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.
^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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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. It?s 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."
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. It?s 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.
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 well?blaming 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.
"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. It?s 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.
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!!
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?
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?
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.
Comments
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.
^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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
He did go undercover at Macy's for that big exposé on the working conditions of the elves.
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.
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
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. It?s 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."
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. It?s 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 well?blaming 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.
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. It?s 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.
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.
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.
Dude, Glass is the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF American Life!!
Yes, I'm aware of that.
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.
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?
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.