Someone who thinks and acts like a journalist. They are honest, want to acquire as much of the truth as they can and aren’t afraid to investigate.

To be “a journalist first” is essentially doing the job one has to do. It is about sticking to priorities and not getting side tracked. In addition, the phrase demands that a sense of honesty needs to be present. Subjective factors need to be ruled out and the facts, regardless of what they are need to be represented unabridged.

To be a journalist first is to be focused on obtaining the truth of a story and the willingness to unravel it despite the risks that may be included.

To be a journalist first, is to be dedicated to one’s job of reporting, of discovering the truth, of getting the story. It’s ironic that Michael is a journalist first in this case but with his own biography, his loyalty is to his friends, as we discussed in previous comments.

to be a journalist first means that they are always thinking and acting like a journalist would and that is to find the story in any situation

Someone who seeks information or a story

Being a “journalist first” means a high dedication to one’s job, someone who is not afraid to get their hands dirty by finding the truth behind a story through investigation, even though backlash may come with the territory.

To be a journalist first is to invest your time and efforts to the unearthing facts of the occurrence/event/person you are investigating rather than focus on relationships or sensitivity.

To be a journalist first means, to be an interdependent observer, who doesn’t allow threats to compromise the authenticity of their work. Mainly, Foot is saying he doesn’t believe in “authorized biographies” and Buford’s threats to his publishers should be condemned.

A journalist mindset is maintaining principles towards getting the story and not being swayed in any direction. They don’t put their self over the story either.

To be a journalist first means to be dedicated to being a journalist and getting the story.

Someone who is uncompromising when it comes to hunting down the truth

To be a “journalist first,” means that the person’s priority is reporting and maintaining the duty as a reporter

Authorized biographies are written with the subject’s full consent, and involvement. This gives the subject more leverage in deciding what details are used, and which are purposely left out. The journalist will have a tougher time writing a truthful biography, because of the subject’s own preferences.

An authorized biography allows the subject to withhold certain details, which could lessen the impact a biography may have. However, I believe the real problem is the trouble it causes for the biographer. Specifically, in the excess efforts one might go through to get the subject’s cooperation. For example, the subject could have a bad day and not want to say a word. It becomes a waste of time and the biographer’s writing process gets delayed.

The issue with authorized biographies is the fact that the subject has too much of a hand in the final story, often ushering to paint themselves in a certain light and omitting details that would tarnish their desired image. An authorized biography gives too much power to the subject.

Authorized biographies lack that quality of raw truth because of the subject’s involvement, interference, and edits. It gives the subject more control and authority over what goes in the biography and how their story is told, which leaves the biographer or journalist in a tough position.

therefore at times the story can be twisted and written in a more positive tone. its almost fictional

The problem with authorized biographies is the amount of accessibility and control that the subject has to influence the story, including which information is used or omitted in order to create a more positive image to the public.

That you will need the total approval and cooperation of the person that you are writing about to get the biography officialy published, and if that person complains with certain details that the journalist include in the biography the deal between the journalist and Michael Foot to get an authorized biography can be undone.

The issue with authorized biographies, is the same issue with an autobiography. The target only wants to be depicted in a positive light. So if they approve the biography the reader has to assume there’s been “smoothing” and censoring.

The issue pertains to giving a person command over what information can be told in the respective story. That increases the possibility of key factual information being untold. The writer will need to gain permission on certain aspects of a subject. It will also increase the possibility of leaving the reader gasping for more content.

An authorized biography is given approval by the person its written about. In getting that approval, the person being written about likely has a say in what is or is not included in the book’s contents.

The author is only allowed to ask questions pertaining to the book. This limits the potential for free-flowing conversations where the most interesting details could be found.

Authorized biographies might make the biographer more sensitive on what to publish due to the discretion of how the subject will react to the biography

An apostate is someone who later on abandons or goes against their own beliefs. In this passage Michael says “All authorized biographies are hereby condemned,” but he will later take back those words and argue over what he wants and doesn’t want the writer to include in the biography.

“Michael the Apostate” foreshadows how Foot would eventually go against his own word. After proclaiming that “all authorised biographies are hereby condemned,” the reference suggests that Michael will later react in a way that goes against this bold statement.

An apostate is someone who renounces a religious or political belief or principle, someone whose beliefs have changed and who no longer belongs to a religious or political group. This is perhaps an allusion to Julian the Apostate. The reference to Michael the Apostate refers to how the Michael states his condemnation of authorized biographies but how he would later contradict this by doing the very thing he disapproves of, writing an authorized biography himself.

Foot will later, turn on his on beliefs on the disapproval of authorized biographies,once the author begins to get deeper into the life of Foot,regretting his statement

“Michael the Apostate” refers to Michael going against his word in reference to his original distaste for authorized biographies. Previously he mentions that “All authorized biographies are hereby condemned,” however, his tune regrettably changes when it comes to his making of an authorized biography.

The reference is based on someone who vacates their judgement. Friction emerges from this moment on what content will be included in the biography.

An apostate is someone who abandons a religious or political belief or principle. In this case, it’s referring to Foot initially condemning authorized biographies and later changing his mind on that notion.

Calling him an Apostate is a slight jab at his character. He is quick to change his stance on information dissemination to whatever suits his needs.