David Usborne's 9/11

1) He makes the story flow like a good novel. I liked the piece a lot, wanting to read more even after the story finished. Just like the Pulitzer Prize winning piece I read, this one made me want to read more. It is different reading journalists accounts who where actually there and who actually saw everything versus someone who would be reporting in the Midwest or as far as the West Coast. What is the same about the day after and Dec. pieces of the disaster are he explains what he saw, what was going on, the people he interviewed, what was going through his head. However, the day after piece has MORE urgency, as far as getting to a phone to share what he was going through. Also, on the day after, he really didn’t comprehend what was going on. He kind of shrugged off the falling bodies, looking at the "specks" until he focused on what was really going on at the time. I am sure that after four months, he had time to reflect and process everything he was being bombarded with. What this tells me about deadline writing is people work well under pressure, but they might comprehend or understand everything they have written until they have a chance to read it when it is published. Only then can they go back and study what was written to understand everything.

3) I learned from him about the ethics and instincts where always try to get to the source no matter what. But, on the flip-side he finally did figure out he had to get away, for safety's sake. I remember him saying in the story he imagined going inside the buildings and examining what was going on, because only the building's top was on fire, and he didn't even think, like many other people, it would come down. He just wanted to get closer than and as close as he could to everything that was going on. What I learned from him, that I can apply, is just get as close to as possible to the source...but don't get hurt doing it or don't be in the way of police, fire fighters, etc.