Looking back to last week when I listened to Mike Daisey’s monologue I feel very foolish now for even believing him. Although he was very convincing, he deceived his audience by failing to disclose the fact that his story was not entirely true. Many of his facts were exaggerated and some things did not even happen entirely.
This dilemma brought up the discussion between telling a story and being a reporter. Mike Daisey is clearly telling a story because it is merely based on true incidents instead of actually stating the facts as they happened. His story about Foxconn was told in a way that influenced his audience to have negative feelings towards Apple. He did so by getting in touch with people’s emotions and using those feelings to make an impact. On the other hand, a reporter would state the facts that he or she saw and then let their audience decide on how they feel about that issue.
There is a clear distinction between the two, which makes me feel that Mike Daisey was in the wrong lying about what he claimed were facts. Daisey was very deceitful, which makes me wonder why exactly did he lie in the first place? Was it just for the publicity or was there something else behind the lies? I think that if he had just told his story of what happened while he was in China people would have responded in a similar fashion. However, now that he has confessed to some of these lies, the fact that he lied about his story is being talked about more than the actual problem at hand. I am sure the working condition in Foxconn and other factories are terrible, but that has been overlooked now because Mike Daisey lied in his story and nobody knows what to believe anymore. Overall, I think it was very wrong of Mike Daisey to have lied about such an important issue and he definitely lost his credibility moving forward.