The New York Times Laments the Exposing of the International Freedom Center

September 25th, 2005 12:41 PM

Ever since the dust and debris had been cleared away from where once stood the World Trade Center, a cultural fight has ensued these many months over what kind of memorial should be erected in honor of the victims of 9/11, and the memory of that fateful day. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that the people of New York--and the rest of the country--are not enamored over the prospect of a 9/11 memorial that depicts--as one of the original designers of the International Freedom Center, Tom A. Bernstein, proposed: "Illuminate humankind’s sometimes uneven but ultimately enduring aspiration for free and open societies."

In today's Sunday edition of the New York Times, reporter David Dunlap, who has written extensively regarding the 9/11 memorial, titles his latest article: "Freedom Center in Doubt"

What puzzles me and most people, I will say, is the constant metamorphosis of design that has taken place with regards to a 9/11 memorial.  Though Mr. Dunlap tries to be even-handed in his reporting here, he falls a bit short.

Specifically, while making reference to some who disagree with the proposed International Freedom Center, Mr. Dunlap does not provide a key link that specifically details some of the proposed cultural displays planned by the IFC's well-meaning liberals and elite, though he provides links to the IFC's latest report depicting its plans for the memorial.

That "missing" link would be an editorial written by Debra Burlingame on June 8, 2005 for the Wall Street Journal.  The piece, titled "The Great Ground Zero Heist," is a factual essay of what will actually be on display if the IFC is allowed to proceed. 

More basically though, it is Mr. Dunlap's very title of his article that is the most misleading of all.  By any name, there will be some sort of Memorial/Center that will rest upon the footprints where once stood the Twin Towers; of this there is no doubt.

What troubles Mr. Dunlap and his bosses most at the New York Times--who employ words like "censor" and "misguided" to those who object to the IFC's attempt at creating a memorial that showcases "tolerance, diversity and understanding among nations," is that it will not be the proposed international and multi-cultural extravaganza that seeks to remind the world just how awful America has been and still is--in their view--as opposed to a memorial that directly deals with and depicts the actual events of 9/11, and America's response to it.