[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15990-15991]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       TRIBUTE TO BARRIE DUNSMORE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont benefits both by the people who 
were born there and those who come to Vermont and make us even better.
  One of those people who has chosen Vermont is Barrie Dunsmore, who 
before his change in careers had been one of the foremost reporters and 
commentators on the national news scene. When he and his wife, Whitney 
Taylor, and his daughter, Campbell, came to Vermont, we Vermonters have 
benefitted by his columns in The Rutland Herald and his commentary on 
Vermont Public Radio. Recently Barrie took a number of his columns and 
collected them in a book, ``There and Back.'' I could not begin to do 
his writings justice, but my wife Marcelle and I were privileged to be 
at a reception for Barrie and Whitney in Burlington and we heard him 
speak. I asked him if I could have a copy of his notes from that 
evening, and he shared them with me. The notes offer only a hint of 
what awaits in the book, which I read with pleasure at our home in 
Vermont.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Barrie Dunsmore's remarks be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             There and Back

                          (By Barrie Dunsmore)

       Thank you Senator Leahy for being here tonight with your 
     wife Marcelle, and for your kind words. I also thank you for 
     your constant support for my columns and comments over many 
     years. Having you in my camp has been an inspiration.
       Thank you to Holly Johnson, the proprietor of Wind Ridge 
     Publishing. If you had not had faith that my writing deserved 
     a wider audience outside Vermont, there would be no book and 
     we would not be here this evening.
       Last, but certainly not least, I wish to thank my wife, 
     Whitney Taylor. She is tireless in encouraging me and 
     steadfast in supporting me. She is an excellent editor and my 
     most important audience. She always reads my material before 
     I send it out. And if she doesn't get something I know nobody 
     will--so I make changes accordingly.
       There are others who are deserving of my thanks but I 
     promise I won't bore you kind folks who probably aren't 
     interested in my high school Latin teacher who made me such a 
     great writer.
       Seriously I make no such claim, but I am a writer. In fact 
     over the last decade--including my columns, radio and 
     television commentaries, book reviews and speeches--I have 
     written about a half a million words. To put that into 
     perspective, Tolstoy's War and Peace in Russian runs 460,000 
     words.
       I'm not talking about quality here, but in quantity, my 
     body of work is greater than War and Peace. But you'll be 
     happy to know the book contains only a fraction of that.
       Let me explain the title of the book, ``There and Back.''
       The first section, called THERE, contains columns and 
     commentaries that deal largely with events taking place in 
     foreign lands over THERE in this century--but seen through 
     the prism of events I covered in the last century. For 
     example, I wrote about the Arab Spring in Egypt last 
     February, in the context of my long experience in Egypt and 
     particularly my contacts with the late president Anwar Sadat.

[[Page 15991]]

       The section called BACK contains articles addressing the 
     politics, culture and media of America--since I've been in 
     retirement, BACK here in the United States.
       The items in this section reflect a somewhat detached view 
     of America as a former foreign and diplomatic correspondent 
     might see it. The title of the book, and the concept, were 
     suggested by my principal editor Emily Copeland to whom I am 
     most grateful.
       I promise you, this is not going to be a long speech, but 
     I've been asked to reflect a bit on my impressions of how the 
     mainstream media have fared since I retired in the mid-1990s.
       When I took early retirement, I vowed I would not fall 
     victim to the affliction that hits many old men and induces 
     them to claim that everything that has happened in their 
     field since they retired is a disaster. I confess in recent 
     years being true to that vow has been a real challenge. 
     Actually, when I did a series of lectures to the journalism 
     classes at Vermont's Saint Michael's College last year, I 
     suggested the students look at me as an archeologist might 
     view a relic from the past that is more or less intact, and 
     might provide some useful information.
       During my four decades as an active reporter, there were 
     major technological changes in network television news--going 
     from black and white film to color; shifting from film to 
     videotape; the advent of high-quality hand held cameras. And, 
     finally of course, the coming of the communications 
     satellite. That significantly changed everything. It meant 
     there would be no more waiting for three days for the film 
     from Vietnam or the Middle East to arrive in New York. But 
     much more important, it became possible to have live coverage 
     of news events virtually anywhere in the world.
       Yet as great as those changes were, they pale in comparison 
     to how the new information technologies have totally 
     revolutionized the media. The Internet and the almost 
     universal use of the personal computer and the cell phone 
     have had an extraordinarily profound impact on the reporting 
     of news, not to mention redefining what constitutes news--and 
     who or what is a reporter. Many consider this a good thing--a 
     notion I do not entirely share.
       I will say this about the new technologies--they are not 
     inherently good or bad. Like all of their revolutionary 
     predecessors, such as the telegraph or moveable type, they 
     are neutral instruments. Whether they serve society--or 
     subvert it--depends on how these new tools are being used, by 
     whom and to what ends.
       For me, one of the more troubling consequences of this 
     latest revolution is that by siphoning off huge portions of 
     ad revenues, the Internet and its social networks have 
     threatened the financial viability of the mainstream media--
     and as a consequence, have undermined the credibility of the 
     news media as one of the key institutions that make democracy 
     work.
       Thomas Jefferson repeatedly said it. And the philosophers 
     of ancient Greece apparently believed it: In order to 
     survive, democracy needs to have a relatively well-informed 
     electorate. The people cannot wisely choose their leaders if 
     they don't have at least a basic understanding of the issues 
     and of the consequences of the choices they are making.
       What worries me most about the declining role of the 
     mainstream media in today's world, is that in spite of all 
     the various new platforms to provide and dispense 
     information--ironically, maybe because of all these choices--
     there is evidence that the electorate is less well informed 
     than it was in other times in history. As I see it, these 
     days more people than ever hold passionate, partisan 
     opinions--that are largely free of facts. At another time, 
     those necessary facts would have been available in the major 
     news media, and most people would have accepted them as such. 
     Sad to say, that is something which large and growing numbers 
     of people no longer do.

                          ____________________