Dear Editor:
In what has to be one of the most disingenuous articles of its existence, on October 1, 2001, the New York Post complains about sleazy hawkers of photos of the World Trade Center tragedy.
The Post then goes on to criticize these merchants because they profit from this enterprise.
But it is OK for the following to endlessly profit from such exploitation: 1) The New York Post (and other newspapers); 2) magazines (from which the hawkers obtained photos of the burning towers); 3) TV which endlessly featured the burning towers and an airliner crashing into one of them; 4) radio; 5) questionable charity bids for funds which may end up in the pockets of the solicitors.
While arguably providing the public with needed information about tragic and critical events, the media garner huge profits from their advertisers as circulation and viewership rise dramatically. Even though the events of September 11, 2001, were tragic, the newspapers did not offer up their additional readership revenues to those who: 1) suddenly lost a beloved one in their household and could not pay the mortgage; 2) lost their living quarters and are now among the homeless; 3) lost their jobs and will now have to compete for one against burgeoning other job seekers (in a recessionary period, no less); 4) must bury a loved one but have lost the income which would have paid for the burial.
Freedom of the press is a most cherished constitutional privilege. So are the protected privileges of commerce which are outlined in the constitution. These sleazy “hawkers” were engaged in commerce just as was the New York Post.
Frank X. Landrigan