or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Fabricated claims about Apple's manufacturing prompt retraction from 'This American Life' [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fabricated claims about Apple's manufacturing prompt retraction from 'This American Life' [u] - Page 3

post #81 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davewrite View Post

this American Life's Excuses for their Flub is Weak.

They call they themselves a premier news outlet and they used an 'actor' as a 'source'. That should have set up GREAT BIG red flags at once and the story should never have aired but Apple was too big a target for ratings.

Would they have interviewed thriller writers and use what they say as 'FACTS' for espionage, crime or stories on international relations? American Life's next big story on U.S response to the current SYRIA CRISIS will be based on "JAMES BOND".

^This^: So Glass' idea of "fact checking" is asking the actor that created and is doing the piece? How's that again?

That's about as lazy and shoddy as it gets.
post #82 of 108
Consider that our media don't exist to inform or entertain us. They exist neither to lie nor to tell the truth. The primary purpose of all modern media is to sell advertising, and that's achieved by getting and keeping peoples' attention by any means possible. Everything else is secondary.

People like cause and effect. We like to imagine we live in a comprehensible universe full of purpose and predictable outcomes. We like stories. In fact, we demand them because we can't live without them. Once selling ads became the primary goal of all media communication, it was inevitable that entertainment would become the sole content. Any given communication will mix fact and fiction in whatever way its creators imagine will get the most attention, i.e., will make the best story.

"The media" is a marketplace where our attention is bought and sold. That's all. It's the interface where the intention of advertising manipulates the behavior of consumers. Advertisers come to it for the money. The rest of us come to it for stories. It's possible, with time, effort, will, intelligence, and sufficient cross-referencing to make very good guesses about facts based on media content, but to expect to be informed in any straight forward way is criminally naive.
post #83 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

^This^: So Glass' idea of "fact checking" is asking the actor that created and is doing the piece? How's that again?

That's about as lazy and shoddy as it gets.

Again, This American Life isn't remotely a news program. Have you ever listened to it? People tell stories, Ira Glass considers what those stories mean and how they relate to lives lived in the manner of a literary discussion.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been more diligent, considering the inflammatory nature of the charges leveled by Daisey, but imagining that this was an investigative hit piece that failed to do "fact checking" just wildly misses the tone of TAL.

Daisey, on the other hand, has a lot to answer for, since he repeated his "artistic" interpretation of the facts during interviews with various actual news outlets. It's one thing to maintain that his stage performance was poetic mediation on actual events, or that even where he was making things up the general narrative still spoke to some larger truth (dubious, but it was a dramatic performance, so we can make some allowances).

However, there are multiple instances of him repeating what he now admits are absolute falsehood, when questioned by news organizations. He didn't say "Well, I personally didn't see any underage workers, but I have reason to believe that's happening, which is why I include that idea in my show." He flatly stated that he saw and talked to underage workers, which he now admits he did not. He flatly stated that he saw and talked to a man with hands gnarled from repetitive stress, which he now admits he did not. He now admits that the (obviously crafted to provide an emotional gut-punch) scene of that same man seeing a finished iPad for the first time was pure fiction.

As others have said, if there are endemic problems, investigate and report them. Pretending to believe (as Daisey appears to do on his latest blog post responding to these charges) that somehow it doesn't matter-- that if we know there is some bad stuff then made up bad stuff is reasonable and on point is just lazy and counterproductive. If the cause is to improve working conditions in China, Daisey has dealt that cause a serious blow, just because he couldn't be bothered to try harder.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #84 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Consider that our media don't exist to inform or entertain us. They exist neither to lie nor to tell the truth. The primary purpose of all modern media is to sell advertising, and that's achieved by getting and keeping peoples' attention by any means possible. Everything else is secondary.

People like cause and effect. We like to imagine we live in a comprehensible universe full of purpose and predictable outcomes. We like stories. In fact, we demand them because we can't live without them. Once selling ads became the primary goal of all media communication, it was inevitable that entertainment would become the sole content. Any given communication will mix fact and fiction in whatever way its creators imagine will get the most attention, i.e., will make the best story.

"The media" is a marketplace where our attention is bought and sold. That's all. It's the interface where the intention of advertising manipulates the behavior of consumers. Advertisers come to it for the money. The rest of us come to it for stories. It's possible, with time, effort, will, intelligence, and sufficient cross-referencing to make very good guesses about facts based on media content, but to expect to be informed in any straight forward way is criminally naive.

I'm not sure what media you're talking about, although your analysis strikes me as wildly reductive. But if you mean This American Life, you're kind of missing the point. It's not a news show compromised by the terribleness of the marketplace. It's the creation of one man, which got its start on local public radio (which is about as far from the thrall of advertising as you can get and still be legitimately "mass media") and which does nothing more than assemble interesting interviews and ruminations organized around some theme per show.

It's like declaring that some literary quarterly, and all the stories therein, is nothing more than the whore of avarice, since something something everyone who can read is a creature of of the market something.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #85 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's too bad we can't say the same for the tech blogs that created this mess in the first place.

As much as I never liked Mike Daisey and was offended by his performance, he is quite correct that it was a performance and was described as such right from the start. The problem only arose when a lot of stupid unprofessional tech blogs (I'm not sure if there actually *are* any professional ones), spread the story around as if it were fact.

I remember being shouted down on this and several other forums when I pointed out that there was no evidence for his claims and that we only had his word for most of what he said and also that what he claimed was at odds with the known facts.

If his work was correctly presented by the tech media as the mixture of fact and fiction it was, there wouldn't be any problems in the first place. This is a failure of the professionalism of the tech media, not Mike Daisey.

I disagree. If Daisey did a show about the "Pear" computer company, whose contractors treated their employees badly and he made the situation worse than the reality in order to make a point (as most media does), that's fair game. When a stand-up comic exaggerates issues in order to make a point (or in order to make it funnier), that's fair game too, so if a comic does a riff on Steve Jobs or on what they perceive as a typical Apple fanboy, etc., that's fair game even if it's done in bad taste. But when you state that a worker's hand was mangled or that underage labor is being used and you can't back it up, that's not fair game. I congratulate "This American Life" for using fact checkers, which a lot of media doesn't bother with anymore, but I do have to wonder how this got broadcast before the fact checking was complete. But at least they owned up to their mistake which is a lot more than what Daisey is doing.

But this is what we get when we live in an age when politicians (and some media) insist that the facts are what they say they are, not what the reality is.
post #86 of 108
I like the revisionist history here, of people proclaiming his original story wasn't really 'news' but he was 'entertaining' us and he never claimed it was completely accurate. Yeah, sure thing there.
post #87 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamrin View Post

Props to Ira Glass and the rest of his team on This American Life for delivering a full-episode-length retraction. That's professionalism.

Professionalism or double dipping on getting publicity for the show.
post #88 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by clickmyface View Post

Just wanted to point out that the photo is of Daisey, not Ira Glass.

This is Ira,


Nope. Doesn't strike me as someone who checks facts.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #89 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

I say give them another chance. This American Life has a long history of awesome shows.
This retraction of the whole show is maybe bigger news than the original podcast. I hadnt looked into Daiseys show much but read articles here and there. Now Ira Glass is saying very publicly that Daisey lied to him and his staff. That gives a better insight into the nature of this Mike Daisey guy and his show.

I am sure I will. It's just so upsetting I need a vacation from them.
post #90 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

... Unless David Sedaris, a regular contributor, is considered a journalist...

He did go undercover at Macy's for that big exposé on the working conditions of the elves.
post #91 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyapple View Post

From listening to his interview with Terri Gross on Fresh Air over NPR, author and NYTimes reporter Charles Duhigg really strikes me as another fabulist. His so called reporting is full of straw men, NEVER does he credit any of his supposed sources, he relies on anecdotes alone. Per wit, he claims to have lost twelve pounds in three months just by skipping one cookie a day; he claims that an executive from Target had to apologize to the father of a pregnant teen for having sent her advertising material relating to her condition, without naming the parties involved; he claims to have spoken to a fair labor representative who couldn't tell him her name but told him that Foxconn hid underage workers prior to inspection. The B.S. was so thick I could smell it right over the interwebs. Charles Duhigg is today's Judith Miller, the NYTimes should be ashamed to have anything to do with him. Wonder when they'll get around to retracting his Apple stories.

He struck me as a hyperconcerned yuppie, my least favorite kind of person out there, after the other usual suspects who shall go unnamed. He was talking about feeding his kid "chicken nuggets." He was talking about his cookie addiction, a long wrenchng story of first-world drama. The contrast with the story we were supposed to be wringing our hands over couldn't have been greater. Spare me these exploiters of emo politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iPuppet View Post

When I really go upset was when Bill Mahr, of HBO's Real Time, was exalting Daisy at the top of the show for his hard-hitting exposé of Apple's Foxconn assembly practices. It really lowered Mahr in my estimation. I knew in my heart Daisy was a big phony (and I mean BIG), and this verification just made my day.

So now he's on the dimwit concerned yuppie list too. Disappointing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

He did go undercover at Macy's for that big exposé on the working conditions of the elves.

And the evil Santas. Maybe that's what "inspired" Daisey to do this kind of journo-drama.
post #92 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet View Post

Have you ever listened to Ira Glass? I would not call him a journalist or a sober minded professional. He is an entertainer pretending to be a journalist, he got caught going beyond the pale this time. It won't be the last time he attempts to go beyond, his show is based on it.

Clearly I have. I also never called him anything. Anyone who's ever listened to his broadcast knows exactly what type of program he's running. As Addabox points out: "This American Life is not a news program. It's a quirky little slice of life documentary/interview program, as filtered through the sensibilities of Ira Glass. They're interested in the varieties of human experience, not in "reporting facts."

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of the show. But maybe I'm assuming too much. Have *you* ever listened to Ira Glass? It doesn't sound like you have.
post #93 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

Professionalism or double dipping on getting publicity for the show.

Perhaps both. Regardless, the proper thing for a responsible media outlet that's made such a mistake to do is issue a formal retraction. Newspapers and televised news programs have been doing it since their inceptions. It's not at all a shady practice. In fact, admitting to and apologizing for your errors, particularly in a show that prides itself on its verisimilitude, is something to be *commended*.

I'm honestly surprised that some people are vilifying the actual retraction. Issuing a retraction is what you're *supposed* to do. Considering that Glass can't magically go back in time and make his mistake not happen, what is he supposed to do other than apologize? Baffling. o.O
post #94 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

I doubt that this American Life calls itself a "news outlet"---a link would be nice here. Sometimes they have "news" but they're definitely set up as an entertainment outlet. Unless David Sedaris, a regular contributor, is considered a journalist...

Definitely should have given this one a closer look before airing it as truth rather than just a good story though.


Really? that's not what they themselves say in their retraction:

"Many dedicated reporters and editors - our friends and colleagues - have worked for years to build the reputation for accuracy and integrity that the journalism on public radio enjoys. Its trusted by so many people for good reason. Our program adheres to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows, and in this case, we did not live up to those standards."
post #95 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I think you're confusing This American Life with NPR. This American Life is a program that airs on National Public Radio, which also airs (among other things) news and current events programs. I don't think I've ever heard NPR describe itself as a "premier news outlet", although I'm sure they have standards of journalistic integrity for the news programs they air.

However, This American Life is not a news program. It's a quirky little slice of life documentary/interview program, as filtered through the sensibilities of Ira Glass.....

really?

that's not what Glass says in the retraction:

"Many dedicated reporters and editors - our friends and colleagues - have worked for years to build the reputation for accuracy and integrity that the journalism on public radio enjoys. Its trusted by so many people for good reason. Our program adheres to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows, and in this case, we did not live up to those standards."
post #96 of 108
Seems like there should be a required disclaimer at the beginning and end of f*ckwad's play stating that the play is fiction only and the stories within are fabricated and are not meant to be taken as factual.
post #97 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmazingApple View Post

Seems like there should be a required disclaimer at the beginning and end of f*ckwad's play stating that the play is fiction only and the stories within are fabricated and are not meant to be taken as factual.

Really. And if he doesn't his show should be hounded into oblivion. I'd make a call or two to the theater.

What's so galling about this affair is that he's really exploiting the Chinese workers for his own 15 minutes of infamy, and co-opting the good energy of maybe the only technology company that has shown the motivation and the power to change things for the better. Without acknowledging that they were on the case before he was. And exploiting the customers' good energy as wellblaming Apple's users for wanting too much too soon, when it's Apple customers who hang on to their stuff longer than others, it seems to me. Obsolescence is not designed in, they don't make disposable junk.

Outrageous. And all that crap about "field-stripping" his MacBook. If that's true, which I doubt because of his chubby, greasy fingers, it is a very perverted and masturbatory thing to do, Once, maybe, to see how it's put together or to fix something, but to do it for fun? Disrespect for the machine, self-indulgent. No wonder he's a candidate for the biodiesel render farm.
post #98 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davewrite View Post

really?

that's not what Glass says in the retraction:

"Many dedicated reporters and editors - our friends and colleagues - have worked for years to build the reputation for accuracy and integrity that the journalism on public radio enjoys. Its trusted by so many people for good reason. Our program adheres to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows, and in this case, we did not live up to those standards."

Glass can say anything he wants, and clearly he regrets any dishonor these revelations might bring to NPR as a whole. But the fact remains that This American Life is not remotely a "news" program and generally deals in anecdotes, highly subjective narratives and personal observation. As I've said, I would bet there have been countless instances of people featured on TAL that have told highly inflected if not outright modified versions of the events they've recounted. The difference here is that the events recounted are newsworthy.

That doesn't make Daisey's dissembling OK or make TAL's broadcasting of same any better. But behaving as if TAL were CNN is stupid.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #99 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Glass can say anything he wants, and clearly he regrets any dishonor these revelations might bring to NPR as a whole. But the fact remains that This American Life is not remotely a "news" program and generally deals in anecdotes, highly subjective narratives and personal observation. As I've said, I would bet there have been countless instances of people featured on TAL that have told highly inflected if not outright modified versions of the events they've recounted. The difference here is that the events recounted are newsworthy.

That doesn't make Daisey's dissembling OK or make TAL's broadcasting of same any better. But behaving as if TAL were CNN is stupid.



seriously dude what are you talking about?

you say "Glass can say anything he wants... " implying that Glass in not responsible for American Life just NPR.

Dude, Glass is the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF American Life!!

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/about/staff

you say I'm stupid to think that they do journalism when I said american life considers itself as news source YET the PRODUCER says "Our program adheres to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows" . the producer himself says it's journalism.

SO you KNOW MORE about American Life than its own PRODUCER?
man you got more balz than Daisey.
post #100 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davewrite View Post

seriously dude what are you talking about?

you say "Glass can say anything he wants... " implying that Glass in not responsible for American Life just NPR.

Not really seeing how you're getting that. What I'm saying that Glass's mea culpa doesn't make TAL into a news show. Which it isn't.

Quote:
Dude, Glass is the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF American Life!!

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Quote:
you say I'm stupid to think that they do journalism when I said american life considers itself as news source YET the PRODUCER says "Our program adheres to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows" . the producer himself says it's journalism.

"Journalistic standards" does not equal "news source", or for that matter, journalism. You've never actually listened to the show, have you? And I didn't call you "stupid", but I will say you probably need to put the Skittles and Red Bull down and chill a bit.

Quote:
SO you KNOW MORE about American Life than its own PRODUCER?
man you got more balz than Daisey.

I'm not sure if you think you have a point to make or what. I was originally responding to someone complaining about NPR considering itself a "premier news source" and apparently thinking TAL was something akin to "60 minutes."

So again, Mr. Glass is free to defend the ethos of his program, but anyone who listens to that program is aware that what they do isn't ever what most people would consider news, and that their "journalism" is of the profile of an unusual person or examination of a social trend variety. That is to say, yes, a type of journalism, but not investigative reporting, which it seems like some folks are assuming is what they do.

So, sure, they have standards and don't like being publicly humiliated, but when they do a show called, say, "Fiasco!" (entirely typical) that is entirely comprised of people reminiscing about or considering the nature of fiascos they have known, I seriously doubt "fact checking" really enters into it.

Again, I actually don't know what's got you so wound up. Are we supposed to condemn TAL more if we pretend they're CBS? Less? Does it change what Daisey did?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #101 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Not really seeing how you're getting that. What I'm saying that Glass's mea culpa doesn't make TAL into a news show. Which it isn't.



Yes, I'm aware of that.



"Journalistic standards" does not equal "news source", or for that matter, journalism. You've never actually listened to the show, have you? And I didn't call you "stupid", but I will say you probably need to put the Skittles and Red Bull down and chill a bit.



I'm not sure if you think you have a point to make or what. I was originally responding to someone complaining about NPR considering itself a "premier news source" and apparently thinking TAL was something akin to "60 minutes."

So again, Mr. Glass is free to defend the ethos of his program, but anyone who listens to that program is aware that what they do isn't ever what most people would consider news, and that their "journalism" is of the profile of an unusual person or examination of a social trend variety. That is to say, yes, a type of journalism, but not investigative reporting, which it seems like some folks are assuming is what they do.

So, sure, they have standards and don't like being publicly humiliated, but when they do a show called, say, "Fiasco!" (entirely typical) that is entirely comprised of people reminiscing about or considering the nature of fiascos they have known, I seriously doubt "fact checking" really enters into it.

Again, I actually don't know what's got you so wound up. Are we supposed to condemn TAL more if we pretend they're CBS? Less? Does it change what Daisey did?



as i've quoted Glass thinks it's journalism saying they " have worked for years to build the reputation for accuracy and integrity that the journalism on public radio enjoys. It’s trusted by so many people for good reason. Our program adheres to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows,"

you say "So again, Mr. Glass is free to defend the ethos of his program, but anyone who listens to that program is aware that what they do isn't ever what most people would consider news, and that their "journalism" is of the profile of an unusual person .. etc"

So once again you think you know more about TAL and it's intentions than the producer?
you say ""Journalistic standards" does not equal "news source", or for that matter, journalism." so what DOES it mean?
????

You took issue with me saying they considered themselves a "premier news outlet" . Doesn't "have worked for years to build the reputation for accuracy and integrity that the journalism on public radio ... adhere to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows .... etc etc" by Glass imply that they DO consider themselves as a premier news source? (NOTE: I did NOT say I myself believe that they are 'premier news source' but that THEY believed it as can be seen by Glass' statements.
I wrote that they consider themselves a news outlet AFTER I read Glass's statements ).

Do we have to take YOUR view that news is only news in the CNN format? not every news program needs to be CNN to be journalism. Journalism comes in all kinds of formats, studio interviews, document research, photographs etc.

You quote episode examples but not all the episodes are the same.
I listened to BBC this week, it's mother's day there and they had segments where celebrities talked about their mothers, mostly funny stuff, right after that they went into items of the Syria Crisis etc. Don't tell me the the 'my mother stories' (which nobody will fact check) excuses journalism intergrity on the Syria news?

and THIS is what the ORIGINAL Daisey episode says from their own podcast site (go tell me they didn't treat it as NEWS):

"Our staff did weeks of fact checking to corroborate Daisey's findings. Ira talks with Ian Spaulding, founder and managing director of INFACT Global Partners, which goes into Chinese factories and helps them meet social responsibility standards set by Western companies (Apple's Supplier Responsibility page is here), and with Nicholas Kristof, columnist for The New York Times who has reported in Asian factories. In the podcast and streaming versions of the program he also speaks with Debby Chan Sze Wan, a project manager at the advocacy group SACOM, Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior, based in Hong Kong. They've put out three reports investigating conditions at Foxconn (October 2010, May 2011, Sept 2011). Each report surveyed over 100 Foxconn workers, and they even had a researcher go undercover and take a job at the Shenzhen plant."

Wow, they said all these because they didn't want people to think they were serious about being factual?
so TAL didn't for THAT episode consider themselves as serious journalists? "weeks of fact checking" doesn't that SOUND as if for THAT episode TAL was taking itself seriously "like 60 minutes" (60 min is your quote not mine by the way) and projecting it that way? "we did weeks of fact checking" is telling people 'trust us' and not saying "hey this is lighthearted fluff". (ALSO why retract now if it was all a sort of fun and games thing like you are implying?)

as for being 'wound up' you are the one who seems to be wound up . I was the one who being lighhearted in my first post by saying TAL should talk about Syria in terms of James Bond and you were the one who went defending them by saying that what they did was sort of of Ok cause it's not really news ' , want to see 'wound up '? go look in the mirror.
post #102 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPuppet View Post

When I really go upset was when Bill Mahr, of HBO's Real Time, was exalting Daisy at the top of the show for his hard-hitting exposé of Apple's Foxconn assembly practices. It really lowered Mahr in my estimation. I knew in my heart Daisy was a big phony (and I mean BIG), and this verification just made my day.

I really like Maher, even though some of his views are WAY left of mine. Ever since he had Daisey on the show in early February, he hasn't missed too many opportunities to take a swipe at Apple. Given all this went down yesterday, I sent several messages to the show with the hopes that one would pop up on the 'overtime' segment regarding this clown and his claims. Needless to say, it wasn't discussed.
post #103 of 108
Most of the people who supported Mike Daisey's accusations, such as Bill Mahr, were already inclined to believe that Apple was guilty. Daisey simply told them what they wanted to hear.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #104 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

A lie is a lie is a lie. Presented in the context if a news program, such a lie is reprehensible. Whether Daisey is willing to admit it or not, he represented his lies as truths to people whose job was to vette his claims. Sorry or not, he lied about Apple and he lied about his veracity.

Worse, he lies and apparently continues to lie to his audiences knowing that his misrepresentations will form the basis for opinions of people who are otherwise uninformed or falsely informed by other sources.

This makes him the worst kind of liar.

Agree with most of what you say, but This American Life is not a news program.
post #105 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

He did go undercover at Macy's for that big exposé on the working conditions of the elves.

THAT was a great episode.
post #106 of 108
Daisey was touring Australia when Steve Jobs died, that focused attention on his show. He appeared on the ABC's (national broadcaster) Lateline the day after Steve's death. Transcript & video here: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...1/s3334201.htm

He presents himself as an expert of sorts and also represents the same misinformation as fact, but goes further in this interview stating that posing as a businessman enabled him to investigate conditions closer than declared journalists and typical journalism in China. This is well before the T.A.L. story and at a tragically opportune moment for self promotion.
post #107 of 108
Mike Daisey is a jerk, a complete kneebiter.
>>< drow ><<
Reply
>>< drow ><<
Reply
post #108 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Again, This American Life isn't remotely a news program. Have you ever listened to it? People tell stories, Ira Glass considers what those stories mean and how they relate to lives lived in the manner of a literary discussion.

That is news but it is soft news instead of hard news.

Quote:
I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been more diligent, considering the inflammatory nature of the charges leveled by Daisey, but imagining that this was an investigative hit piece that failed to do "fact checking" just wildly misses the tone of TAL.

I listen to TAL every week as a podcast and love the heck out of it. There were many differences between a normal epidose of TAL and this particular episode. You note that there are typical several stories, they are called acts, and they follow a theme. On this episode, the entire show was turned over to Daisy after an intro. It would be no different than any other show that does human interest stories suddenly deciding to do or show one hard hitting investigative piece.
Quote:
Daisey, on the other hand, has a lot to answer for, since he repeated his "artistic" interpretation of the facts during interviews with various actual news outlets. It's one thing to maintain that his stage performance was poetic mediation on actual events, or that even where he was making things up the general narrative still spoke to some larger truth (dubious, but it was a dramatic performance, so we can make some allowances).

However, there are multiple instances of him repeating what he now admits are absolute falsehood, when questioned by news organizations. He didn't say "Well, I personally didn't see any underage workers, but I have reason to believe that's happening, which is why I include that idea in my show." He flatly stated that he saw and talked to underage workers, which he now admits he did not. He flatly stated that he saw and talked to a man with hands gnarled from repetitive stress, which he now admits he did not. He now admits that the (obviously crafted to provide an emotional gut-punch) scene of that same man seeing a finished iPad for the first time was pure fiction.

As others have said, if there are endemic problems, investigate and report them. Pretending to believe (as Daisey appears to do on his latest blog post responding to these charges) that somehow it doesn't matter-- that if we know there is some bad stuff then made up bad stuff is reasonable and on point is just lazy and counterproductive. If the cause is to improve working conditions in China, Daisey has dealt that cause a serious blow, just because he couldn't be bothered to try harder.=

I'd be this happens a lot more often than we all know. Clearly there was some push back on this story and knowing the history and nature of Apple, I have no doubt they were part of the push back since it was about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I disagree. If Daisey did a show about the "Pear" computer company, whose contractors treated their employees badly and he made the situation worse than the reality in order to make a point (as most media does), that's fair game. When a stand-up comic exaggerates issues in order to make a point (or in order to make it funnier), that's fair game too, so if a comic does a riff on Steve Jobs or on what they perceive as a typical Apple fanboy, etc., that's fair game even if it's done in bad taste. But when you state that a worker's hand was mangled or that underage labor is being used and you can't back it up, that's not fair game. I congratulate "This American Life" for using fact checkers, which a lot of media doesn't bother with anymore, but I do have to wonder how this got broadcast before the fact checking was complete. But at least they owned up to their mistake which is a lot more than what Daisey is doing.

But this is what we get when we live in an age when politicians (and some media) insist that the facts are what they say they are, not what the reality is.

You've hit the point perfectly. These were not human interest stories pondering a theme or deeper meaning. He was alleging human rights violations. Cracking a joke about a drunk uncle that messes up every family BBQ, well people can relate and even laugh because that is a pretty common experience to have a family member that is behaving that way. This would be like a dramatic story involving that uncle raping your cousin. The law would have been broken and people react differently to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davewrite View Post

really?

that's not what Glass says in the retraction:

"Many dedicated reporters and editors - our friends and colleagues - have worked for years to build the reputation for accuracy and integrity that the journalism on public radio enjoys. Its trusted by so many people for good reason. Our program adheres to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows, and in this case, we did not live up to those standards."

You again are correct. TAL is soft news, almost all human interest stories, but it is news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Glass can say anything he wants, and clearly he regrets any dishonor these revelations might bring to NPR as a whole. But the fact remains that This American Life is not remotely a "news" program and generally deals in anecdotes, highly subjective narratives and personal observation. As I've said, I would bet there have been countless instances of people featured on TAL that have told highly inflected if not outright modified versions of the events they've recounted. The difference here is that the events recounted are newsworthy.

That doesn't make Daisey's dissembling OK or make TAL's broadcasting of same any better. But behaving as if TAL were CNN is stupid.

TAL isn't CNN but on the week it ran this story it was not the typical TAL either. They took the entire week and gave one man and his allegations and very power platform. It was especially damaging because the mix of hard and soft news that the Daisey piece represented were alleging inhuman behaviors and actions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Fabricated claims about Apple's manufacturing prompt retraction from 'This American Life' [u]