Come on man…


As Daisey’s story unraveled and the truth was revealed through the incredibly awkward conversation between him and the journalist I realized that the new morals I thought I had discovered through his inspiring monologue were based off of lies. The retraction made me feel awkward at many moments but also very stupid. Why would I believe any security guard would be able to carry guns? When would that be normal? A more obvious example is the part that Daisey describes his taxi ride to a road that just ends. Why would I not realize this was made up or fake? He is talking about China not Haiti in his monologue.

Like I mentioned before the fact that I did not question why security guards would have guns is pretty amazing to me. This would not make sense in America or Europe but I must associate China with no rules. Which also does not make sense since it is a communist country. Doing simple research I could find an article about the gun laws and how harsh they are. http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/international/chinas-strict-gun-control-laws-not-enough-to-stop-violence. They actually are some of the most severe gun laws. I should have known this already so it is not surprising that the journalist immediately caught on to Daisey’s lie.

The podcast in a whole was again extremely interesting but disappointing. Though it is good to hear that conditions aren’t AS bad as Daisey describes them. The interview was very awkward with Daisey when questioning his facts. Daisey obviously knew what he was doing when he fabricated the story. This happens all the time among friends. You realize your story is cool but when you tell it the extra punch you need is not there. So rather than make a dumb comment you add a little bit to get your friend’s attention. That may be acceptable when telling stories with friends, but I would have never have guessed the monologue I heard last week was exaggerated or false. The second interview with Daisey gave it away and by the end I was irritated hearing him try to defend himself. The thirty second pauses and “well not exactly” responses really made me feel bad for TAL. Yeah I am disappointed in being fooled but a radio station used to give actual news and journalism was taken for granted as well. 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Come on man…

  1. Americans have a reputation abroad of being uninterested in foreign affairs. I think you make a very clear point that there is some validity behind that claim. We assume that what we are told is correct and rarely do the background research to confirm whether the stories we hear are fact or fiction.

  2. I like that you took the more human approach in your response. You gave us your reaction to the retraction in terms of how it made you feel and not its effects on Apple or Mr. Daisey. I enjoyed this – “The retraction made me feel awkward at many moments but also very stupid.” For me, this retraction podcast was incredibly awkward at points. Daisey dug himself into an even deeper hole throughout it and instead should have kept his mouth shut or simply admitted and acknowledged his lies.

  3. I love that you considered our roles in Daisey’s lies– maybe we were naïve to believe some of the things he said. It just goes to show how much faith we put in people that have various forms of authority. Because so many Americans know so little about the conditions in overseas factories, I think we considered Mike Daisey a source of knowledge on the subject. That could be the reason why so many people blindingly accepted his stories as truth. Knowledge is power, and Mike Daisey’s apparent “knowledge” gave him power over us as listeners.

  4. Detailing your gut feelings and reaction about the retraction in your blog really made it effective and genuine. In terms of getting a point across, giving a true emotional response holds a lot more value than simply stating the facts. While this is what Mr. Daisey was attempting to do in response to Apple’s use of the FoxConn plants, he coupled his passionate vendetta with lies and fabrications. Sure it wasn’t journalism, but if that’s the case then such things should be stated prior.

  5. I personally felt awkward while listening to the podcast at different times where Daisey was asked a straight-forward question and was literally silent for a full 60 seconds until he decided to answer the question. It’s funny to think how our perception of the first podcast to the second podcast has changed so significantly. Listening to some of the things Daisey said a second time makes me feel stupid for not questioning his details myself because they seem so obvious that they aren’t completely true. Especially the part about the guns that you mentioned in your post. Of course the guards wouldn’t be carrying guns.. Just like the factory workers wouldn’t be spending their time sipping coffee at Starbucks.

  6. I shared your feeling of stupidity as I listened to the retraction. As you mentioned, I also found myself wondering why I would have never questioned why security guards were carrying guns or why low wage workers were meeting in Starbucks’. After hearing reporters point out the obviously false facts, I can’t help but question why I didn’t think twice about some of the stuff that Daisy said in his story, especially since I have spent time in China. I thought your comment about viewing China as having “no rules” was very true, but I definitely should have known better. I am well aware of the overbearing rules and laws that govern the communist country, so why didn’t I question some of Daisy’s ridiculous statements?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s