On the occasion of ...
"The media like grief stories. Reporters interview the widows and ask that invasive, stupid question: 'How do you feel now?' Our most human, empathetic response to the terrible suffering of others is that of the three friends of Job. For a whole week they sat silently at his side. Silence in the face of huge grief is the best way to respect it."
--The Rev. Donald W. Shiver, Jr., President Emeritus, Union Theological Seminary in New York, on press coverage of the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (Via Ted Pease, professor of journalism, Utah State University)
Job's friends had it right back in the day, and Shiver had it right in 2002: In general, the best response to enormous grief on the part of those close to the bereaved is physical closeness, coupled with a respectful silence.
The problem, for us in the media, is that we don't do silence well. Silence runs against our every professional instinct. We feel we have to fill the pages and screens. Yes, we have to be with our friends and neighbors, but we also have to talk about the circumstances that have led to the mourning and what will, or should, happen as a result.
Even under those circumstances, though, silence has its place. Many of the most striking newspaper front pages published after the 9/11 attacks consisted mainly of a single large photograph, accompanied by a 1-word headline and just a few text blocks referring readers to articles inside the paper. For all the hoopla surrounding former president Ronald Reagan's obsequies, the most memorable moment of the week might have been C-SPAN's shot of Nancy Reagan leaning over to kiss her husband's coffin, accompanied only by the sound of wind over the microphones.
Unlike in 2001 and 2002, I'm not involved in our 9/11 coverage this year. The journalist in me grumbles a bit about that, but the part of me that thinks Job's friends knew what they were doing is telling the journalist to be grateful for the opportunity to sit still and listen.