I received several e-mails similar to this one in reply to Rarely So Empty Before. My response appears below.

From: Greg Huntzinger
Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:57:46 PM America/New_York
To: Evan Coyne Maloney
Subject: Re: >bt: Rarely So Empty Before

Yo Evan!

In your article, I think you may have failed to
address a possible reason for the empty streets.
People were by their TV sets to “watch the war!” Talk
about the ultimate in reality shows! They didn’t want
to miss this “Shock & Awe” they’ve heard all the news
reporters promoting. Personally, while I’m sure our
military is very capable of delivering as advertised,
I’d just as soon our forces refrain from widespread
destruction as much as possible — it would mean less
rebuilding expense when the conflict is over.

Thanks for your article.

- Greg Huntzinger

Greg,

You have a very good point.

Undoubtedly, there were many who stayed in to watch the war. But in the past, any such “TV event”—it is sad to think of war in those terms, but let’s be honest, that’s how a lot of people view it—would have resulted in packed bars and people standing on the street watching the TVs that hang in the windows of electronics stores. (That’s how I learned of the O.J. Simpson verdict.)

So, while I agree that your theory probably accounts for some of what I observed the other night, I don’t think it accounts entirely for the stunning emptiness of the streets.

Perhaps my theory—and it is only that: a theory—gave undue weight to the effects of fear. On the other hand, it is possible that the general public wasn’t as riveted by the war coverage as news junkies like you or me might assume. According to The Washington Post, a re-run of Friends on NBC drew a larger audience than the war coverage on ABC.

Thanks for the note,
Evan