1) When Michael Herr sought to “reveal” the Vietnam War, he knew that he had to take dramatic journalistic steps in order to do so. One of these was to write a novel about the war, Dispatches. In this book, he wrote about his own experiences during the war, making it a personal story about what he went through. This allows the reader to form a more intimate connection with the events that are being described. This elevates the information and provides an immediacy to it that makes the reader sit up and pay attention all the more.
The other method he used was to shy away from the big picture and tell the stories of individual soldiers, sharing their own experiences in both articles and Dispatches. He shied away from objectivity while still staying impartial to political bias. His most important priority was to tell the stories of the soldiers, as the tale of the Vietnam War was almost exclusively theirs. Their firsthand stories would provide a more accurate tale of the conflict and what was experienced than statistics and campaign movements.
2) In my estimation, the journalist Megyn Kelly, of Fox News, is a perfect example of a “dishonest” journalist, as Maggie Gallagher sees it. Megyn Kelly, in her discourse and her journalistic methods, always carries a Republican party agenda with her, regardless of cause or ethos. In a recent interview with Rep. John Weiner regarding Justice Scalia’s potential conflict of interest during a case, for example, she would constantly cut off and debate with Weiner when it was clear he was not giving her the answers she wanted to hear, resorting to open contempt for his perceived lack of knowledge about the subject, despite the fact that he had been called by her to be interviewed, not simply agree with her assessment.
Kelly does not so much fight for a cause as she does a party; whatever the Republican party stance is on an issue, she is there to defend it, and takes such steps as cutting off whoever might provide viable, alternative perspective on that issue.
3) Truman Capote’s techniques in “The Last to See them Alive” helped to create a more objective, multifaceted assessment of the situation, bringing the tale closer to truth than would any other technique. By fluidly mixing fact with perspective (on both sides of the case), Capote showed what both parties were thinking, and also presented it in a narrative manner that flowed much more smoothly than would a rote statement of the facts from a single side. At the same time, there is a potential risk for narrative bias, as the emphasis of some characters over others mean that some people get the short shrift in the narrative; if their stories are not as interesting, they may not be as well emphasized.
The emphasis of narrative license over simple reporting certainly spices up the prose itself, but it risks romanticizing certain details to the point where they are inaccurate. When one does this, careful steps must be taken to ensure complete journalistic truth, while still wrapping the story up in a pretty bow for the reader. In this case, Capote manages to successfully toe the line between an interesting read and an accurate picture of the crime.
1) That quote is most certainly Tom Wolfe; he typically writes about male-centric things such as racecars and driving. He is very fond of immediate information, lists, and the visceral sensations that normally eschew detail for the quick picture. His journalistic style is very immediate and rushed, simply writing what he wanted to say instead of diluting his message with proofreading or convention. He often switches between observed scientific information and colloquialisms to make an emotional and objective point. He is very detail and sensory-oriented, using sights and sounds to paint a vivid image for the reader. The use and repetition of colors, for instance, helps to size up the scene, and I believe that is something that Tom Wolfe would do, not coloring the story with prose.
2) I would guess that this quote came from Hunter S. Thompson. His writing is also very visceral, but has more narrative punch to it. It is also a lot raunchier, discussing orgies and hell. He inserts himself in his own narratives as a character, as opposed to Wolfe, who is merely describing the things around him. The narrator’s use of shouting and profanity is almost certainly the same kind of desperate, Tourette’s-like outburst that Thompson would perform. He also tends to be obsessed with Heaven and Hell, using Biblical figures and speech in his prose. The character/narrator is very temperamental and quick to anger, possibly as a result of a drug influence. These factors and more are what lead me to believe that this quote comes from Thompson.