"Would 9/11 have been more traumatic with social media?"

NY times re-tweeted Joshua Brustein this afternoon asking "Would 9/11 have been more traumatic with social media?" in reflection of an article he wrote about in his blog on New Your Times (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/on-911-the-seeds-of-the-infinite-grapevine/?src=tp) looking at what's changed in the past ten years since the tragic day of 9/11. Brustein was a personal witness of the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 in New York, capturing it in photos. He notes that that September was one of the last times he had to actually wait on film to be developed, which is how he participated and contributed to sharing of that event to friends and family. Today, he would've been able to participate in a way we call "citizen journalist" (coined in 2003). In recent years since then, traumatic and major world events have been able to be captured in real time and shared across technology and social mediums to connect people around the world to the news, to understanding what is happening, and to witnessing via Tweets, blogs, youtube videos, FB statuses, etc. reactions and people's first hand experiences. Brusetin quotes Andy Carvin , a strategist for social media at NPR, about social media reactions to these events today: "If you see 30 or 40 people describing what was happening it almost becomes a form of situational awareness, like you’re floating above it in a helicopter." Considering this, the reaction and response to 9/11 would have been different if it were to occur today.
In 2001, people reacted through phone calls, submitting photos and videos online and via mail, email discussion groups, and online communities in real time. This was realized more so when curators at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History began putting people's images and videos of the attacks together, and realized there was a change happening in the way major events were photographed. As an associate curator there, Shannon Perich explains, "We quickly understood that this was a transitional moment. We understood what digital photography meant to the world at that point.” Back then, ten years ago, the activity happening was similar and basic to todays, however on a smaller scale. Today, social media brings events closer and seems to eliminate some distance, and intensify the emotional impact. Which brings up the point, is that really a good thing? Could social media have made the 9/11 events and aftermath too traumatic for some to handle? Some say it would have been too horrific and are grateful Facebook and Twitter were not around ten years ago. Brustein references a couple individuals' opinions in his article, such as Katherine Weymouth, publisher and executive chief at Washington Post Co: “'Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and all the technologies that have yet to be invented make all these events more real, and more horrific. Television pales in comparison,' she said, according to an account of the event posted on Poynter.org, a journalism Web site." Would real time updates and other aspects that social media brings to the world have added a level a trauma that would have been to overwhelming for people at that time? What do you think?