McGinnis developed a close relationship with the accused murderer MacDonald. He is stepping into MacDonalds territory to achieve a sense of the setting and how MacDonalds perhaps acts within the setting being as it is so close to the prison. This excerpt displays McGinnis over-determination in investigating the story and retrieving as much insider information from MacDonald. By staying with him he has created a dangerously close relationship in order to not only hear what MacDonald must say about himself but observe him in his most intimate place. MacDonald is readily willing to provide McGinnis with the files perhaps because they help his case and put him in a positive light/give information that he wants McGinnis to know/mention in the book about him.

As a reporter, the reason why McGinnis decided to stay closely with MacDonald is to gain trust or build friendly relationship with the accused murderer. While staying closely with MacDonald, he would have a better chance to find out some secretes about the subject. However, on the other hand, it would be a good chance for MacDonald as well. He could drag a creditable reporter to be on his side or gain his trust by being friendly and showing the files which contains positive information.

This tells you that McGinnis is close to MacDonald but this brings a closer point to how MacDonald might “pulling a card” on McGinnis trying to make him comfortable.

McGinnis is trying to build a relationship with McDonald. By staying on MacDonald’s side, that could help him gain confidential information. MacDonald wants to state his case and give McGinnis give something to talk about in a positive light.

MacDonald may be so obliging because a sympathetic media is good for his case. McGinniss may have fallen for the bait and become obsessed with MacDonald’s side of the story.

McGinnis has established a close relationship with Macdonald. However, it appears that both parties have manipulative schemes in order to largely benefit only themselves in the bigger picture.

This dynamic is interesting because in both A Private Life of Michael Foot and in The Journalist and the Murderer, there is this assumption that a book written about the subject will automatically be written in a positive light, highlighting the good attributes and diminishing the negative traits. And when the subject learns that that in fact is not true, relationships then tend to suffer.

Well, relationship plays a critical role on how this dynamic works in both A Private Life of Michael and in the Journalist and the Murderer. The subject assumed that establishing a closer relationship with the writer could help on getting more positive opinion in the writing. But in fact, the job responsibility of a journalist is to provide truthful story regardless how close the relationship is with the subject.

This dynamic is true in both A Private Life of Michael Foot and in The Journalist and the Murderer because the close bond formed creates the assumption that the writer will build this image of the subject to be seen only in a positive manner. But in reality, the responsibilities of the writer are to provide accurate/truthful accounts of the subject, both good and bad, which certainly surprises the subject.

The metaphor of a love affair applies to all three books we’ve read because as previously mentioned, the relationship between a journalist and his subject is an intimate one. They spend a great deal amount of time getting to know each other, sharing stories and experiences. In Pylon, the reporter not only becomes attached to the people he’s reporting on, he falls in love with flying as well and in A Private Life of Michael Foot, we see the journalist stay at the subject’s house, sharing close quarters. But it’s also a love affair in the sense that that the journalist, who is completely devoted to his job, subsequently makes the subject his life as well.

Just like a brand new couple, the writer and the subject spend lots of time together to know deeply about each other. I guess the reason why it sayes the subject is more susceptible to the pleasures and excitement is he is the one telling the story. Plus, he isn’t required to know about the journalist as much as the journalist is. As the reading we had, the writer and the subject stayed in the same house and shared stories of each other; experienced how other’s feeling. Therefore, we could metaphor the relationship between the subject and the writer as the love affair.

The Pylon analogy is clear and apparent. The reporter was in love with the subject, and the he was so subjectified that it created a motherly sense of forgiveness. Meanwhile, the editor was the real father figure in that novel. In Foot, it was the other way around.

The metaphor of love affair can apply to those three narratives not only because of the relationship between the journalist and the subject, but also the relationship between the journalist and the biography itself. A journalist is driven by their passion for the artform of truthful, illustrative narrative. Thus, the journalist, in a way, has a love affair with telling the story.

I think the common thread among these three is the physical closeness between the journalist and the subject. There is something about spending time in another person’s home or engaging in their activities that can bring two people together. Just like a love affair someone ends up hurt and feeling foolish after it’s over.