What were Mike Daisey’s intentions? Was he attempting to portray some sense of truth while performing his monologue, or was it an expression of his view of society? Trying to read into the way he answered questions during the interview made it seem like he was not being sincere while apologizing. Even though the listener isn’t able to see his facial expressions during the interview, I could only imagine. He was just like a politician trying to answer a question about his position on a controversial topic, instead of answering it truthfully; he attempted to hide his answers through hidden answers.
That is what really made me angry. I related with Ira Glass of TAL because I was also irritated by his inability to answer truthfully. All he needed to do was come forward and say that he made a mistake and he regrets his actions. He profited from his lies and gained a lot of the fame for what he said. He was interviewed by some of the biggest news station in the world while spreading his lie. Even though there may be some truth to his words, some of the most heart wrenching stories he told were untrue. Then after ending the program he was able to think about how he wanted to protect himself from future questioning by arguing that it was just a skit. But how was he still performing a monologue when he was acting as a journalist and speaking to news sources. He did seem to feel some type of regret from having his monologue being aired on TAL. But the truth is that it is very easy to feel remorse after being caught instead of coming out and stating that you lied to people.
I have no issue with Mike Daisey performing the monologue on a stage and giving the audience the ability to interpret the truth behind his words. His intention is what really matters. Was he trying to persuade that audience that these actions really happened or is it obvious enough that this is mostly fiction. I give him credit if he can convince an audience that it is true even though it is not. What bothers me is if someone comes up to him after the performance and asks him whether the situations actually occurred. If he says yes then this makes it seem like he is lying to his audience. Art is one thing, while investigative reporting is a very different expressive work. As you can tell I was very angry with Mike Daisey but the reality of the situation is that I should have known better. Even though someone may say something that seems like the truth, it doesn’t mean it is. As I said earlier in this blog post, he is just like a politician; you need to fact check everything they say.