Here's a question: Has there been one day since September 11, 2001 that the New York Times hasn't mentioned the terrorist attacks? I have no way of verifying this, but I would assume that there hasn't been. Of course, sometimes this is by no fault of their own because, as we are well aware, the Bush Administration's view of history starts and stops with that very day, and they rarely if ever pass up a chance to mention the events of that historic day. Couple this along with the continuing battle over what is going to transpire on Ground Zero, the site where the towers once stood, and you can imagine that it's highly unlikely that you'll find even one instance where there isn't at least one mention of that date.

In what will come across as both an unpopular and unsympathetic stance, I feel that I have reached a saturation point with regards to the events of September 11. I won't go so far as to say that I don't care about the repercussions that are supposedly being felt to this very day, but I greet most of the news with casual indifference and, at times, outright hostility with regards to specific mentionings of its supposed complexity and the continued inability of creative peoples to do it justice. Mostly, I think, the Times is to blame for this continued exploitation, at least for what I'm exposed to on a daily basis. The writers and editors of the paper seem to feel, rightfully so, that there is a sort of collective trauma that still lingers, to some extent, in the city of New York, and the country as a whole, that reverberates continuously, but, like other events, I wonder how much of this is an actual reportage of events and what is simply perceived as being an issue for the Times. It also speaks volumes when you look on a grander scale at how miniscule an event it is when placed alongside tragedies of comparable size in other countries and how those countries have progressed or, if not progressed, at least reached a sort of understanding of the events themselves, which doesn't include invoking it on a daily basis.

The issue of media manipulation is an issue that's been flogged for years now, and I don't intend to inflict an accusation of liberal bias on the Times, but when it appears that September 11 has been stamped, coded, and copyrighted by individuals who utilize it whenever it is necessary to provide a convenient reminder of how much the country has been through, it seems to me that it loses its cache somewhat.

The issue that irks me the most with regards to this continued eulogizing is that the writers for the Times have nearly gone so far as to say that there's no artist currently producing work that can accurately portray the events of September 11 in a manner that do them justice. Writers, artists, filmmakers are all incapable, at least according to the Times, of giving the emotional weight that the day deserves in any form whether it's a novel, painting, or film. I find this not only an insult to the artists themselves but another instance of flagrant exploitation of a day that, true was a horrific day and the first true attack from a foreign invader on our soil, but not so incomprehensible as to push it beyond the ability to be expressed by talented people. To read it from the Times, one is lead to believe that artists have been pondering for years on end on how to appropriately utilize, pay tribute, or properly contextualize the mood that pervaded the country in those hours and days. One is lead to believe that writer's block isn't an adequate enough response and the root cause for the lack of creative output. It never occurs to them that, perhaps just perhaps, no one really wants to utilize this content. Perhaps no one wants to paint themselves into a corner that can't possibly be greeted with anything but wide skepticism and harsh critique. Perhaps there are more interesting subjects out there to plumb the depths of. After the few works that have addressed the issue have been greeted lukewarmly at best, doesn't it occur to them that there really isn't any incentive to invoke the numbers 9/11 if there is absolutely nothing that can be done that will satisfy those that are clamoring for a muted yet overly respectful interpretation? If that isn't the epitome of presenting unjust expectations, I don't know what is.

Recent books have gone lengths to provide specific critiques of how the Times has failed over the years to accurately cover such events as the Holocaust, the development of the atom bomb, lack of healthy skepticism over the Iraq War, and other foreign affairs. To me, this overload of continuous invocation of September 11 and the unceasing declarations of impenetrableness is nothing more than an act of compensation for their lack of coverage of other events. September 11 was not the Holocaust, not on any scale period, and their lack of coverage for whatever reasons, be it political or racial, cannot be made up for by a continuously obsessive invocation of September 11.