The Journalist Making the Story or the Story Making the Journalist - Article Example

W131 - Beck Writing Project #3 Draft The Journalist Making the Story or the Story Making the Journalist? Journalism is one of the most cherished professions across the world and as a result of the world becoming a global village the journalists play a vital role in reporting the various events across the world and in making the different parts of the world familiar to people in different regions. The journalists across the globe have a central role in the development and progress of the people belonging to different nations. Their function has often been regarded as most essential in making the views and opinions of the people and this profession has been one of the noblest and most desired vocations in the modern world. Through reporting and disseminating news and events across the world, the journalists prove their vital role in generating the attitudes and awareness of individuals. How can the journalists influence the readers of their reports and articles? Can a journalist act according to his personal interests and determine the results of the stories he creates? Who is more important – the journalist making the story or the story making the journalist? There have been several examples of news reports in which the journalists influence the opinion making process of the readers through providing the personal version of the story. In his text “Introduction: In Mr. Mortenson’s Orbit,” David O. Relin deals with the author’s personal experience with Greg Mortenson in which he defends the activities by his hero. The journalist introduces the person and his activities in a very elaborative way. He describes his personal experiences with Mortenson and praises the various humanitarian activities by this person. While reporting some of the factual events in the life of Mortenson, the author also makes personal observations and comments about this personality. Through the reported story about Mortenson, the reporter also provides statements and comments about the person’s vital role and contributions in the region. The reporter chooses to side with Greg Mortenson, though he has his flaws. Therefore, in the given article, Relin makes a palpable confession, rather than reporting, about his admiration for Mortenson who, according to the author, is working for a great cause. Khalid al-Ansary’s significant article, “Bush’s ‘icy smile’ Enraged Iraqi Shoe Thrower” gives details about his personal version of an important event by describing one of the most interesting news events in the recent years in which Muntadhar al-Zeidi, an Iraqi news reporter, hurled his shoes at George W. Bush. The author significantly makes an important contribution in viewing this event from the point of view of the journalist who threw his shoes upon Bush. The article is evidently giving a subjective angle of vision about the event and the reporter who wrote the article, similar to that of the shoe-throwing journalist, wants to express his discontent with Bush to the world. Significantly, Al-Ansary wants people all around the world to know the exact story of this journalist who tried to hit George W. Bush. Therefore, the authors, in both the articles, are trying to make the story according to their purposes and they make the best use of rhetorical devices, angle of vision, pathos, and evidences to prove and substantiate their arguments. The insightful investigation of the two articles proves how effectively and persuasively Relin and Al-Ansary report events in their stories, and substantiates the point that it is the story reported by the journalist that really makes him. In both the articles, “Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace... One School at a Time” and “Bush’s ‘icy smile’ Enraged Iraqi Shoe Thrower”, the authors follow their subjective interests and both of them are effective in convincing the reader through their use of evidences and rhetorical devices. The angle of vision in both the articles is not objective and they make news to prove their point. Interestingly, Relin apparently acknowledges that he is not being objective, meaning he is not standing back and observing and reporting. Instead, he is giving us his personal observations after becoming involved in the story. “Supposedly objective journalists are at risk of being drawn into his orbit, too… The more time I spent watching Mortenson work, the more convinced I became that I was in the presence of someone extraordinary… I choose to side with Greg Mortenson.” (Relin) Similarly, Al-Ansary is also giving a subjective version of the news story, proving his points and his angle of vision is from a Middle East reporter. Interestingly, this same story might have been told very differently by a US reporter. The author’s intention as well as angle of vision is very obvious in the final areas of the article. The author states that Al-Zeidi’s lawyers were not able to reduce the charges against the journalist to insulting Bush and they argued that he had no intention to hurt Bush with a shoe. “Al-Zeidi himself said he could not be charged with assaulting a visiting head of state when that leader was also the chief of an occupation force… ‘I did not intend to kill U.S. President Bush. But I wanted to express what is inside of me and what is inside all Iraqis, from north to south and east to west, the hatred we have for this man.’” (Al-Ansary) Both the authors make use of pathos as an effective persuasive tool to catch the attention of the readers, and the strategy has been effective to win the interest of the readers. Through their appeal to pathos, Relin and Al-Ansary get very close to the readers’ recognition of their ideas and it is important to note that both the journalists used the same appeal to captivate the thoughts of the readers. Analyzing Relin’s appeal to pathos, it becomes lucid that his style of narration of events has a great impact on the readers who are easily influenced by the narrative voice. “The more time I spent watching Mortenson work, the more convinced I became that I was in the presence of someone extraordinary.” (Relin, 3) Relin also appeals to the reader’s pathos when he describes the opening of schools for little girls in poor villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the audience is supposed to feel sorry for the children. Similarly, the way Relin describes Mortenson’s emotions also has a central impact on the pathos of the readers who begin to admire Mortenson, following the author. There is also significant appeal to the pathos in the way Relin describes the admiration everyone else has of Mortenson, including former Taliban members. Relin’s strategy is too clear by the end of the article where he apparently demonstrates the importance of following and listening to Greg Mortenson. “If we Americans are to learn from our mistakes, from the flailing ineffective way we, as a nation, conducted the war on terror after the attacks of 9/11, and from the way we have failed to make our case to the great moderate mass of peace-loving people at the heart of the Muslim world, we need to listen to Greg Mortenson. I did, and it has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.” (Relin) Al-Ansary also effectively appeal to the pathos of the readers through his convincing style of reporting blended in the emotional version of Al-Zeidi’s explanation of the events. Thus, the author expresses how Al-Zeidi got emotional and said some words to Bush and expressed his feelings by anger and trying to hit George W. Bush. Al-Zeidi, whose unusual protest overshadowed Bush’s final visit to Iraq in December, was adamant that he had not planned to attack Bush this time. According to him, Bush’s smile, when he talked about achievements in Iraq, reminded him of the brutal murders of more than a million Iraqis and infuriated him. “‘He was talking and at the same time smiling icily at the (Iraqi) prime minister. He said to the prime minister that he was going to have dinner with him,’ al-Zeidi told a three-judge panel, a small army of 25 defense lawyers lined up next to him.” (Al-Ansary) The way the author explains the unique explanation of the person who is behind the controversy is effective in convincing the readers and appealing to their pathos. Another major rhetorical device which helps both the authors in appealing to the readers is the use of evidence in their articles. Thus, Relin tells the readers that Mortensen has helped children in Pakistan and Afghanistan and build 53 schools total in that time. The evidences provided by Relin helps him in reaching the brain of the readers, while the appeal to the pathos reaches the minds of the readers. Similarly, Al-Ansary uses some of the quotes from Al-Zeidi as evidences to prove his arguments, such as how Al-Zeidi called Bush a “dog” in the news conference when he got mad at him. Therefore, both the articles make the best use of evidence to appeal to the intellect of the readers which is, it may be argued, highly effective. In short, the rhetorical devices in the articles by two journalists helped them convey their ideas and opinions very persuasively to the readers. In other words, the persuasive style of their writings helped Relin as well as Al-Ansary to effectively influence the reader’s views about the events they describe in their articles. The authors are also effective in providing convincing evidences which support their personal opinions in the articles. Whereas Relin successfully glorifies Mortensen by offering evidences of his charitable and humanitarian activities in the region, Al-Ansary rationalizes the actions of Al-Zeidi, the shoe-throwing journalist, through some very convincing evidences from Al-Zeidi’s life. The two accounts also appeal to the pathos of the readers who are emotionally influenced by the reports. Although the topics and events reported vary, both Relin and Al-Ansary, in their articles, make the same conclusion about the role of the journalists in making stories and they claim that the journalists have ultimate right to make news stories according to their purposes. In a profound analysis of the two articles, one realizes that there are similarities as well as differences in the major ideas propagated by the two journalists and they deal mainly with ideas that are of importance to journalists. Thus, both Relin and Al-Ansary suggest, through their articles, that a journalist can choose to be part of the story and both take part in favor of Mortensen and Al-Zeidi respectively. “Al-Zeidi was transformed into a cult figure across the Muslim world where thousands hailed him as a hero and demanded his release for what they considered a justified act of patriotism. Haider Ahmed, a government employee, called al-Zeidi a patriot. ‘He allowed us to hold our heads high,’ he said.” (Al-Ansary) Through his article, Al-Ansary proves that, sometimes, a journalist really becomes the whole story when he tries to be part of it. In his article, Relin claims that a journalist can be “drawn into” his subject’s orbit, almost against his will. Similarly, he reports that other people are also drawn into Mortenson’s orbit. According to Relin, this is a confession, rather than simply reporting on Mortenson’s progress. Relin wants to see Greg Mortenson succeed and wishes him success. Mortenson, according to him, is fighting the war on terror the way it should be conducted. “Slamming over the Karakoram “Highway” in his old Land Cruiser, taking great personal risks to seed the region that gave birth to the Taliban with schools, Mortenson goes to war with the root causes of terror every time he offers a student a chance to receive a balanced education, rather than attend an extremist madrussa.” (Relin) Whereas Relin establishes, in his article, that a journalist can use his pen to help someone else against the sword (bad governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan), Al-Ansary gives a different version of the use of his writings. In Al-Ansary’s article, a journalist (Al-Zeidi) uses the “sword” instead of the “pen,” while another (Al-Ansary himself) uses the pen to tell this story and, probably, to fight the “sword” of the US. There are essential differences in the purposes of the authors, though they both ultimately attempt to convince the readers. From the point of view of journalism, there are three journalists who want to convince their audience about the views they hold. In the first article, Relin wants the audience to accept Mortenson’s plans for schools so that Mortenson can raise more money for more schools. The second article tells about two journalists and the shoe-throwing journalist, who is the main figure in the article, wants to express his discontent with Bush to the world. Similarly, Al-Ansary, the author of the second article, wrote the article with a similar purpose. He wants people all around the world to know what the story of the journalist who tried to hit George W. Bush. One of the most fundamental factors about the two articles has been that both of them illustrate effectively how the journalists’ purposes and personal opinions can influence the readers’ appreciation of the news events they report. In both the articles, the authors provide a personal version of the events and people they are describing. Both the authors intend to defend their hero’s and their actions through their reporting and journalism is a way to achieve their purpose. Relin is manifestly subjective about his reporting and he claims that he wants to side with Mortensen. Similarly, Al-Ansary takes side with Al-Zeidi when he reports the shoe-throwing events, though he does not claim to be subjective apparently. However, a careful reader of both the articles straightaway recognizes the purpose behind the reporting of both the articles. In both the articles, the reader finds the power of persuasive writing and the effect of appealing to the emotional aspect of the readers. Both Relin and Al-Ansary aims at conveying to their readers their personal version of events in a convincing way. The persuasive style of their narration, along with the apt evidences and emotional appeal, helps the authors effectively convince the readers. Therefore, it is indubitable that both the authors are successful in proving the might of the pen in comparison to the sword. In conclusion, Journalism is a highly noble and precious profession which determines the views and opinions of large number of people all over the world. One of the most important arguments of Relin as well as Al-Ansary has been that a journalist can choose to be part of the story he produces and both of them, through their articles, take sides in favor of Mortensen and Al-Zeidi respectively. Therefore, the articles “Three Cups of Tea: One Mans Mission to Promote Peace... One School at a Time” and “Bush’s ‘icy smile’ Enraged Iraqi Shoe Thrower” are of vital importance to understand the role of a journalist in the making of his news story. These articles ultimately prove that it is the journalists who make stories, rather than the stories make the journalists. Works Cited Al-Ansary, Khalid. "Bushs "Icy Smile" Enraged Iraq Shoe-Thrower." 19 February 2009. Reuters. 22 March, 2009. . Relin, David O. “Introduction: In Mr. Mortenson’s Orbit.” Three Cups of Tea: One Mans Mission to Promote Peace... One School at a Time. Greg Mortenson and David O. Relin. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. Read More