Surface reading

The headline reports that four former US presidents – Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton – are present in New York City to commemorate the 25th anniversary of 9/11, specifically to remember the victims of the attacks. It's a straightforward account of a high-profile commemorative event.

Framing and omissions

The headline focuses on a moment of bipartisan unity and solemn remembrance among former US leaders. The act of "remembering the victims" serves to reinforce a narrative of collective tragedy and national resilience.

• Loaded language: "Mark" and "remembering the victims" evoke sympathy and solidarity, emphasizing the human cost of the attacks. The sheer number of former presidents present (four) implicitly underlines the enduring significance and shared national experience of 9/11, projecting an image of stable, unified leadership through successive administrations on this specific issue.
• Omissions:
  • The headline omits any mention of the global geopolitical ramifications of 9/11, specifically the "War on Terror" and its subsequent conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. These conflicts, directly stemming from the 9/11 attacks, have had immense and ongoing impacts, particularly in Al Jazeera's primary region of coverage.
  • It omits any critical perspectives or political debates within the US or internationally regarding the response to 9/11, presenting a sanitized, unified front of remembrance.
  • There is no mention of the perpetrators of 9/11 or the broader historical and political context leading up to the attacks, framing the event purely as a moment of victimhood and shared national grief.
• What the piece wants believed: The framing aims to portray the US as united in its memory of 9/11, emphasizing a moment of national mourning and shared history. For an international audience, particularly one often critical of US foreign policy, this framing might serve to present a less confrontational image of American introspection, focusing on the event itself rather than its controversial aftermath. It invites the audience to consider 9/11 as a foundational tragic event for the US, from the American perspective.

Audience and incentive

• Audience: Al Jazeera's global audience, with significant viewership in the Middle East and North Africa. Domestically, US audiences would see this as a standard commemoration of a national tragedy.
• Incentive:
  • For the US political establishment (as reflected by the reporting): To project an image of national unity, continuity, and solemn remembrance regarding 9/11. This helps to solidify the underlying narrative of shared national trauma and the legitimacy of the post-9/11 security apparatus and foreign policy framework, even as its direct consequences are omitted. It demonstrates a bipartisan consensus on the gravity of the event.
  • For Al Jazeera: Reporting on this event is standard news for its international significance. By framing it neutrally with respect to the US internal narrative of remembrance, Al Jazeera can deliver the news without immediately injecting its often-critical regional perspective on US post-9/11 actions. It allows the information of US leadership unity around this event to stand, leaving deeper interpretation or critical reflection to the audience or subsequent reporting. This maintains journalistic credibility as a global news outlet reporting on a major international anniversary without endorsing or directly challenging the framing of the host nation in the headline itself.

What would falsify this framing

• A rival outlet’s headline that highlighted significant protests at the commemoration site against US foreign policy stemming from 9/11, or direct critiques from world leaders regarding the legacy of the "War on Terror."
• Statements from one or more of the former presidents acknowledging or apologizing for the negative consequences or costs of the post-9/11 conflicts (e.g., civilian casualties, destabilization, rise of new extremist groups).
• A report detailing a significant absence of key political figures or a public dispute among them regarding the event's meaning or ongoing policy.
• A headline that explicitly focused on the economic costs or specific failures of US counter-terrorism policies since 9/11, contrasting with the commemorative tone.