the Patriot Act upon public discourse; from the use of religious sacred symbols to the meaning of patriotism as part of the political socialization of young adults; from the media’s portrayal and dilemmas of coverage to advertising and public relations strategies post-9/11. Although loosely arranged by the broad topic areas, each chapter addresses one or more aspects of language, symbols, and media of 9/11.

Human communication is the vehicle for political and social thought, debate, and action. Language serves as the agent of social integration; as the means of cultural socialization; as the vehicle for social interaction; as the channel for the transmission of values; and as the glue that bond people, ideas, and society together. Language, therefore, is a very active and creative process that does not reflect an objective reality but creates a reality by organizing meaningful perceptions abstracted from a complex world. Language becomes a mediating force that actively shapes one’s interpretation of the environment.

Terrorism as Communication

Interestingly, more than two decades ago, Alex Schmid and Janny deGraaf (1982) argued simply that terrorists' acts of violence are really acts of communication. In effect, terrorists' acts should be viewed as “violent language” (1). “Without communication there can be no terrorism” (9). For them, the genuine power of terrorism is that it functions as propaganda. The result is behavior modification of the target audience by both coercive and persuasive means. In effect, terrorism uses violence against one to obtain an effect upon others. The immediate victim(s) is/are merely an instrument or tool of communication. For terrorists, message matters, not the victim(s) (14). Thus, in essence, “terrorism can best be understood as a violent communication strategy. There is a sender, the terrorist, a message generator, the victim, and a receiver, the enemy and/or the public” (15). In the words of an ancient Chinese proverb, “Kill one, frighten ten thousand.” In addition to communicating messages of fear to the mass audience, terrorists also may polarize public opinion, make converts, mislead the enemy by spreading false information, win publicity, advertise causes and movement, and discredit victim(s), to name just a few.

The Language and Symbols of 9/11

I have already noted the power of language to influence our perceptions and subsequent behavior. The president, of course, has the special power of definition, defining and labeling an act, providing context for interpretation. Key phrases or symbols evoked by a president have two primary effects. Key audiences begin to use the term or characterization as well as evoke ancillary symbols and images. Key phrases or symbols also create expectations of action, solutions, and visions of the future.

The war metaphor that came to frame the attacks was most powerful. The war metaphor defines the objective and encourages enlistment in the effort, it identifies the enemy, and it dictates the choice of weapons and tactics with which the struggle will be fought (Zarefsky 1986, 29). There are additional assumptions and implications with the act of rhetorically evoking the war metaphor. For us, most wars are unconditional in terms of mounting all means necessary, as much time as required to be victorious, as much funds as necessary to complete the task. The metaphor and label requires a lower standard of burden of proof for action or to establish guilt. Finally, the metaphor suppresses opposition to subsequent actions or response. Ironically, to declare war is to unify the nation in a sense of purpose, commitment and sacrifice.

Is terrorism a form of war? Most scholars say no. War, especially a “just war,” “is conducted between armies who recognize the legitimacy of targeting their uniformed enemies, but endeavor to limit violence against civilians and, more generally, to keep their use for force proportionate to the ends in question” (Carruthers 2000, 163). In contrast, terrorism utilizes “extra-normal” violence, most often in peacetime with no regard to civilians or conventional targets. Reprehensible forms of violence designed as much to gain publicity as to rectifying ideological or political grievances.

Throughout the ordeal, key words and phrases were formulated and took on special meaning. For example, saying 9/11 (and not 911) is sufficient to refer to the attacks. Law enforcement officers and firefighters became heroes. Not since the Cold War have we confronted an “evil empire.” We soon learned of the dangers pending from the “axis of evil” compromised of Iran, Iraq and North Korea. We discovered the range of devices comprising “weapons of mass destruction.” Three years later, the letters “WMD” suffices.

Of course, the very label “terrorist” implies negative judgment. The term has been attached to “enemies” since the French Revolution (Carruthers 2000, 163). The label has become more common since World War II. The semantic battle over the term has ideological and political implications. As the cliché goes, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Historically, the American government has been rather quick to label “leftist guerrillas” as terrorists while labeling “right-wing” U.S. supported mercenaries as “rebels (Carruthers 2000, 165).

It was the Reagan administration that initiated the first “war against terrorism” in the wake of the TWA hijacking and within the shadows of Carter’s “Iran hostage situation.” They framed terrorism as a threat to international security thus replacing Carter’s “human rights” concerns at the heart of American foreign policy. At the time, some American media commentators suggested that “terrorists” replaced “communists” as our number one enemy. Susan Carruthers (2000) argues that by elevating terrorism as a concern, the Reagan Administration was well served by the U.S. media. The mainstream media duplicated our own partial view of labeling specific acts and countries as terrorists; in doing so, provided some cover for our own actions in such countries as Nicaragua and Angola, to name just a few; and through its reporting, actually built consensus for counter-terrorism measures (193). As a result, the Reagan administration enjoyed widespread support for the 1986 bombing of Tripoli and other actions directed at Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi.

The attacks of 9/11 targeted some of the primary symbols of America’s strength, power, and world status. The World Trade Center stood as the symbol of our financial wealth and enterprise. The Pentagon is the center of America’s military power and the suspected target of the White House stands as the symbol of the world’s political power. The attacks brought down the symbol of our financial wealth, seriously damaged the home of our military fortress, and caused the evacuation of the center of our political power.

The American flag became the primary symbol of unity, commitment, determination, and our values of democracy and freedom. Immediately following 9/11, consumer demand for flag-themed merchandise sky-rocketed. Now three years later, demand is still very strong. Traditionally, flag displays and themed items are in use primarily between Memorial Day through Labor Day. However, upon the events of 9/11, demand became year round. Almost any item now sports the flag in one way or another: pens, pencils, calculators, Christmas tree ornaments, towels, birdhouses, dinner-ware, home furnishings, you just name it. Virtually any kind of clothing for every season sports the flag. Jeffrey Bergus, corporate product development director for Arizona Jean Company, observes, “Patriotism has turned into a lifestyle since 9/11. A trend is a trend, but a lifestyle stays around for a long time” (Roanoke Times 2003, A11).

We make sense of events by the use of narratives. Narrative metaphors and images help us understand the social and political worlds in which we live. They also can sanction some kinds of actions and not others. Narratives are explanations for events in the form of short, commonsense accounts or stories. They contain images and judgments about the motives and actions of our own groups and those of others. Groups with very different beliefs and values construct very different narratives of an event. They are grounded in selectively remembered and interpreted experiences. Within a community, a narrative may emerge and gain easy consensus. Finally, narratives provide a sense of community and connectedness.

As already mentioned, to portray the attacks as analogous to the “sneak attack” at Pearl Harbor justified a military response, punishment for those responsible and actions to prevent future attacks. Compare this view to one that America now knows what it is like to live in physical terror, as with the Palestinians, Iraqis, and others in the Middle East who have done so for years. From this perspective, America has ignored the Arab world, abandoned the region after Gulf War I and provided virtually unconditional support for Israel. The contrasting views between Americans and Muslims in general is best expressed by the statements issued on the day the Afghanistan war started, October 7, 2001. President George Bush referred to the “sudden terror” that had descended on the United States just twenty-seven days earlier. Osama bin Laden asserted that the Muslim world had experienced more than eighty years of “humiliation and disgrace” at the hands of Americans. In the two and a half weeks following the attacks, the major television networks and NPR broadcast thirty-three stories that addressed the question, “why do they hate us?” (Nacos 2002, 45). The first narrative encourages a strong, military response and images of justic...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Language, Symbols, and the Media
• copy
• Contents
• Preface
• 1. The Language, Symbols, and Media of 9/11: An Introduction
• 2. September 11, 2001 and the Rituals of Religious Pluralism
• 3. Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open Debate: Reclaiming the Essence of Democracy in the Wake of 9/11
• 4. The USA Patriot Act in Historical Context
• 5. The Death and Re-Birth of Irony: The Onion’s Call for Rhetorical Healing in the Wake of 9/11
• 6. Sport and the Healing of America after 9/11
• 7. Patriotism and Political Socialization: Young AdulIs’ Perspectives on the First Anniversary of 9/11
• 8. Rudy and Gary get Makeovers: Public Attention and Political Reputation Post 9/11
• 9. Advertising Responses to September 11: The Crisis Response Ad as a Rhetorical Genre
• 10. The Tourism Industry’s Reaction in Action: Re-Strategizing Promotional Campaigns in the Wake of 9/11
• 11. Politically (In)corrected: Electronic Media Self-Censorship Since the 9/11 Attacks
• About the Contributors
• Index