The writers, Johanna McGeary and David Van Biema, tried to cast a shadow of doubt over Americans, and they did a fine job at that. They leave an aura of pessimistic feelings that another attack is on the way and that Americans aren't safe anymore. Had I read this article after the events of September 11, instead of now, I would be sure of more attacks coming. .
"The Day the World Changed" is the cover story for The Economist. I think this is an incredible article. I think that the author stated things perfectly when he repeatedly pressed that "this isn't an attack on America, but all civilised people." I love the tone of this piece, as it is very forewarning stating that the perpetrators stand no chance at getting away with this. I loved how this article didn't just focus on the implications on the United States, but the entire world. The article also indicates that it would be wisest for America shouldn't go for retaliation alone, but with help. .
After reading both articles, there are some obvious differences in the writing. One of them is more mournful and full of doubt while the other is looking ahead toward retaliation. Surprisingly, it is the British publication that is more focused and determined on payback while the American publication is somber. I would think that Time would be more positive in hopes to help heal a grieving nation. I would much rather have read The Economist over Time because Time leaves America looking more and more vulnerable while The Economist has America looking like its in control of the situation. Quite frankly, The Economist makes America look better and I think that's what all Americans needed at that time in our lives. .
Other articles in Time covered the individual hijackers of the planes and how they pulled off the act of terrorism. Another article discusses George Bush's transformation from a "detached Chief Executive" into an "inspiring leader".