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

^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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Professionalism or double dipping on getting publicity for the show.

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

I am sure I will. It's just so upsetting I need a vacation from them.

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

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.


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


And the evil Santas. Maybe that's what "inspired" Daisey to do this kind of journo-drama.

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.

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

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agree with most of what you say, but This American Life is not a news program.

THAT was a great episode.

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.

Mike Daisey is a jerk, a complete kneebiter.

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


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.

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.


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.


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


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.