Most recent public comments by Erica Likht https://nowcomment.com/users/18752 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=525654 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=525654 "Putting in the shit" means the biographer won't be able to discuss the bad sides of the subject. Its important for two reasons: 1) it makes the person look more human than hero and 2) it stays truthful. Authorized biographies sometimes leave the "shit" out because no one wants to be remembered for their bad shit. They want to be remembered for their good or what appears good. Fri, 20 May 2016 19:50:06 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=525652 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=525652 I completely agree with Lynette here. The only thing I would say is beneficial about authorized biographies is that the subject may also check the author or the biographer and make sure he/she is being fair and 100% accurate about the subject's life. Sat, 21 May 2016 07:43:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525646 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525646 I think autobiographies are livelier than biographies because when its first person point of view, it feels as if the reader has physically stepped into the subject's shoes versus a third person point of view where the reader is being told a story about someone by someone else. Also, if the autobiographer is being honest with him/herself it could make for a really interesting read. Fri, 20 May 2016 19:22:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525584 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525584 I agree with the Professor. We are each our own harshest critics. Now, some people particularly have the courage to own up to their faults and see where they led themselves wrong. However, this is a rare trait in people therefore it can be sometimes hard to believe that someone can change stances, even about themselves. Fri, 20 May 2016 17:54:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525578 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525578 I think the reader would distrust the autobiographer based on that person's outside reputation. So, if the autobiographer were the current Pope, most people believe he is a good man therefore if he were to write good things about himself, then the reader would probably not question it. However, if the person was Jordan Belfort for example, well then, that one would be a hard sell if he were to write good things about himself. Its all based on the reputation and perspective the outside world has on that specific person. Fri, 20 May 2016 17:47:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525573 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525573 What should be kept to a minimum is the business of others. This biography is set around one person, therefore other people's stories should not be included. However, there's a double side to this, for if the biographer's subject is in fact a significant part of someone else's story then it becomes just as much their story as the other person. The biographer then has the right to publish it as part of the story's truth. Fri, 20 May 2016 17:36:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525570 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525570 Some biographers hide the truth because they become too friendly with their subjects and end up feeling guilty at the thought of revealing the unspoken truths of this person. Sat, 21 May 2016 03:10:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=525497 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=525497 Liberality by definition means "the quality of being open to new ideas and free from prejudice" so perhaps what is meant here is that because of Michael's reputation/backround, he felt that if he were respectful and, considering he allowed the biographer into his home, the biographer will not portray them in a negative light or be so harsh. As in the biographer will take into consideration Foot's kindness and be just as kind when writing. Sat, 21 May 2016 03:01:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=525487 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=525487 Michael Foot is expecting the biography to be written in a positive manner. The biographer, on the other hand, is not looking to butcher the truth whatsoever and can not be bought or persuaded otherwise. He plans on telling the truth and nothing but. Fri, 20 May 2016 16:56:23 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44648?scroll_to=525128 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44648?scroll_to=525128 Moral anarchy is the difference between writing fact or fiction. The problem is that the journalist may not realize when fact has ended and fiction is taking hold and controlling it. Certain deterrents could alleviate that problem but bring about others like not, getting the 360 degree picture. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:58:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=525086 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=525086 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. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:42:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=525071 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=525071 It's a double edged sword because the journalist wants the subject to trust them and remain objective. However, the subject's goal is simply to look good for the journalist. The subject is almost being used. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:26:06 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=525035 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44650?scroll_to=525035 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. Fri, 20 May 2016 00:21:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=525029 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=525029 I think there are benefits to putting your cards on the table. Just like you said, to earn trust. But sometimes, to unburden themselves from any secrets on either side, the subject or the journalist. Fri, 20 May 2016 17:10:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=525023 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=525023 I think it ultimately comes down to a position of power. Wambaugh can only gain from telling a gritty authentic story but, McGinniss would be taking a big risk. Wambaugh has the power in this situation and can afford to be transparent. Fri, 20 May 2016 00:18:02 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=524885 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=524885 Whenever a person gets to know someone more intimately than was originally intended, that someone's details, thoughts, actions that would normally never be considered of said person (by the general public), become exposed. However, if secrets are considered fair game to be exposed, especially between a biographer and his subject, there is bound to be arguments. By revealing this type of intimate information could ruin a person's reputation or question who that person really is. Thu, 19 May 2016 17:08:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=524873 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=524873 I agree with Molly. I also think "a book about process" could also showcase the development of the subject himself through his reactions and conversations with the biographer; perhaps from chapter to chapter Michael seems to be getting more intimate or become more real as he becomes comfortable with the biographer as well as the idea of being written about. Thu, 19 May 2016 16:55:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=524872 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=524872 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. Thu, 19 May 2016 16:34:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=524822 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=524822 Gossip is like jokes: there is some truth in them. That is what makes the difference between the good jokes and the bad ones. People tend to laugh at what is true, just exaggerated. So, if there is gossip swirling around that seems too good to be true, there is usually an interesting story behind it or at least why the gossip was started, which can lead to an undiscovered truth which then becomes fact. Thu, 19 May 2016 15:46:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=524776 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=524776 The reporter can't leave these people alone because not only is he emotionally invested in them, they provide rich details that tell a greater, even better story than what's presented directly up front. I don't think its that the editor doesn't understand the reporter, I think its that there are certain guidelines that he needs to abide by in order to please the people on top, and there is no room for error. Thu, 19 May 2016 20:58:37 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=524762 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=524762 It isn't just enough for the reporter to write what he saw because he needs credibility to back up what he saw. That credibility comes from straight facts. It is wrong to write what others tell him because if he relies solely on their information to portray a story and they tell him different versions of one event, the story is not only not factual, its not credible and could cost the newspaper their reputation. Thu, 19 May 2016 14:14:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=524678 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=524678 The same could still be said for the reporter as in if he were to write what he saw, he could also tend to focus on some parts more than others, or write in a tone that is biased without trying to purposefully be biased. He's writing from memory just as much as someone who would recount a story through conversation. Thu, 19 May 2016 13:45:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=522439 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=522439 I agree with the both of you. When a person is young, they have visions of what their dream job would be like someday. As per usual, not all visions become a reality. Its kind of like being a college student. You may study something and really enjoy the subject but once you start working in that subject's world, you may come to realize that you don't actually like it as much as you thought you would. Within that editor could be a lost college student who learned the hard way so maybe he's being so patient with the young reporter because he's trying to let the young man down easy. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:20:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=522438 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=522438 The editors of the newspaper are interested in, like I said above, the cold hard facts. No room for lolly gaggling. To be more specific, the editors are looking for credible facts. Something that cannot be argued, or very hard to argue against. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:19:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=522437 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=522437 It is assumed that when people read the news, they aren't interested in hearing a story or diving deep into interpreting a story; they want the cold hard facts that are simple to understand (or digest). By writing in this format, people (readers) can glance over at a page, read a few lines, grasp the general idea within minutes and can still consider themselves well-informed. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:18:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=522423 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=522423 So, a person who is considered a "dogwatcher" is someone who is up and about during all hours of the night, prowling for the latest scoop. Perhaps, this edition is called the "dogwatcher" because its all the news being gathered for when the reader is usually asleep. Maybe all the materials described here (paper, font and pictures) is everything the journalist is going to use for the next morning's paper. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:17:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=522422 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=522422 With the above comment in mind then, I think a dogwatch is some sort of a gossip column. I'm imagining that it is similar to the modern day lifestyle outlets like Buzzfeed or Perez Hilton who report pop culture breaking news the minute its heard and then fact-check later. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:17:36 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505269 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505269 I agree with Molly and Lynette. A tape recorder adds to the tension because every single word the subject says, to the T, is on tape and cannot be disputed. When a biographer is taking notes,its easy to miss essential details while trying to take down others. If there is no recorder present, there is no way to verify the truth 100%. So, whatever was spoken about is assumed true within the writing of the biography. Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:54:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505267 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505267 I think that the subjects that are less famous are sometimes even more incredible reads given that there may not be as much of a general accepted perception of that person. Its easy to argue with someone against a popular figure given the perception one has drawn for himself or herself based on news, articles etc.. Its another to discover someone completely new and judge them solely on what you've read about them in their book. Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:43:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505266 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505266 In today's world, it feels like everything needs to be summarized or needs to "get to the point". The focus is to highlight the big things when in fact the big things would have never become big had there not been small details in between. These small details are crucial to understanding the reasoning behind consequential life-changing events. And it just tells a better story. Some of the greatest stories are the ones with the richest detail and take pride in that detail. At one time, it was respected. Now its considered a nuisance. Had it not been for those small details, we would always be left wondering why? Sat, 09 Apr 2016 07:54:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505263 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505263 I completely agree with Ayannah on her statement that if the biographer hasn't stepped on a few toes, he is clearly not doing a good job. In a way, I feel that if the biographer has contributed to such an action, that means he has done his audience a favor for we all sometimes need to be reminded that golden figures are people too; they think, act and feel like we normal people do. Although we hope for the best, we are met with the worst but the worst is what can bring out our best. Fri, 01 Apr 2016 12:20:11 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505261 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505261 As a biographer, one has taken the responsibility upon herself/himself to tell a truthful and honest story. As much as we'd all like to believe every person, specifically public figures, have good intentions, have never done wrong by anyone, have a heart of gold, etc. most of the time, there are deeper, darker feelings hidden within, exposing the sinner part of a person. People want to believe in good but are consistently met with bad therefore, when a biographer writes a story about the "other side", people don't want to believe it, therefore criticize it. Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:50:36 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505259 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505259 I agree with Lynette that Benn's actions are hypocritical. If anything, I believe a biographer should have the right to expose someone's secrets given that he has been given the authority to by the subject himself. I suppose Michael Foot does not deal with it because whether or not it is true, it is not worth dealing with at this point given the woman is deceased for, should he fight against it, spectation will arise and what good does that bring him? Thu, 19 May 2016 07:21:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505256 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505256 I feel that Foot's joke reveals that he doesn't feel comfortable with the biographer getting any closer than he already has. Its one thing to talk to a person, its another to go to bed with them. He may be fearful of perhaps revealing much more than he already planned on. Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:46:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505255 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=505255 To get a more intimate understanding of their subject. Sort of like an "under the cover" view of who that person is. In this way, the biographer can see the naked parts of their subjects and can paint two very different sides. Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:45:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=504879 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=504879 Biographers and subjects cannot share the same bed because the bed is considered an intimate place where secrets and thoughts are shared, especially during the late night hours. If they were to share a bed, the biographer would be crossing a major professional boundary line and may even feel compelled to compose a biased or a more favorable opinion of his subject should his subject unintentionally reveal something too personal and as a follow-up asks to keep it a secret. Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:45:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499565 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499565 A biography is like a painting for it is an interpretation of its subject. A biography belongs to a biographer the way a painting belongs to a painter for it is really the biographer's perception that creates his/her subject's reality. What the biographer may think is real may not really be the truth for we all create our own understandings of life, how other people are etc. therefore a biography is really just that writer's point of view and should be read and understood with skeptism at some points or with "a grain of salt" at times. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:15:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499555 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499555 Amour Propre means self-image, how one sees themselves versus how the rest of the world may see them and has to do with building one's self-confidence. Journalists are prone to violating this because their job is to expose the truth and if their subject is hiding behind a made up image (like most of us are) and the writer exposes that, it could make said person feel insecure and question their motives. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:09:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499531 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499531 The journalist knew that by staying true to the portrayal of Michael Foot there would be some sort of backlash against him. He understood this but did not let it get in the way of his work. He stuck true to what he set out to do. And with that nobility, comes consequences. However crude, he stuck by his work. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:06:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499521 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499521 I agree more with Elvis on this one. The implications of treating people as "material" is to treat them with unbiases and take them for what they truly are rather than what they simply appear to be. Although sometimes it can be difficult to separate the two, in order to write a truthful story, the writer must see them as merely characters in a story, rather than friends. Sat, 21 May 2016 07:09:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499506 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=499506 Molly said it well and I couldn't agree more. Michael doesn't see the journalist as an invader for he has been invited into Michael's home to be told a story about Michael himself. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:00:23 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499476 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499476 No, there is no justice being served to the story that the novel has to tell based on the reporter's drafts. The novel is saying that journalism, or the basic concept of journalism as a "news" or "facts-only" outlet, limits the writers heavily to the point that it is no longer a story but just factual evidence strung together to mimic a scene. While that provides the reader a clear, supposedly unaltered view, it doesn't highlight any more than exactly what the reporter saw and heard. However, this could also be biased and/or edited to an extreme that you as the reader wouldn't know the difference, you would just believe the reporter and move on. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:57:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499464 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499464 I completely agree with Elvis on this one. The reporter is fed up with his editor for not allowing the reporter to write the way that he wishes but since this is his job, the only way he feels he can relieve some of his stress is through drinking. He angrily invites the editor to join him for maybe by getting drunk, the editor will remove the stick that is up his butt and end up paying for the drinks as well. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:55:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499443 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499443 It is now a certified "news" story rather than an "interesting" story. It is, for the most part, one long run-on sentence that states all of the necessary facts and is written in a "blah" tone. I definitely believe the reporter did this purposefully to mock the editor's preferred style. This new draft is closer to what the editor wants in the sense that it recites the basic 5 W's of reporting and is practically the reporter's notes written out, word by word with some conjunctions in between. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:54:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499429 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=499429 Because this was written during a time when literary journalism wasn't respected as another forum for telling the news, the copyboy may believe he is reading "the beginning of literature" because the piece reads like a fictional story, or in other words like Molly said above, a novel. In a way, considering it is mentioned that this boy is bright, ambitious and has dreams, the author could be using the boy as a symbol for what style will inspire the next generation of journalists; perhaps this same boy could be the one to instill this type of literary journalistic style as editor [himself] one day thus he is "the beginning of literature". As for the reporter, he may have discarded this piece because he was disappointed in himself that he can't seem to make his editor think twice about his original decision to NOT let the reporter report the way he wants to. Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:23:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494930 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494930 That even "serious" journalists engage in gossip or at the very minimum, can get hung up on it, even if for a few minutes. Fri, 20 May 2016 06:48:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494928 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494928 I agree with this comment as well. Its as if the journalists were a little too familiar with this woman's sexual affairs history that to them, they believed she didn't even believe in love, she just believed in getting laid and always ensured that she had someone by her side, hence she had a "spare" if needed be. ' Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:29:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494921 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494921 I may be overthinking this but I've read over the surrounding context quite a few times and I think what the reporter is being told about his relationship to the story is that although he's an outsider, when a subject is open about sharing their story given that the reporter is not directly related to it, its fair game. Hence, there is no protection or "disclaimer" needed for either the reporter or the storyteller. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:05:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494692 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=494692 This could be interpreted as according to the folks currently speaking, its not surprising to them that the woman is sleeping around or more specifically, between those two men. We can infer that this woman is perhaps known for being promiscuous thus its not news to them but could be new news to others. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:23:39 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=466688 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=466688 I think what the editor means by the “living breath of the news”, based around the context of the other lines as well, is that the reporter isn’t introducing a new story here or rather is not giving him any information that could direct/introduce a new lede on the current story [at hand]; rather the reporter is digging into the personal lives of the people involved, which the editor feels is irrelevant. I think the editor is expecting the reporter to do a little more investigative journalism rather than gossip journalism; find some sort of detail or topic that other papers wouldn’t have thought to find and use it to tell a more livelier story. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:02:21 -0500