The Bureau Chief of the Houston Chronicle and of Hearst Newspapers as well, Mr. Dunham said that he "was either going to write about the news or be in the news"- and after being inspired by the work of Woodward and Bernstein, decided on the former.
Having once written for Business Week, he mentioned that he prefers his job now, because when working at a weekly he rarely got the opportunity to break a story.
By the time his publication came out, someone else had already gotten to the information that he had, in fact, discovered first. I can't imagine how incredibly frustrating that would be - I think I'd go mad for lack of recognition (I admittedly need my fair share of congratulatory pats on the back). He, however, adapted by turning largely to analysis. So he'd break a story (be unable to report it), and have to think ahead a week in order to imagine at what point the story would be in its progression to come up with the most relevant analysis.
A friendly and relatively optimistic man, he is a self-proclaimed "early adopter", and focused a large portion of the time on discussing new media and the incredibly busy job of a new-age journalist. He, unlike some of his colleagues, welcomed the arrival of the internet. It provided him with the ability to turn out timely analysis - he could reflect immediately on stories without waiting. Now, however, with the instant technology, he says everyone is forced into immediate analysis, because the facts are so easily and quickly obtained that they're no longer a journalist's exclusive.
Finally, Mr. Dunham was big on presidential debates - and unlike Prof. Klein, actually likes covering them. "If you write something different than everyone else's straight report," he said, "you can shine".
He also made one comment that I liked in particular. I liked it because when I watch a debate, I never quite know what to think of it, and always end up waiting to hear the post-debate commentary in order to frame the dialogue. Mr. Dunham affirmed this by stating that "reality is what everybody says".
To me, that's reassuring (to my intelligence), and it proves that the only way debates can be summed up as easily as most are, is because when one person starts labeling a winner, or a loser, or a theme, the rest of the nation follows suit. Commenters make the debate what it is, and set up the context in which the average citizen views it in (so I'm not the only one lazy or confused enough to wait on a news brief to form a solid opinion).
Isn't that sort of scary? I don't want someone else mediating my interpretation of something that I saw perfectly well with my own two eyes. Even TV comics, he said, interpret what we remember (SNL, etc).
In the end, Mr. Dunham said that he has learned to embrace new media, as it caters to his ability to produce fast analytical material. However, if it were up to him he'd love to "sit back and write a book" - but such time is neither available nor feasible for any journalist looking to keep his job in today's fast-paced world.
*sigh*
 |
| Rick Dunham with WS Journalism Students |
No comments:
Post a Comment