I was just passing through the den when I heard it. The T.V. was on and through the speakers blared the clear and distinct voice of a commercial voice-over. I caught a tiny tidbit: “…ten years later, new, never before seen footage from Ground Zero during the attack.” I froze. My mind was racing as I recalled images from that haunting day. “It’s still too soon,” I thought. A decade has passed, but I don’t think time has fully healed.  I still can’t bring myself to look at the pictures. I certainly can’t fathom watching live footage.  That’s why I was so struck by the New York Times article “Magazine Covers on a Topic Known All Too Well,” addressing how editors approached the cover designs for their respective 9/11 magazine issues. The article mentions that most art directors thought it in poor taste to feature an image of the actual attack, opting instead to convey more subtle messages of reflection and continuity. I was taken by the sensitivity and thought put into the covers, and was particularly pleased with the way Jeremy Peters, the author of the article, presented the matter overall. There was, however, one thing that didn’t quite sit well with me, namely the mercenary undertones in some of the editors’ comments. I understand that much of the “real world” is business, but why must even this be turned into a detached commercial endeavor? I found it ironic that in an article about editors attempting to be as tasteful and tactful as possible, some, with their unfortunate statements, succeeding in being quite the opposite. Click here for the article, and let me know whether or not you agree.