Check here for assignments, resources, clarifications, comments. Use the comment box for your responses. Come here often. Oh, and remember, when someone asks you what AP English Language and Composition is about tell them "argument" and "rhetoric".
Personally, I was shocked that Daisey’s story wasn’t entirely true. I thought that every bit of that story seemed true due to the emotion that Daisey put into it. However, it’s apparent that his rhetorical tactics were able to convince me that his deceit was truth. When I listened to Daisey and Ira on the radio, I thought Daisey did a good job apologizing for his deceptive actions. However, I was a little skeptical of his sincerity since he could have been using more of his rhetorical tactics to get the audience to believe him. It might sound cynical, but due to his deception (which has been revealed before); I can’t help but wonder if he truly is sorry. However, the fact that the interview was very awkward for Daisey supports that he is sincere. However, it was pathetic of Daisey to keep trying to defend his actions by saying he “wanted to unpack complexities on how the story was told”. This really exposed the desperation to try and cover up his lie. He also said that the story was still true, but just put on the wrong show. I found it ridiculous that Daisey tried to continue this charade. Luckily, Ira echoed my thoughts by asking Daisey if he was kidding in a sarcastic tone.
The truth is important, whether it be in non-fiction writing such as journalism, or in presidential campaigns and governmental debates. It is part of our human nature to prefer the truth, and seek it out in all of our sources. No one likes being lied to, but lately the lines between what makes a lie have been smudged. Currently in our society, people are stretching the truth to such a degree that their tales could be considered just that, stories. I have had a first person encounter with an event such as this. We have spent time in class listening to the supposedly “personal encounters” of Mike Daisy at the Apple manufacturing factory, Foxconn. For the most part, my class found the interview with him very interesting. We all had feedback on this interview, and we all trusted it to be 100% accurate. Some of us even used him as a source in a following research paper. Yesterday though, the news reached us that the stories Mr. Daisy told were not his own, but taken from others, and some actually never occurred. It enrages me that Mr. Daisy did this and tried to decieve all his viewers. He did not even seem apologetic in his follow-up interview with “This American Life”. He did seem nervous that he got caught, though. He was stuttering while answering, taking extremely long and dramatic pauses, and using an extensive vocabulary to confuse his interviewer. He even admitted that his story did not meet the standards of journalism, but he then excused this with the fact that he was an actor so it shouldn't have to follow the rules of journalism. .Mike Daisy forfeits information, but yet still expects his cause to be important. He does not realize that falsifying information makes it harder to appeal to his audience's sense of ethos, which causes his argument to be less effective. It really enrages me that a trusted individual like Mike Daisy lied in his monologue, and expected to not get caught. I wonder if he was given the chance of doing it all over and not getting caught, what he would do?
I was irritated that Daisey did not tell the whole truth, mainly because I really believed every word he was saying. The follow up to his original radio show proves that by using rhetoric techniques, a convincing argument can be made. On the bright side, I got something out of Daisey’s lie. It made it clearer to me how to make a stronger argument; the tone of voice must me convincing. I lost respect for Daisey when I found out that he lied, but I lost even more respect for him when he kept saying that his story is “true in the context of the theater” rather than just admitting he lied. I did feel some sympathy for him though when he said he tricked the people at This American Life into vouching for him when he said that he did it because it is a “work that I know is really good…that makes people care…would come apart and ruin everything” if they found out it wasn’t true. Daisey did have a point there; his story made me care. If I knew all along that it wasn’t entirely true I probably would not have felt sorry for the harsh conditions at Foxconn. Daisey’s story is no longer a credible source of information, which greatly affects the synthesis essay I wrote since I wrote an entire paragraph on the conditions at Foxconn using his made up information. It makes me skeptical of Daisey’s other stories and the information that he claims is true. I like the way Ira confronted Daisey. He portrayed Daisey’s continuous excuses are ridiculous and caught Daisey off guard. Ira did a good job of proving to the audience that Daisey’s story is fiction.
I wasn’t completely surprised that not everything in his story was true. After all, I figured he probably exaggerated a point here or there for purposes of convincing the audience, but I am surprised that so much of that monologue was made up or simply stolen from other sources without crediting them. And what really annoyed me was the fact that his story could have been just as strong without some of those irrelevant details or by crediting other sources. The people who are listening do not care if this all happened to the man who is talking, they care that it happened. And his excuse for his actions was incredible. The idea that just because you are on stage and not submitting your story as strict journalism gets you off the hook for deceiving your audience is laughable. Because if someone stood on stage and said, “This really happened to me”, I’m not going to think, “I wonder what newspaper he stole this story from”. His apology also left a lot to be desired. He claims he was sorry that he let the story get put on This American Life, and he probably is. Or, he’s sorry he got caught. The worst part is how he rationalizes not apologizing for telling the story in the first place, because it “was in the context of theater” as if that somehow means that everyone knew that this story was only partly factual. So I suppose I understand at a very base level why he lied, I just think it was foolish in the first place, when the story would have been just as compelling without the made up parts.
I was shocked upon learning that these events depicted in Mike Daisey’s account of the foxcon factory were not true. When listening to the original monologue I could hear, at least thought I could hear the emotion in his voice when he spoke of these events. The fact that he went out of his way and created events and interactions with people that don’t even exist is appalling. But the only reason I am reacting like this is because the way this story was presented to me. When I listened to this on “This American Life” I was listening as if this was a true account of a prominent problem due to american consumerism. I also used this monologue in an essay discussing consumerism related to our nation and how it affects the world. In this sense what he did was amazingly wrong and I can not believe he presented the story in this way. But, the story was not originally presented as a piece of journalism or meant to be a revealing story. In the sense that Daisey displayed this story as a theatrical monologue makes the “lies” less offensive. We have all watched powerful moving films that are based on real events but the characters and situations were made up. When people watch these they don’t feel offended by lies, they just accept the script as a script. If I went to see a man on stage present a monologue I would not take it as an actual truth but I would believe that it had the same moving quality as truth. And as Ira pointed out, many of these events were not experienced first hand by Daisey but he read about them and used them to make a STORY better. So he wasn’t even lying exactly because if these events actually happened then how can you call it a lie and why would it be taken any less seriously just because it happened, but not to the man telling you. The only mistake Daisey made was going to a Journalistic context with his story and presenting it as truth. As a theatrical monologue I find nothing wrong with this script and believe he should continue to present his story.
When I first heard about the retraction of Daisey’s This American Life, I felt bad for Daisey, imagining the awkward situation he must find himself in. However, listening to the interview, most of the sympathy I have for him is erased. He refuses to admit that anything he said is wrong, and it takes far too long for him to even admit that putting his program on “This American Life” was a bad decision. His excuse of “truth in the theater” is ridiculous, and Ira Glass has no qualms about pointing it out. The thing that bothers me, and that has been discussed, is that it is possible to achieve the same emotional effect through the use of specific language choices and information. He didn’t bother; he took what even he called a “shortcut.” He says that he did this because he felt strangely about the issue, which I believe, but that does not excuse his laziness in lying. I think Ira Glass is right. I think he is kidding himself about the “truth in theater.” For me the final straw was him refusing to admit that it might be a good idea to add a disclaimer on his stage show, despite Ira talking about how everyone takes his words as truth, no matter how he meant them. He lies and manipulated for what he might see as a good cause, but he doesn’t get to play god. He has to follow the same truth telling rules as everyone else, even if that means going about it the hard way. He does NOT have the moral high ground on this issue, despite what he might think.
One thing that really struck me when I was listening to this was how Daisey's previously calm and persuasive voice transformed into frightened and stuttering one that now reminds me almost of a mouse. He's obviously afraid (even though he tries to deny it) and I do feel bad for him because in reality, who hasn't been in his position of being caught in a lie? And Daisey had the extreme misfortune of being caught in a lie that meant something to a lot of people; at least a couple hundred thousand, maybe even a million if you judge by the number of times the episode has been downloaded since January. Being caught lying to one person can be excruciating. I can't even imagine being caught lying to the amount of people Daisey was. None of this makes me feel any less furious at Daisey for lying though. I completely agree with what was said in class today; although Daisey's story was powerful, it was a story and in trying to make an impact on people he took shortcuts. I think that he could have achieved the same effect he was searching for by advertising it as a short work of realistic fiction that had true facts, but wasn't an actual event. But in all honesty, if he really just wanted to have people care about problems facing workers in China, I'd say he achieved it. People stopped and listened. The cost of this no doubt outweighed its success, seeing as it's made This American Life seem less trustworthy, although this is balanced out by the lengths Ira Glass and Brian Greene go to remedy the problem. They didn't need to devote an entire show to the problem, or mention it on the air at all but they wanted the truth to be told. Ira was particularly upset by the whole thing. I could hear the humiliation and anger in his voice all throughout the show, especially when he was talking to Daisey which was the most frustrating section of the show. Daisey refused to admit he was wrong. Instead, he beat around the bush and tried evading the question. Not once did he just come out and say simply, “I was wrong,” and when he admitted he had lied he attempted to justify it. He even suggested that the only thing he did wrong was put it on the radio as journalism, because on stage it would be theatrically true and because of this, okay which is ridiculous. This whole experience has been good for me however. I have a tendency to trust people on their word, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but Daisey's lies have made me aware that not everything should be taken as truth, especially when I'm citing a source in a paper although I didn't use much of Daisey's monologue for my essay.
When I started to hear the retraction of Mr. Daisy's This American Life, i was instantly upset. I lost so much respect for him, but at the same time I felt badly for him. I understand that he regretted putting his "meant for the theater" piece on This American Life which is meant for truthful journalism. His piece was the opposite of truthful. The fact checking on his piece was inconsistent and the team behind that should have realized when Mr. Daisy "couldn't" give them his interpreters number, that they should have cancelled the show. Throughout the interview(s), Mr. Daisy refused to admit he was totally wrong. When suggested that he should tell people that it isn't truthful, he refused. That's what bothers me the most. How hard can it really be? He lied his way to fame. making people feel emotionally connected and badly after hearing this. Most of the details were false. He refused to completely admit he was wrong. This guy has to play by the rules. Journalism is honest truth, if he wanted to make things up and lie, he should take his work elsewhere. I am very disappointed in him, because i too believed his story and everything about it. Hearing how most of it was false confused me and made me feel stupid for believing in his story and him.
It was definitely unexpected to hear that Daisey’s words about the Apple Factory were not entirely true. Especially after using these words to make an argument of my own that supported some of the same points that he was making and that I had believed to be true. I had not given any thought at all to the verity of Daisey’s words upon first hearing his monologue, especially because it was being played on such a prominent radio station. Also because it was being shared in our classroom and I would not think that information given to us for an essay would be untrue. However, all of these assumptions were inaccurate because the things that Daisey said happened to him really did not. Things that he told the radio station, like that Kathy’s real name was Anna and that he did not want them to contact her because he did not think she would want to be in his monologue, turned out to be completely false. There were so many tiny details that were just made up or that he may have heard about happening in the area and decided to tweak them to include them in the monologue. These instances were so reoccurring that the entire story and message of what he was trying to say became completely blocked off. Daisey said he was terrified that if he unpacked all these things, then the work he did that makes people care would come apart and ruin everything. He was certainly right when he said this because now that I know what he was doing, the meaning of the monologue has completely lost purpose for me. After having this experience with a source that I had used in one of my own essays, I most certainly will be paying much more attention to where I am getting my information and I will surely be more skeptical of the things I am reading or hearing in any publication, no matter how factual and accurate it may seem.
Mike Daisy’s original story had a great impact on me. When first hearing the story, it made me upset with Apple, but after the retraction made, my anger turned on Mike. As I listened to the radio show, I was first irritated, and I found myself dismissing every excuse Mike made. However, as the show went on, I could feel the pressure Ira was putting Daisy under. Mike’s explanations became long and apologetic. I am a pushover, so my emotions got the best of me, and I began to feel some sympathy for Mike. I felt as if Ira had put Daisy on the spot and was extremely harsh on him. Because Daisy embarrassed This American Life, I can see why Ira would be upset, but in the moment, I was a bit taken back. I soon lost those feelings, and saw Daisy’s ridiculous character. Daisy volunteered to come back on the show because he had something to say. He came back to give Ira the satisfaction that he recognized his story wasn’t journalism. However, Daisy would not let go of the fact that he had created a great story, and in the field of theater, the story wasn’t false. This ridiculous conclusion made me grow more and more aggravated. Daisy has a cockiness that is quite obvious on the show. This characteristic destroyed the ethos his admirers might have had in his work, including Ira. Ira tells him that he had listened and believed in his work, and he is dissapointed. This didn’t seem to phase Mike, or change his thoughts about his work. According to Daisy, it was a great story, just not for the show. Mike Daisy insulted many people in his false work. His manipulative ways destroyed the trust people had in his stories, and angered not only me but anyone that has heard this retraction, or been impacted by his stories.
Firstly, I have to say that it really doesn't matter to me whether or not Mike Daisey's narrative "held up to journalistic standards" as far as accuracy of events, that is, i don't mind that Daisey embellished the story, so long as the content is true, which, for the most part it is. The only lie I found that was not in narrative, but in fact, was the statement that Claw-hand guy had worked at Foxconn. (oh yeah, i forgot that he lied about the under-aged workers, too, but both of these scenarios do occur, just not as frequently as Daisey made them seem). Although, while the fudging and "short cuts" don't bother me, I like Matthew, am not too surprised that Daisey's account is not entirely factual. I just didn't trust that anything that entertaining, to say the least, was true. Shoot, there was something else i had wnated to say and now i'm not sure if i've already said it or if i've forgotten it. anywho, I'll conclude by saying that I love Elizabeth's description of the change in Daisey's voice. I think that this is also mainly what any audience would base its opinion of daisey on, whatever he said. we all believed him preceisely because he could command himself so well in performance, and we all think of him as a poltry wart when he's scraping for any scraps of credibility while whining and nearly crying during his interrogation. not only was his work fictitious, but the his carriage while performing , true to an actor, is also fictitious. In the end, though, Daisey's work is truly beautiful and I suppose that it did do just as he wanted it to and make the general public concerned about the invisible episode pre-consumption of their apple products, however seductive the cult of apple is in hand. That is where Daisey's story is a tragedy. He has a great talent, a flaw that is like to a father's pride in his works, and this ruins him and all he has created. But true to a tragic character, I can't really sympathize so long as he does not acknowledge his membership not only in the cult of apple, but in the cult of being object of his works, that is, of a desperation to make a perfect piece to the point of fudging, even just a little, instead of relying purely on talent.
Personally, I was shocked that Daisey’s story wasn’t entirely true. I thought that every bit of that story seemed true due to the emotion that Daisey put into it. However, it’s apparent that his rhetorical tactics were able to convince me that his deceit was truth.
ReplyDeleteWhen I listened to Daisey and Ira on the radio, I thought Daisey did a good job apologizing for his deceptive actions. However, I was a little skeptical of his sincerity since he could have been using more of his rhetorical tactics to get the audience to believe him. It might sound cynical, but due to his deception (which has been revealed before); I can’t help but wonder if he truly is sorry. However, the fact that the interview was very awkward for Daisey supports that he is sincere. However, it was pathetic of Daisey to keep trying to defend his actions by saying he “wanted to unpack complexities on how the story was told”. This really exposed the desperation to try and cover up his lie. He also said that the story was still true, but just put on the wrong show. I found it ridiculous that Daisey tried to continue this charade. Luckily, Ira echoed my thoughts by asking Daisey if he was kidding in a sarcastic tone.
The truth is important, whether it be in non-fiction writing such as journalism, or in presidential campaigns and governmental debates. It is part of our human nature to prefer the truth, and seek it out in all of our sources. No one likes being lied to, but lately the lines between what makes a lie have been smudged. Currently in our society, people are stretching the truth to such a degree that their tales could be considered just that, stories.
ReplyDeleteI have had a first person encounter with an event such as this. We have spent time in class listening to the supposedly “personal encounters” of Mike Daisy at the Apple manufacturing factory, Foxconn. For the most part, my class found the interview with him very interesting. We all had feedback on this interview, and we all trusted it to be 100% accurate. Some of us even used him as a source in a following research paper. Yesterday though, the news reached us that the stories Mr. Daisy told were not his own, but taken from others, and some actually never occurred. It enrages me that Mr. Daisy did this and tried to decieve all his viewers. He did not even seem apologetic in his follow-up interview with “This American Life”. He did seem nervous that he got caught, though. He was stuttering while answering, taking extremely long and dramatic pauses, and using an extensive vocabulary to confuse his interviewer. He even admitted that his story did not meet the standards of journalism, but he then excused this with the fact that he was an actor so it shouldn't have to follow the rules of journalism. .Mike Daisy forfeits information, but yet still expects his cause to be important. He does not realize that falsifying information makes it harder to appeal to his audience's sense of ethos, which causes his argument to be less effective. It really enrages me that a trusted individual like Mike Daisy lied in his monologue, and expected to not get caught. I wonder if he was given the chance of doing it all over and not getting caught, what he would do?
I was irritated that Daisey did not tell the whole truth, mainly because I really believed every word he was saying. The follow up to his original radio show proves that by using rhetoric techniques, a convincing argument can be made. On the bright side, I got something out of Daisey’s lie. It made it clearer to me how to make a stronger argument; the tone of voice must me convincing. I lost respect for Daisey when I found out that he lied, but I lost even more respect for him when he kept saying that his story is “true in the context of the theater” rather than just admitting he lied. I did feel some sympathy for him though when he said he tricked the people at This American Life into vouching for him when he said that he did it because it is a “work that I know is really good…that makes people care…would come apart and ruin everything” if they found out it wasn’t true. Daisey did have a point there; his story made me care. If I knew all along that it wasn’t entirely true I probably would not have felt sorry for the harsh conditions at Foxconn. Daisey’s story is no longer a credible source of information, which greatly affects the synthesis essay I wrote since I wrote an entire paragraph on the conditions at Foxconn using his made up information. It makes me skeptical of Daisey’s other stories and the information that he claims is true. I like the way Ira confronted Daisey. He portrayed Daisey’s continuous excuses are ridiculous and caught Daisey off guard. Ira did a good job of proving to the audience that Daisey’s story is fiction.
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t completely surprised that not everything in his story was true. After all, I figured he probably exaggerated a point here or there for purposes of convincing the audience, but I am surprised that so much of that monologue was made up or simply stolen from other sources without crediting them. And what really annoyed me was the fact that his story could have been just as strong without some of those irrelevant details or by crediting other sources. The people who are listening do not care if this all happened to the man who is talking, they care that it happened.
ReplyDeleteAnd his excuse for his actions was incredible. The idea that just because you are on stage and not submitting your story as strict journalism gets you off the hook for deceiving your audience is laughable. Because if someone stood on stage and said, “This really happened to me”, I’m not going to think, “I wonder what newspaper he stole this story from”. His apology also left a lot to be desired. He claims he was sorry that he let the story get put on This American Life, and he probably is. Or, he’s sorry he got caught. The worst part is how he rationalizes not apologizing for telling the story in the first place, because it “was in the context of theater” as if that somehow means that everyone knew that this story was only partly factual. So I suppose I understand at a very base level why he lied, I just think it was foolish in the first place, when the story would have been just as compelling without the made up parts.
I was shocked upon learning that these events depicted in Mike Daisey’s account of the foxcon factory were not true. When listening to the original monologue I could hear, at least thought I could hear the emotion in his voice when he spoke of these events. The fact that he went out of his way and created events and interactions with people that don’t even exist is appalling. But the only reason I am reacting like this is because the way this story was presented to me. When I listened to this on “This American Life” I was listening as if this was a true account of a prominent problem due to american consumerism. I also used this monologue in an essay discussing consumerism related to our nation and how it affects the world. In this sense what he did was amazingly wrong and I can not believe he presented the story in this way. But, the story was not originally presented as a piece of journalism or meant to be a revealing story. In the sense that Daisey displayed this story as a theatrical monologue makes the “lies” less offensive. We have all watched powerful moving films that are based on real events but the characters and situations were made up. When people watch these they don’t feel offended by lies, they just accept the script as a script. If I went to see a man on stage present a monologue I would not take it as an actual truth but I would believe that it had the same moving quality as truth. And as Ira pointed out, many of these events were not experienced first hand by Daisey but he read about them and used them to make a STORY better. So he wasn’t even lying exactly because if these events actually happened then how can you call it a lie and why would it be taken any less seriously just because it happened, but not to the man telling you. The only mistake Daisey made was going to a Journalistic context with his story and presenting it as truth. As a theatrical monologue I find nothing wrong with this script and believe he should continue to present his story.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard about the retraction of Daisey’s This American Life, I felt bad for Daisey, imagining the awkward situation he must find himself in. However, listening to the interview, most of the sympathy I have for him is erased. He refuses to admit that anything he said is wrong, and it takes far too long for him to even admit that putting his program on “This American Life” was a bad decision. His excuse of “truth in the theater” is ridiculous, and Ira Glass has no qualms about pointing it out. The thing that bothers me, and that has been discussed, is that it is possible to achieve the same emotional effect through the use of specific language choices and information. He didn’t bother; he took what even he called a “shortcut.” He says that he did this because he felt strangely about the issue, which I believe, but that does not excuse his laziness in lying. I think Ira Glass is right. I think he is kidding himself about the “truth in theater.” For me the final straw was him refusing to admit that it might be a good idea to add a disclaimer on his stage show, despite Ira talking about how everyone takes his words as truth, no matter how he meant them. He lies and manipulated for what he might see as a good cause, but he doesn’t get to play god. He has to follow the same truth telling rules as everyone else, even if that means going about it the hard way. He does NOT have the moral high ground on this issue, despite what he might think.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that really struck me when I was listening to this was how Daisey's previously calm and persuasive voice transformed into frightened and stuttering one that now reminds me almost of a mouse. He's obviously afraid (even though he tries to deny it) and I do feel bad for him because in reality, who hasn't been in his position of being caught in a lie? And Daisey had the extreme misfortune of being caught in a lie that meant something to a lot of people; at least a couple hundred thousand, maybe even a million if you judge by the number of times the episode has been downloaded since January. Being caught lying to one person can be excruciating. I can't even imagine being caught lying to the amount of people Daisey was. None of this makes me feel any less furious at Daisey for lying though. I completely agree with what was said in class today; although Daisey's story was powerful, it was a story and in trying to make an impact on people he took shortcuts. I think that he could have achieved the same effect he was searching for by advertising it as a short work of realistic fiction that had true facts, but wasn't an actual event. But in all honesty, if he really just wanted to have people care about problems facing workers in China, I'd say he achieved it. People stopped and listened. The cost of this no doubt outweighed its success, seeing as it's made This American Life seem less trustworthy, although this is balanced out by the lengths Ira Glass and Brian Greene go to remedy the problem. They didn't need to devote an entire show to the problem, or mention it on the air at all but they wanted the truth to be told. Ira was particularly upset by the whole thing. I could hear the humiliation and anger in his voice all throughout the show, especially when he was talking to Daisey which was the most frustrating section of the show. Daisey refused to admit he was wrong. Instead, he beat around the bush and tried evading the question. Not once did he just come out and say simply, “I was wrong,” and when he admitted he had lied he attempted to justify it. He even suggested that the only thing he did wrong was put it on the radio as journalism, because on stage it would be theatrically true and because of this, okay which is ridiculous. This whole experience has been good for me however. I have a tendency to trust people on their word, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but Daisey's lies have made me aware that not everything should be taken as truth, especially when I'm citing a source in a paper although I didn't use much of Daisey's monologue for my essay.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started to hear the retraction of Mr. Daisy's This American Life, i was instantly upset. I lost so much respect for him, but at the same time I felt badly for him. I understand that he regretted putting his "meant for the theater" piece on This American Life which is meant for truthful journalism. His piece was the opposite of truthful. The fact checking on his piece was inconsistent and the team behind that should have realized when Mr. Daisy "couldn't" give them his interpreters number, that they should have cancelled the show. Throughout the interview(s), Mr. Daisy refused to admit he was totally wrong. When suggested that he should tell people that it isn't truthful, he refused. That's what bothers me the most. How hard can it really be? He lied his way to fame. making people feel emotionally connected and badly after hearing this. Most of the details were false. He refused to completely admit he was wrong. This guy has to play by the rules. Journalism is honest truth, if he wanted to make things up and lie, he should take his work elsewhere. I am very disappointed in him, because i too believed his story and everything about it. Hearing how most of it was false confused me and made me feel stupid for believing in his story and him.
ReplyDeleteIt was definitely unexpected to hear that Daisey’s words about the Apple Factory were not entirely true. Especially after using these words to make an argument of my own that supported some of the same points that he was making and that I had believed to be true. I had not given any thought at all to the verity of Daisey’s words upon first hearing his monologue, especially because it was being played on such a prominent radio station. Also because it was being shared in our classroom and I would not think that information given to us for an essay would be untrue. However, all of these assumptions were inaccurate because the things that Daisey said happened to him really did not. Things that he told the radio station, like that Kathy’s real name was Anna and that he did not want them to contact her because he did not think she would want to be in his monologue, turned out to be completely false. There were so many tiny details that were just made up or that he may have heard about happening in the area and decided to tweak them to include them in the monologue. These instances were so reoccurring that the entire story and message of what he was trying to say became completely blocked off. Daisey said he was terrified that if he unpacked all these things, then the work he did that makes people care would come apart and ruin everything. He was certainly right when he said this because now that I know what he was doing, the meaning of the monologue has completely lost purpose for me. After having this experience with a source that I had used in one of my own essays, I most certainly will be paying much more attention to where I am getting my information and I will surely be more skeptical of the things I am reading or hearing in any publication, no matter how factual and accurate it may seem.
ReplyDeleteMike Daisy’s original story had a great impact on me. When first hearing the story, it made me upset with Apple, but after the retraction made, my anger turned on Mike. As I listened to the radio show, I was first irritated, and I found myself dismissing every excuse Mike made. However, as the show went on, I could feel the pressure Ira was putting Daisy under. Mike’s explanations became long and apologetic. I am a pushover, so my emotions got the best of me, and I began to feel some sympathy for Mike. I felt as if Ira had put Daisy on the spot and was extremely harsh on him. Because Daisy embarrassed This American Life, I can see why Ira would be upset, but in the moment, I was a bit taken back. I soon lost those feelings, and saw Daisy’s ridiculous character.
ReplyDeleteDaisy volunteered to come back on the show because he had something to say. He came back to give Ira the satisfaction that he recognized his story wasn’t journalism. However, Daisy would not let go of the fact that he had created a great story, and in the field of theater, the story wasn’t false. This ridiculous conclusion made me grow more and more aggravated. Daisy has a cockiness that is quite obvious on the show. This characteristic destroyed the ethos his admirers might have had in his work, including Ira. Ira tells him that he had listened and believed in his work, and he is dissapointed. This didn’t seem to phase Mike, or change his thoughts about his work. According to Daisy, it was a great story, just not for the show.
Mike Daisy insulted many people in his false work. His manipulative ways destroyed the trust people had in his stories, and angered not only me but anyone that has heard this retraction, or been impacted by his stories.
Firstly, I have to say that it really doesn't matter to me whether or not Mike Daisey's narrative "held up to journalistic standards" as far as accuracy of events, that is, i don't mind that Daisey embellished the story, so long as the content is true, which, for the most part it is. The only lie I found that was not in narrative, but in fact, was the statement that Claw-hand guy had worked at Foxconn. (oh yeah, i forgot that he lied about the under-aged workers, too, but both of these scenarios do occur, just not as frequently as Daisey made them seem). Although, while the fudging and "short cuts" don't bother me, I like Matthew, am not too surprised that Daisey's account is not entirely factual. I just didn't trust that anything that entertaining, to say the least, was true. Shoot, there was something else i had wnated to say and now i'm not sure if i've already said it or if i've forgotten it. anywho, I'll conclude by saying that I love Elizabeth's description of the change in Daisey's voice. I think that this is also mainly what any audience would base its opinion of daisey on, whatever he said. we all believed him preceisely because he could command himself so well in performance, and we all think of him as a poltry wart when he's scraping for any scraps of credibility while whining and nearly crying during his interrogation. not only was his work fictitious, but the his carriage while performing , true to an actor, is also fictitious. In the end, though, Daisey's work is truly beautiful and I suppose that it did do just as he wanted it to and make the general public concerned about the invisible episode pre-consumption of their apple products, however seductive the cult of apple is in hand. That is where Daisey's story is a tragedy. He has a great talent, a flaw that is like to a father's pride in his works, and this ruins him and all he has created. But true to a tragic character, I can't really sympathize so long as he does not acknowledge his membership not only in the cult of apple, but in the cult of being object of his works, that is, of a desperation to make a perfect piece to the point of fudging, even just a little, instead of relying purely on talent.
ReplyDelete