The Role of Journalism Is Revisited As A Result of the “Shoe Incident” Too

There’s one more thing that the shoe incident introduces into the fold of public discussion: what to make of the journalists we have. Although the jury is still out when it has to do with Mr. Muntander Zaidi’s act as one appropriate for reporters or not, it does mark a change in perception that people who work for the press are not drones who only mimic the talking points of those who have the most money or political influence.

It is refreshing to see someone in the press corps act with a mind and feeling of his own unlike his other Stepford colleagues–especially when it had to do with a policy that has been questioned and criticized across the globe.

Some of the criticism that has been flying around journalism circles is whether Mr. Zaidi would have expressed his point another way by asking probing questions of President Bush about the welfare of the Iraqi people. Knowing how the 43rd leader of the United States doesn’t give a straight answer and refuses to express true remorse for what happened, the inquiring remarks probably would have been dodged in true Bushian style. After all, have we ever seen the so-called “leader of the free world” thoughtfully ruminate on anything during his presidency?

The true question that needs to be asked is whether enough is enough for not only the consumer of the news, but its producers as well.

We’ve had eight years of cheerleading sycophants telling us current events daily. Few journalists have had the courage to even take a step that deviates from the utter obedience of the American press establishment. So, when a reporter acts “out of turn”, if you will, it is a very big deal in the United States–if not the rest of the world.

The thing that stands out in this entire episode is that a journalist somewhere in the world was finally allowed to express his or her opinion that wasn’t corporate or ideology influenced. How many times in the United States would you ever see a journalist truly speak his or her mind without it being weighed by news directors, producers, or even the heads of a given network? A true reaction about current events is something that we don’t see reporters express enough. This goes beyond being “objective” (in which the pundits, anchors, correspondents, commentators, and stringers are not).

To sum it up entirely, this is about cutting the puppet strings of moneyed influences. News stories that directly affect everyday people should be covered–not what some targeted advertising market wants to hear. As a result of the media paying court to a particular audience, there are many stories that get passed over. Consequently, viewers from marginalized groups who do not measure up to what the advertising markets target are often forgotten.

So is it time for a new class of reporters to emerge without the corporate backing and the high powered ties? Would they be more capable of reporting the news because they do not answer to the political and corporate establishment in terms of shaping their stories?

I’d be curious to hear Mrs. Alan Greenspan’s answer.


Tags: , , ,

2 Responses to “The Role of Journalism Is Revisited As A Result of the “Shoe Incident” Too”

  1. Jim Lunsford Says:

    Personally, I too, am glad to hear of this reporter. What is a shoe compared to all the destruction that Bush’s policies have wrought upon Iraq? Indeed, the world?
    Peace, Jim

  2. Ceci Says:

    Jim Lunsford Says:

    Personally, I too, am glad to hear of this reporter. What is a shoe compared to all the destruction that Bush’s policies have wrought upon Iraq? Indeed, the world?

    Jim, thank you for bringing up this point. I think that sometimes, in today’s society, we are engineered to repress all our emotion–especially when it has to do with an event that deeply and gravely affects us. Upon reading about Mr. Zaidi’s life, it is discovered that he reported in some of the worst parts in Iraq. He was detained and let go by American forces.

    With all these new revelations, it is perfectly understandable why he gave Mr. Bush the ultimate disrespect that one can give. And it was rather shameful that the American leader brushed it off as it was nothing (which says a lot of Bush’s attitude when you think about it). I still don’t know to this day how Bush can sleep at night with all the catastrophe that has been caused by himself and his cronies. It makes me wonder how anyone could pay respect to him–especially when seeing our loved ones injured or coming home in body bags–or the Iraqi citizens suffering in many ways due to what the occupation has caused.

    That is why Mr. Zaidi has played a very important part in terms of defining the Bush presidency. He essentially did what a lot of people have thought of doing every time the arrogance, corruption and utter stupidity would unfold with the latest of Bush’s decisions: he told Bush in the strongest terms that his legacy would be negatively referred to by a the majority of people in the world.

    If Bush was under the impression that the world loved him throughout his Presidency, he thought wrong. The election of 2008 should have taught him how much regard people have for the 43rd President.

    The “shoe incident” summed up the feelings of a lot of people toward Bush. And I hope that it haunts his dreams for a long time.

    As always, I appreciate your convictions and statements. As always, it is wonderful to read what you have to say. 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: