Most recent public comments by Molly Deng https://nowcomment.com/users/18751 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=517673 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=517673 I agree with Ayannah about the rawness, that Wambaugh is putting his cards on the table because he wants his story told. But on another note, like in the next question, perhaps he is putting his cards on the table to gain the trust of the journalist. Sat, 07 May 2016 06:56:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44648?scroll_to=517672 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44648?scroll_to=517672 Well, I think the "whatever it takes" depends on the journalist and his moral compass. I think that there is an end line that journalists will not cross but where that line is depends on the person and how he justifies it to himself because at the end of the day, he's the one that has to live with his decisions. For me personally, I wouldn't think that the ends justify the means. Fri, 13 May 2016 11:26:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=517671 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=517671 I agree that there are some situations where putting your cards on the table would help you establish a sense of trustworthiness. But I think there's a fine line between giving it all away and giving somethings away. I agree it does depend on the situation but I think it's beneficial to have one or two cards up your sleeve. Sat, 07 May 2016 06:55:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=517670 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=517670 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. Sat, 07 May 2016 07:11:14 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=517664 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=517664 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. Fri, 20 May 2016 17:26:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=510879 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=510879 I couldn't agree more with Rand. It's not good to put all your cards on the table because then, you'd be losing the only leverage you have. There wouldn't be any incentive for the opposing party to give you anything because they wouldn't get anything out of the relationship. Fri, 20 May 2016 16:10:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44648?scroll_to=510867 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44648?scroll_to=510867 I agree with George in the sense that this statement does remind me of the way that the journalists in both Pylon and A Private Life of Michael Foot act. I think the journalists in all three stories would agree that getting the story ranks above all else and that doing whatever it takes to get the story is the job of a journalist, which can only be done in this state of moral anarchy. Wed, 18 May 2016 06:00:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=504877 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=504877 I agree with Lynette in the fact that the presence of a tape recorder shows a lack of trust. It physically and figuratively sits between the interviewer and interviewee and people tend to be more cautious of what they say when they know that they're being recorded. However, when there's no recorder present, it becomes hard to remember every aspect of the interview with the degree of accuracy that a journalist would hope for. Sat, 02 Apr 2016 06:54:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=504876 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=504876 The cliche "the romance is in the details" serves to highlight how the details are potentially more important than the overarching story itself. The readers are more interested in the how and the why, rather than the what. It's the little things, the details, that no one knows, that makes the story interesting and more intimate to the reader. Fri, 01 Apr 2016 06:47:36 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499051 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499051 A biography is like a painting in the sense that the painter or biographer portrays the subject the way he sees his subject, through his own interactions and research. The biography belongs to the biographer in the way that a painting belongs to a painter because while the subject is the star of the piece, the subject is not in control. How the painter chooses to paint his subject is at the creative liberty of the artist as he is the creator. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:13:44 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499050 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499050 I believe your view of a biography is more open, in the sense that the more information there is out there on the subject, the better. It seems that Michael’s view is more exclusive, limited to a few people he approves that are capable and know him enough to write the story. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:12:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499048 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499048 Amour-propre is French, meaning self-love. It means a sense of one’s own worth or self-respect. Journalists are prone to violating their subject’s amour-propre because their job is to dig up dirt on their subject. Fri, 13 May 2016 07:47:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499047 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499047 This essentially means you had it coming, that it was to be expected. In choosing to accept Michael’s hospitality but still staying true to maintaining that sense of independence as a biographer and journalist to report the truth, you are to be criticized, ready for the backlash from Michael’s close friends when something unfavorable or embarrassing gets published. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:04:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499046 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499046 In treating people as material, it creates a sort of buffer and detachment for the journalist to be able to report objectively on his subject. It also creates a dilemma because you’re dealing with people, with emotions and opinions. In this case, the dilemma is the perceived indebtedness by accepting Michael’s hospitality, balanced with the need to maintain a sense of independence as the biographer. Sat, 21 May 2016 06:09:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499045 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499045 I believe Michael doesn’t see the journalist as an invader because he [Michael] considers the journalist his friend and he enjoys the company. In his own words, the house is designed to host guests so it’s not an invasion of privacy. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:00:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499043 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499043 I don’t think either drafts do justice to the story the novel has to tell. The novel implies that journalism, while designed to report news, cannot capture the entire story. There’s only so much you can fit in a newspaper and after the revisions and edits, the story gets altered in the way that it’s told. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:56:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499042 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499042 The literature is completely taken out. Everything is cut and dry and straightforward, and void of emotion. It’s the bare facts but this new draft is closer to what the editor wants because it’s news—it’s an account of what happened without overly romanticizing the event. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:13 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499041 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499041 Perhaps the copyboy thinks he is reading the beginning of literature because of the way the story reads like a novel, because of the way it was written, for instance, personifying death as a competitor in the race. The reporter probably discarded this draft because it was exactly what the editor told him not to do. There’s too prose, rhetoric, and too much fluff. It’s what the editor wouldn’t consider news. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:52:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494741 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494741 I agree. The reporter seems to be zoned out, and the smoke and the voices could refer to his muddled mind with voices going in one ear and out the other. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:16:30 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494668 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494668 This could be interpreted to mean that it’s not news in the sense that it’s nothing new or in the journalistic sense that it’s not something to report on. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:22:55 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494666 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494666 The reporter is essentially being reminded that he should distance himself from the people he’s reporting on. “He aint our brother” could be interpreted to mean that he’s not one of us, but rather, just the subject of your story. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:03:20 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494664 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494664 I wouldn’t feel very assured because he seems to be going back and forth and contradicting himself. Fri, 20 May 2016 20:06:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494663 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494663 In the previous chapters, Michael condemned authorized biographies because he is a journalist first. However, here, he places his friend before his role as a journalist simply because he wanted to stay in her good graces. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:07:46 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494662 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494662 A biography is a romance in the sense that the biographer is telling the story of the subject whom he got to know intimately. It could also mean that a biography is as fragile as a romance in the sense that if the subject no longer wishes to share information with you, the relationship, and your biography, is over. The idea of biography relates to the literary imagination because as the biographer, you have to tell a coherent and compelling story that people want to read through the use of rhetoric, style, tone, diction, etc. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:06:18 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494661 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494661 “Putting in the shit” could mean including sensitive information or little known facts that could potentially influence the reader’s perspective of the subject. It is important because it paints a more complete picture of the subject—the good and the not so good. However, authorized biographies sometimes leave it out because of the biographer’s interference as Julie implies. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:05:29 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494660 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=494660 I assume a salacious biography is something that is racy, highly scandalous, something that you would find in a tabloid. I imagine it would detail the subject’s sex life more than his merit achievements. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:04:29 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487142 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487142 The reporter can’t leave these people alone because he can’t remove himself from the story he’s writing, he’s too emotionally involved at this point, he inserted himself in the situation. The editor can’t understand the reporter because he doesn’t work in the field, he just sits in his office. Unlike the reporter, he’s too removed from the situation. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 07:21:21 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487141 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487141 The editor’s last statement implies that the reporter’s perception of what is right and wrong in terms of what a journalist should do, is blurring. As a journalist, he is expected to be professional and the editor can see that he’s getting too involved. In him saying that, you could tell that the editor cares for the reporter above an employer and employee relationship. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 07:18:06 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487140 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487140 It’s not enough for the reporter to write what he saw because that’s just his observations. Observations alone don’t make for news or an exciting story that people would want to read. Writing what others tell him is not enough either because his story would hinge on the recollection and words of someone else—it’s not 100% accurate. The editor is looking for him to bring back an accurate account of something newsworthy that will generate discussion or just a reaction from the readers. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 07:14:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=487139 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=487139 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. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 07:05:53 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=487135 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=487135 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. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 07:01:58 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=487133 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=487133 I think gossip is more suited in a tabloid or a magazine because in my mind, biographies are more associated with more serious, fact-rooted matters. Gossip is like hearsay, it’s he says, she says, and since it’s not always factual, it’s unnecessary in biographies unless it’s the biographer’s way of subtly commenting on his subject without directly saying something. For these reasons, I don’t think gossip can be justified in biographies. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 06:59:01 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=487130 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=487130 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. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 06:54:51 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=487127 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=487127 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. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 06:51:49 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=487120 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=487120 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. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 06:48:00 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=479494 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=479494 I think that the editor is so patient with the reporter because he was once in the reporter's shoes. I assume that the editor worked his way up but was once in the reporter's position, making him more sympathetic toward the reporter. This might reveal how the editor might not agree with his superiors or the office politics but because of his position, he has to oblige. Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:10:00 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=479493 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=479493 Based on this passage, I get the feeling that the editors of this paper are interested in news that will sell, for the sake of pleasing the people at the top who own the paper and pay the salaries. They're not looking for great writers but rather people who can just get the job done. Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:29:26 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=479491 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=479491 There isn't room for literature on this paper because people are looking for short, concise news, not lengthy works of literature. Like Faulkner mentions, literature is often associated with fiction which doesn't belong in a newspaper because it's not factual news. Thu, 19 May 2016 17:00:29 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474326 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474326 Reporters are often depicted as rumpled and untidy because their job consumes their life. The news itself is so messy that in the reporter's quest to get the story, they do whatever it takes, forgoing basic hygiene. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:37:52 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474325 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474325 I completely agree with this--a small, dirty, cramped environment, with dim artificial light but at the same time, everything that is necessary to survive is there. It's as if the editor and the reporter are in their own little world, watching the rest of the world from their aquarium. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:34:33 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474320 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474320 I agree with Elvis that the gloominess of the newspaper offices reflects the era where everybody was very down because of the economy. The dusty I interpret to mean old and irrelevant, like when something is on a shelf for a long time and collects a lot of dust. In this respect, perhaps Faulkner is commenting on the way journalism was being practiced in the 1930s, and how it was a little outdated. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:29:27 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474318 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474318 I agree with this. The corpse-like description makes the report seem drained, perhaps because of the nature of the job and the tedious hours to get a story. I also want to add that the "corpse-like" description could imply that the are dead, in the sense that they have to distance themselves from a particular person or event, to do whatever it takes to get the story. Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:09:41 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474316 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474316 The downfunnelled light is also very reminiscent of chiaroscuro type of lighting that I learned about in film class, which serves to highlight the stark differences between light and shadow, and intensifies moments or foreshadows action. Perhaps the purpose of the downfunnelled lighting could also be to foreshadow how the journalist will cross the line between what's right and wrong in terms of journalistic conduct. Sun, 15 May 2016 07:16:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474315 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=474315 The impact of the downfunnelled light in this scene serves to highlight one aspect, in this case the reporter's hips, and casts a shadow everywhere else. Perhaps Faulkner wants to emphasize the reporter's posture or defeated look in this scene. Sun, 15 May 2016 07:16:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=474310 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=474310 A biography would suffer if the first loyalty is to friends because the truth cannot be told at the cost of upsetting that friendship. It would make for a very boring biography if the story only highlighted the positive aspects of its subjects because of the biography's loyalty to friends, no one would want to read it. Sat, 21 May 2016 02:10:25 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=474309 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=474309 I think biography and the journalist's literary imagination can serve as an antidote to an autobiography because it remedies some of the problems with autobiographies (like an autobiographer's inability to tell the truth). For instance, autobiographies tend to be biased or omit facts, and biographies can address that problem by presenting different sides of the story in a more objective way and fact checking the stories. A journalist's literary imagination presents that story in an appealing way that is engaging and interesting to read. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:18:11 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=472206 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=472206 I think that autobiographers can't tell the truth because one, they are subjective and two, their memory may not be the best source. Because our memories of things and events change, there would be no way to know if what is written is real or made up, unlike a biographer who can conduct interviews and cross-check facts. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:34:52 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=465798 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=465798 Based on the way the editor treats him, I envision a rookie reporter who has a knack for sniffing out events (since the editor says so himself) but fails at bringing back newsworthy stories. I imagine going forward, the reporter is going to try new ways, maybe even cross the line, to bring back a story for the editor because he doesn't want to let his editor down. Sun, 17 Apr 2016 06:23:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=465794 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=465794 According to that sentence, it seems that the reporter is the catalyst to the people and the events that he reports on. He never seems to be directly involved but he acts as an accessory to the crime. Mon, 08 Feb 2016 06:39:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=465793 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=465793 The editor makes a distinction between news and information, in the sense that everyone has access to information but news is what makes it exciting to read about, the source of the information. When the editor says the "living breath of news," I think he is referring to something new that other papers have not reported on, whether it be a new perspective or a new occurrence. It seems that the editor is expecting the reporter to bring back something that simply isn't regurgitated information. Mon, 08 Feb 2016 06:41:21 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=465784 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=465784 It seems that in agreeing to do this biography, Foot already had expectations as to what he wants to be included. Based on this interaction, it seems that Foot is expecting a biography that highlights his positive and friendly self but from a reader's standpoint, it would be hard to believe that a person has no bad traits. This clashes with the biographer's expectations of reporting the truth because the truth includes the good and the bad. Mon, 08 Feb 2016 06:37:58 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=465768 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=465768 In this context, I think "buffering the biography" refers to polishing the story in a way that would highlight the positive attributes of Michael Foot and minimize his negative attributes. It seems that Michael's hopes is that if he treats someone hospitably, they would do the same. Mon, 08 Feb 2016 06:35:58 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=456050 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=456050 In this context, there is going to be a confrontation because as the biographer, you are torn between your duty as a reporter to report something new and intriguing and your role as a friend, in which case it would be morally wrong to share this secret with the public. Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:24:45 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=456049 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=456049 Can it be said thought, that a biography is essentially a compilation of a list of events in a person's life, just more detailed, refined, and presented in a coherent manner, usually in the form of a story? Sat, 21 May 2016 01:05:07 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=456047 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=456047 I, too, think "a book about process" refers to the way that the author, you, familiarizes yourself with the subject, Michael Foot. Rather than start Michael Foot, you start with yourself and how you came to know him which also makes it unconventional. In terms of what gets smoothed over in a biographical narrative, there's probably hours of recorded conversation and interviews that are conducted and as the author, you condense it and choose the ones that are the most interesting and relevant to tell. In that sense, you are smoothing over their lives, and telling it in a fluid story rather than have it be all over the place. Thu, 19 May 2016 15:55:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455586 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455586 I have a slightly different impression. With the ejaculation style style of writing and the thick heavy typesplatter, the reporter's world seems very short-lived and dramatic but at the same time very lively. Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:13:13 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455557 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455557 It sounds like yellow journalism because the "thick heavy typesplatter" reminds me of those exaggerated, eye-catching headlines used to grab people's attentions. Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:12:22 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455537 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455537 Just for clarification, if the paper is in the driver's seat but the driver I presume is sitting there, is the paper simply on the driver's lap? But to answer your question, to be in the driver's seat means to be in control of something so I assume that the headlines on this paper is what is guiding society forward at the time, it's representative of the era perhaps. However, I also noticed that the newspaper is folded which means it's unread. Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:11:56 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455368 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455368 I would say that a style that uses ejaculations would be very explicit and attention grabbing. I would assume the style entails really provocative headlines and short blurbs that would entice an audience to read on. Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:06:30 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455364 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=455364 A dogwatch, according to dictionary.com is slang for “the period, after regular editions of a newspaper have gone to press, during which staff personnel remain on duty to away any new developments that may warrant an extra issue,” so Faulkner’s “diurnal dogwatch” could refer to one of these extra issues. I also think it’s worthwhile to mention that watchdog journalism refers to a form of journalism aimed at identifying societal problems. - Molly Deng Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:08:47 -0600