Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
President Bushâs response to having a pair of shoes thrown at him by Iraqi journalist Muntader al-Zaidi during a press conference in the middle of his fourth and last visit to Iraq, was, âThis happens. Itâs a sign of a free society.â
His interviewer, ABCâs Martha Raddatz, rejoined: âItâs also considered a huge insult in this world, the sole of a shoe, throwing a shoe.â
Bush doesnât quite answer the question embedded within Raddatzâs declarative statement. âYeah, I guess,â he said. And then he moves on. âLook, the rest of the Iraqi press corps was humiliated these guys were just beside themselves. They felt he had disgraced their entire press corps. Frankly, I thought it was interesting. I thought it was weird, I thought it was unusual, to have a guy throw a shoe at you. But Iâm not insulted.â (The full interview is here.)
In an ideal world, maybe Raddatz would have been able to engage in a discussion with Bush about what he has done to deserve the insultârather than accepting a non-answer (that he wasnât personally offended by it) and moving on. But when Bush moves on, Raddatz moves on too, launching into a Q&A about his trip and helping to portray the incident as something to discuss factually (from how many feet did al-Zaidi throw his shoes?)âa blip on Bushâs trip. Other accounts, speeding the other way, have taken the fetishistic route (tell me about The Shoe and Islam/politics/the Bushes).
Not so accounts from the international media, many of which focused less on the circumstances of the act itself, and more on the meaning of the insult behind it.
Al Jazeeraâs story ran a modest headline (âShoe attack mars Bushâs Iraq visitâ), but contained a bolder line in the future tense, forecasting the presidentâs reputation and presuming the cast and tint of retrospective coverage: âThe incident will serve as a vivid reminder of the widespread opposition to the US-led invasion of, and subsequent war in, Iraq – the conflict which has come to define Bush’s presidency.â Meanwhile, the UKâs Independent put forth a straightforward and harsh interpretation of the incident: âIraqi journalist gives verdict on Bush’s reign by voting with his feet.â
Indiaâs Economic Times also took a this-is-how-Bush-will-be-remembered tack, with a headline that read: âArab world hails shoe attack as Bushâs farewell gift.â Its lead? âIraq faced mounting calls on Monday to release the journalist who hurled his shoes at George W. Bush, an action branded shameful by the government but hailed by many in the Arab world as an ideal parting gift to the US president.â The Times of India account said the same thing (its title: âFor Arabs, âshoeâ is a four-letter wordâ), but with far more generalized and reactive verbiage: âArab correspondents through the region have called the act as embodying the Middle East’s hatred for the outgoing American president.â
Julian Borger, a diplomatic correspondent for The Guardian, laid Bush out to dry in his analysis of the incident: âAfter eight years of careful stage management by the White House press staff, this will be how Bush is remembered in many parts of the world.â (Borgerâs is also one of the more acerbic takes: âGeorge Bush didn’t need a primer on Middle Eastern culture to know he was being insulted. Having a pair of shoes lobbed at you and having to cower behind a lectern does not look particularly presidential anywhere.â) But Borger also takes the opportunity to place his bets on the historical interpretation front.
The BBCâs focus on the insult includes a cheesy headline (âBush shoe-ing worst Arab insultâ), but it also calls the cultural significance of the shoe throwing the thing that has âadded real sting to the assaultâ (and adds a bit of information: that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice âhas been given the particularly insulting first name Kundara â meaning shoeâ). It also good-naturedly and presciently apologizes for the numerous one-liner explanations of shoes in Islamic culture that have crowded all accounts: âThere has been plenty of droll reaction in the wake of Sunday’s shoe attack to experts who have informed the public that âthrowing a shoe at someone’s face is considered an insult in Islam.ââ
And the German Welt chose to connect the historic dots already, writing about Krushchev: âThe last time a shoe served as such a powerful political weapon was when an enraged Russian Premier Nikita Krushchev dramatically slammed his hardy Soviet leather shoe on his delegate desk at the United Nations General Assembly meeting. Almost fifty years down the line an Iraqi journalist succeeded in making his point felt when he hurled his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush.â
Weâll hear the rumbling echoes of this incident in the days to comeâand weâll see how columnists interpret it (of course, theyâve already started).
But remember that today also brought news of a new prime minister (an economist) elected in Thailand; a nuclear-cooperation deal between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates; activists gone missing in Zimbabwe; and a Human Rights Watch report (released today) on the failures of the Iraqi central criminal court. As the world accounts for these other happenings, itâs a rather good reminder that Muntader al-Zaidiâs shoe throwing is in and of itself a single actâan event that (fortunately or not) has already begun its rounds on the YouTube circuit. Many other news items wonât make those rounds. Thatâs not to trivialize this story, and the grave reasons for the insult, in the least. Rather, itâs just to stress that itâs the interpretationâwhat the above accounts hastily and unevenly dabble inâthat will count.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.