“Why did she identify herself as a reporter? Because she wanted a story.”
Or maybe she was just trying to be honest. I would have done the same, and not because I was looking to turn the issue into a story of its own.
3 Likes
If she was there as a “civilian”, there’s no reason on earth to identify herself as a reporter in the context of what she was doing there. You can’t blame a person for thinking she was probing for a story/review if she gave her professional credentials without needing to.
Also, this is probably not in line with the claims that she just happened to be asking a question.
I approached the young woman and said, “Hi, I’m a reporter. I was wondering, what happened just now?”
Point taken.
2 Likes
No, actually, I am fully entitled to resent being told I am required to decide which of someone elses boxes I fit in while on public property. It’s called a right. Journalists and other citizens, exactly the same rights.
Ones own personal need for a tidy binary universe is not anyone else’s need to fit into it.
2 Likes
You can resent all you want and claim that it’s your “right” to be on private property and do whatever you wish while there, but you also can’t keep others from rolling their eyes at you.
From the article-
The long list of rules and regulations for the 9/11 Memorial and Museum states,
Any apparent loitering or harassment of Memorial, Preview Site, or Memorial Museum visitors who do not wish to be interviewed, photographed or filmed will result in dismissal from 9/11 Memorial & Museum Property, at the sole discretion of 9/11 Memorial & Museum Staff…Credentialed members of the news media must receive prior written authorization from, and make advance arrangements with, the 9/11 Memorial & Museum’s Communications & Digital Media Department prior to their arrival. Authorized members of the news media will receive access to the Memorial Museum and the Preview Site for a specified period of time for reporting, which may include photography, videography, or audio recording.
I should have read the rules first, because my intention was not to ruin someone’s moment in a hallowed space.
So was the woman talking loudly on her phone booted, or do we not know that?
2 Likes
Those are still a thing??
8 Likes
They had to rework the phone booth locations as a result of opening day.
5 Likes
The story ends with
As far as I know, the woman who was on her cellphone was allowed to remain in the museum.
2 Likes
Thank you, so no one really knows.
It’s one thing to watch as it happened and in the immediate aftermath. We were all shocked and we were all in it together (some, tragically, much more than others, of course). But it’s another thing to take charred wreckage in which people died only years ago and put it behind glass so people can wander around and gawk at it at their leisure while they text and giggle. I’m sure most people are properly somber and quiet, but I still find it too soon. And I wasn’t even unfortunate enough to lose someone I know on 9/11. I think for a museum you wait a generation at least. Again, just my 2 cents.
1 Like
So, in other words: “Sure, you have the right to free speech. Just not here.” Is that what you mean?
Also, a privately-owned funeral parlor is fundamentally different than a publicly-funded museum when it comes to why it is or isn’t ok to have someone removed.
3 Likes
You’re thinking of Philly. Now, if you want a roast beef sammich, you’re in the right place.
1 Like
Then don’t go. I have no plans to go and I’m ten minutes from it. But there are other people who do want it, who did lose family members. Are we supposed to tell them they have to wait? Are we supposed to dig up the Memorial in another ten years to build the museum because that’s the right time? People gawk, giggle and text at the Holocaust Museum because the context is so long ago, is that better?
There is no good time for everyone on this project, this is as good a time as any.
2 Likes
So, in other words: “Sure, you have the right to free speech. Just not here.” Is that what you mean?
That’s exactly what we mean.
Also, a privately-owned funeral parlor is fundamentally different than a publicly-funded museum when it comes to why it is or isn’t ok to have someone removed.
Do you have evidence of this not being classified as a private space? Museums receive grants and public funds but are as far as I’m aware still considered private and able to eject people for “exercising their speech”.
Potchtli Chtlipot
1 Like
As far as I know (and I don’t claim to be any kind of expert), they are free to set any rules of conduct as they see fit. And there are far too many people who would argue with you that this is more than a funeral parlor, it is a gravesite and should be afforded the decorum that goes with a solemn place. Hence my beef with the gift shop.
1 Like
While I understand technically they’re allowed to remove anyone, for any reason, I don’t understand why they had to be dicks about it…they asked her if she was a reporter, she said yes, they said “you can’t ask questions here,” she said OK and stopped. Why did it go beyond this?
4 Likes
If she stopped immediately their reaction was excessive.
2 Likes
