Coming out of a late afternoon meeting yesterday, I first learned about the Boston Marathon bombings when MediaPost colleague Mark Kecko called and asked me if I thought we should suspend our Twitter feed because of what was going on in Boston. It took me a while to process what was going on, and why it might not be appropriate to stream prosaic industry news amid breaking news about a terrorist act. It took me back to Sept. 11, 2001, when I was working for another industry news daily, and decided not to publish an edition on Sept. 12, 2001. It wasn’t because we didn’t have news -- even highly relevant news about the impact on agencies and media businesses headquartered in Lower Manhattan. It was because it just wasn’t appropriate. It was the only day we did not publish.

 

News -- even media industry news -- is all about context, and timing is a big part of that. So I wrestled with what we could possibly say that was relevant and appropriate today. I did spend some time scanning the wires, reviewing some pitches we received about immediate news relevant to the event, mainly how local and national media were covering it, and how Web and mobile sites performed -- both technically and content-wise -- during the aftermath. In the end, I believe, as I did on Sept. 12, 2001, that you don’t really need to hear about that from us.

 

But there are a couple of things I’d like to share with you. First and foremost, I’d like to extend our thoughts to everyone immediately impacted in Boston, which is an important community for our industry and our world, and few things symbolize the enduring spirit of that community more than the Boston Marathon itself.

 

But the thing I’d really like to focus on is just that -- symbolism -- and the role media plays in terrorism. I wrote about this after Sept. 11th, and I wrote about it again recently following the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Terrorists, whether they are jihadists or lone crazy people, use media to invoke terror, and they attack targets that are powerful symbols -- the World Trade Center, a bucolic Connecticut elementary school, or the finish line of the Boston Marathon -- to reap maximum impact in our psyches, as well as our media. It may be impossible to control our psychological and emotional reactions, and it may be difficult or nearly impossible to control our media reactions. But I think we at least have to think about it, because fundamentally, I don’t think some terrorist acts would even exist if it weren’t for the role of media.

 

I’m not entirely sure what we should, or could, do about that. After the Newtown tragedies, I suggested that the media should not cite the name of the shooter, because at least part of his motivation was to be recognized for his act, and because if the media stopped recognizing people for such acts, maybe some people would be less inclined to act out that way. I don’t know; it’s just a theory.

 

The Boston Marathon, or Sept. 11th attacks, are another issue altogether, because their magnitude is so large, they are impossible to ignore in our media coverage. But we must also understand that how we cover it gives power to the acts themselves. 

 

As I post this commentary, a national TV news correspondent has just broadcast the words, “How will our nation change,” because of the Boston Marathon bombings? And while we don’t yet know the identity or motives of the perpetrator, the paradox is that at least part of it was to get the news media to say exactly that.