In the town of Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, 14-year-old Nataliya Chemayeva remembers being in shock as she listened to the Russian satellite radio.Attention, attention the United States of America has just been attacked.
Chemeyeva was sitting in her ninth grade class and stunned as footage of the World Trade Center towers collapsing shot across two of the three channels available in Turkmenistan.  “I still couldn’t believe that that was not a Hollywood screenplay but reality” said Chemeyeva. Following the footage of the attacks Chemeyeva’s school had a moment of grief for the innocent people who had lost their lives that day.
However, the portrayed innocence of the attacks didn’t last long in Turkmenistan.  Chemeyeva remembers that the case for September 11th started moving into political action very quickly.  She saw the politically charged movies “9/11” and “Zeitgeist” and said, “it was told that the war in Iraq actually was the final destination for this terrorism and that everything was planned by the United States government and Bush himself.  This was of course even more shocking than the attacks themselves but the logic analysis that followed the movies was solid and many thought it to be true.”
Chemeyeva was not the only one who became enthralled with the vibrant conspiracy theories making their way around the globe.  “Within a week or two [of the attacks], many of the world’s news media — even some in Western countries — were putting some of the blame for the attacks on the United States, citing its history of heavy-handed politics around the world. Many hoped the attacks would ‘wake up’ the United States to this fact” (How the World’s Media Reacted to 9/11).
One of the most famous examples of global news coverage changing 180 degrees from supportive to extremely critical was seen in the French paper Le Monde. It started off with an article on September 12, 2001 with a headline of  “Nous sommes tous Americins” (We are all Americans) citing John Kennedy’s famous speech in 1963 in Berlin that “We are all Americans, we are all New Yorkers”.  Then slowly Le Monde changed from cautious optimism to outright disapproval.  Only a day later on September 13, 2001 Le Monde published another article titled, “La fin d’un reve” (the end of a dream) that offered a sympathetic tone but at the same time outlined implicit and explicit criticism of U.S. policy.  Le Monde calls September 11th “a festival of barbarism” but at the same time begins the September 12th article with the sentence, “It was the end of a utopian dream.”
It may seem Le Monde was confused about how they felt about the terrorism attacks but in reality after showing sympathy towards their allies in the West they adopted the view that Americans were “woken up” out of their utopian, non-reality by the attacks and now had to step up to the task of moving away from the isolationist country that they were (Joshua C. Feblowitz).
The author, Jean-Marie Colombani, places most of the blame for this “lone actor” role by the United States in the hands of President George W. Bush.  Colombani argues that “isolationism is never an option for America.”
An article by David Held in the International Politics Journal says that “9/11 has become a moment associated with a return to empire, geopolitics, political violence and the primacy of sovereignty.”  Held discusses how Bush ignores the “cosmopolitan steps” to addressing terrorism and goes off on his own agenda by disregarding other countries support and critical analysis as mentioned in Le Monde.
Even though skepticism in the international community grew heavy in the days following September 11th, the news in the U.S. did not cease its rapid-fire updates.  Over 30 major news publications such as, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, the LA Times, Christian Science Monitor, Reuters News, Time and Salon dedicated all their news spaces on the front page to 9/11.  America was in shock and the news reported on it 24/7.  “The number of minutes devoted to coverage of foreign policy was up 102%, according to the Tyndall data, coverage of armed conflict rose 69% and coverage of terrorism rose 135%” (PEJ Analysis).  What is less obvious is the effect of the shift in coverage on the overall tone of the newscast. For instance, the balance between reporting-driven “hard news” and softer features, interviews, and commentaries remained virtually unchanged after 9/11. The newscast minutes devoted to hard news increased by a mere 2 % in the years after the attacks while the airtime given to softer coverage decreased by only 5 % (PEJ Analysis).
The rise of coverage of armed conflict had much to do with the proximity of the attacks to the U.S.—the fact that they happened on U.S. soil.  Christiane Amanpour said in a 2007 interview that, “The journalists were people living in their own country that had been attacked and there was not enough questioning [about Iraq].  In fact, according to the bookTerrorism and the Press and Uneasy Relationship, “journalists need to be no less critical, cynical, and challenging during standard political coverage than when the nation is threatened.  But, journalists succumb to the same human tendencies as others.  Journalists get defensive.  They act nationalistically.  They are afraid.  All this, particularly during crisis, can show in the coverage.”  However, Tyndall Report publisher Andrew Tyndall says his work, that monitored the ABC, CBS and NBC weeknight newscasts, suggests that it is events, rather than the journalists who cover them, that determine news content. “The big lesson is that we overstate the influence journalists have on the news agenda,” he says (PEJ Analysis).
Whether it be wavering support from the international community, conspiracy theories or constant coverage from the U.S., 9/11 had drastic effects on the U.S.’s reputation and it shaped media for the next decade and beyond.  The media has become a vehicle for expanding the effects of terrorism.  These effects can be seen in a farmhouse classroom in Turkmenistan to ship-shod movie productions to the expansion of “hard news” in prominent, daily papers.
September 11th not only was the catalyst for the war on terror but for the new media movement.  Just as the war will not be over anytime soon, the way media is conducted will not go back to the post 9/11 days.

In the town of Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, 14-year-old Nataliya Chemayeva remembers being in shock as she listened to the Russian satellite radio.Attention, attention the United States of America has just been attacked.Chemeyeva was sitting in her ninth grade class and stunned as footage of the World Trade Center towers collapsing shot across two of the three channels available in Turkmenistan.  “I still couldn’t believe that that was not a Hollywood screenplay but reality” said Chemeyeva.  Following the footage of the attacks Chemeyeva’s school had a moment of grief for the innocent people who had lost their lives that day.However, the portrayed innocence of the attacks didn’t last long in Turkmenistan.  Chemeyeva remembers that the case for September 11th started moving into political action very quickly.  She saw the politically charged movies “9/11” and “Zeitgeist” and said, “it was told that the war in Iraq actually was the final destination for this terrorism and that everything was planned by the United States government and Bush himself.  This was of course even more shocking than the attacks themselves but the logic analysis that followed the movies was solid and many thought it to be true.”Chemeyeva was not the only one who became enthralled with the vibrant conspiracy theories making their way around the globe.  “Within a week or two [of the attacks], many of the world’s news media — even some in Western countries — were putting some of the blame for the attacks on the United States, citing its history of heavy-handed politics around the world. Many hoped the attacks would ‘wake up’ the United States to this fact” (How the World’s Media Reacted to 9/11).One of the most famous examples of global news coverage changing 180 degrees from supportive to extremely critical was seen in the French paper Le Monde. It started off with an article on September 12, 2001 with a headline of  “Nous sommes tous Americins” (We are all Americans) citing John Kennedy’s famous speech in 1963 in Berlin that “We are all Americans, we are all New Yorkers”.  Then slowly Le Monde changed from cautious optimism to outright disapproval.  Only a day later on September 13, 2001 Le Monde published another article titled, “La fin d’un reve” (the end of a dream) that offered a sympathetic tone but at the same time outlined implicit and explicit criticism of U.S. policy.  Le Monde calls September 11th “a festival of barbarism” but at the same time begins the September 12th article with the sentence, “It was the end of a utopian dream.”It may seem Le Monde was confused about how they felt about the terrorism attacks but in reality after showing sympathy towards their allies in the West they adopted the view that Americans were “woken up” out of their utopian, non-reality by the attacks and now had to step up to the task of moving away from the isolationist country that they were (Joshua C. Feblowitz).The author, Jean-Marie Colombani, places most of the blame for this “lone actor” role by the United States in the hands of President George W. Bush.  Colombani argues that “isolationism is never an option for America.”An article by David Held in the International Politics Journal says that “9/11 has become a moment associated with a return to empire, geopolitics, political violence and the primacy of sovereignty.”  Held discusses how Bush ignores the “cosmopolitan steps” to addressing terrorism and goes off on his own agenda by disregarding other countries support and critical analysis as mentioned in Le Monde.Even though skepticism in the international community grew heavy in the days following September 11th, the news in the U.S. did not cease its rapid-fire updates.  Over 30 major news publications such as, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, the LA Times, Christian Science Monitor, Reuters News, Time and Salon dedicated all their news spaces on the front page to 9/11.  America was in shock and the news reported on it 24/7.  “The number of minutes devoted to coverage of foreign policy was up 102%, according to the Tyndall data, coverage of armed conflict rose 69% and coverage of terrorism rose 135%” (PEJ Analysis).  What is less obvious is the effect of the shift in coverage on the overall tone of the newscast. For instance, the balance between reporting-driven “hard news” and softer features, interviews, and commentaries remained virtually unchanged after 9/11. The newscast minutes devoted to hard news increased by a mere 2 % in the years after the attacks while the airtime given to softer coverage decreased by only 5 % (PEJ Analysis).The rise of coverage of armed conflict had much to do with the proximity of the attacks to the U.S.—the fact that they happened on U.S. soil.  Christiane Amanpour said in a 2007 interview that, “The journalists were people living in their own country that had been attacked and there was not enough questioning [about Iraq].  In fact, according to the bookTerrorism and the Press and Uneasy Relationship, “journalists need to be no less critical, cynical, and challenging during standard political coverage than when the nation is threatened.  But, journalists succumb to the same human tendencies as others.  Journalists get defensive.  They act nationalistically.  They are afraid.  All this, particularly during crisis, can show in the coverage.”  However, Tyndall Report publisher Andrew Tyndall says his work, that monitored the ABC, CBS and NBC weeknight newscasts, suggests that it is events, rather than the journalists who cover them, that determine news content. “The big lesson is that we overstate the influence journalists have on the news agenda,” he says (PEJ Analysis).Whether it be wavering support from the international community, conspiracy theories or constant coverage from the U.S., 9/11 had drastic effects on the U.S.’s reputation and it shaped media for the next decade and beyond.  The media has become a vehicle for expanding the effects of terrorism.  These effects can be seen in a farmhouse classroom in Turkmenistan to ship-shod movie productions to the expansion of “hard news” in prominent, daily papers.September 11th not only was the catalyst for the war on terror but for the new media movement.  Just as the war will not be over anytime soon, the way media is conducted will not go back to the post 9/11 days.