I think that friendship can create a lot of passionate feelings which are based simply on the fact that they have more faith in their friend’s word then the journalist’s. They don’t want to believe that their friend, someone they are close to could do something that negative. Friendship automatically creates bias, even more so if you are the journalist. Some may choose to leave things out to protect their friend’s reputation and their friendship. It wouldn’t be a good idea for a journalist to write about someone they are particularly close to.

Friendship isn’t necessarily incompatible with journalism but it can’t be a coincidence that many journalists are portrayed as loners with little friends. Friendship and journalism is almost like a catch 22 situation. Journalists need friends to get the inside scoop but the very nature of their job deters people from being friends with them.

In this context, friendship is also incompatible with journalism because as the subject’s friend, you have the notion that you know more about the person than a journalist would, hence Michael’s condemnation of Frank’s biography without even reading it.

Because they have built a trust between them, the journalist would be given information more freely.

once you have a personal relationship with the subject, whether it is positive or negative, you quickly choose a side, without trying. if you enjoy the person you are more likely to write a positive story and so on. a journalist should remain as objective as possible and therefore if there is a friendship going on the subject already wins. it defies the purpose of true heart journalism.

I think it depends if the friendship it’s going to intervene with the work, then it can be negative.

Friendship can be at certain times incompatible with journalism, this occurs when the subject attempts to alter the information the journalist wants to convey about the subject: for example regarding him in a higher manner than revealing the truths of the subjects’ flaws alongside their positives. On the other hand, friendship can be very beneficial for the journalist who through their bond with the subject can uncover more information about the subject.

Friendship is compatible with journalism if a few requirements are met. Firstly, if the journalist is true to journalism, then the friend he would be working with would have to be true to the truth. This means that friendship is compatible with journalism when the same outcome is wanted.

When it comes to true journalism, all emotional ties are to be removed. That’s the biggest reason why friendship is incompatible with journalism. Friendship inspires bias, which leads to insufficient work.

Yes, if it leads to poor reporting. Some instances would be if: friendships cause the writer to behave in a manner that is favoring the friend, or report on one aspect of a story, or give a biased opinion, due to the impact it can have on a friend. However, if friendships lead to new story leads, credible information, access to exclusive events, then there is compatibility. I think what it comes down to is how the journalist handles the friendships.

Friendship is not incompatible with journalism. Often friendship gains you access to relationships that cultivate stories. Gains you access to sources that you need to complete the story. Sometimes, journalist gain friendships in order to get to the bottom of a story, or even to decipher is there is one in the first place. However, valuing a friendship over the authenticity of a piece takes away the truth value. Furthermore, if you value a friendship more than the story then you shouldn’t go ahead with the story.

Friendship doesn’t necessarily have to be incompatible with journalism, but it does raise some issues involving ethics. Friends tend to have allegiance towards one another, so as a journalist this can be a conflict of interest when needing to remain objective.

Journalists must be able remain objective in their reporting, no matter who the subject may be. If a friendship stands as a roadblock, then it is incompatible.

I think friendship is compatible under certain circumstances, like when the subject fully understands the obligation of a journalist and their duty, when the subject is not affected or worried about revealing information, or when the biographer can talk the subject into accepting what is required for a biography.

Hero worshiping is another form of extreme bias, where the individual sees someone as a role model. When a journalist has such high reverence, it is difficult to write or believe something about their role model that proves otherwise. It wouldn’t be fair to the biography to treat someone differently because of personal opinions.

Hero worship sets you up with certain expectations of your hero. I mean the word hero itself puts your idol on a pedestal which only sets you up for disappointment when unfavorable truths are revealed in a biography. Some people could choose to be in denial, or overlook these negative attributes while others become disillusioned.

i believe that a true biography focuses on all aspects of the being. the good, the bad have all made up this person and they should not be ashamed. it shows professionalism and fearlessness in the writer, when they choose to avoid being bias and worshiping this hero. not everyone is perfect,and therefore your imperfections teach you lessons and make you wiser and objective.

Hero-worshiping is established in a biography when the subject is placed on a mantle, since the biographer might see the subject as an almighty, unblemished figure. This can lead to disillusion among the biographer when they find out their hero is flawed, and may result in bias when writing about them since they will downplay or even ignore any faults.

When it comes to hero worshipping, it usually means nothing but praise for that person. That precludes them from writing a true biography. Revering someone deeply will leave you narrow minded rather than open minded.

Hero-worshipping the target of a biography contuses the biography, because instead of the target trying to assure they are depicted in a positive light, the writer cannot see the target in any other light.

It can harm the biography because of the fact that a hero worship means something positive, something that people believe and follow. And that is why the biography will avoid every negative facts that a hero cannot have. which means that the biography will not be fully complete.

Hero Worshipping is inimical to biography for then the biography becomes like a book of compliments. You are no longer writing a true story, you’re writing a persuasive essay to prove your own favorable view. There is a good and bad to everyone and it is a biographer’s duty to showcase both sides. You are also doing a disservice to the subject themselves for not portraying their actual tale.

With hero worship there is an inherent bias towards writing someone’s biography. Even if the writer intends to remain unbiased and objective, it’s likely that their worship will affect their ability to be objective.

Hero worshipping is actually looking up to someone/something and there are already favorable opinions about the hero. A biographer does not have to see the subject as a role model and should be open to different kinds of opinions