'This American Life' Retracts Show on Foxconn Working Conditions over Fabricated Claims

[Frobozz]

Is his defense, he's not saying this is completely factual. I don't know why they need to lead an investigation into why they didn't investigate in the first place. It was This American Life's job to do that. So the story should really be about how that process failed.

At no point has Daisey claimed his work was a work of journalism. If you want some more context, Daisey was on MSNBC's Up! with Chris Hayes this past weekend, talking about his work. Here's a clip:

http://UpwithChrisHayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/16/10721591-art-truth-and-mike-daisey

I'm a big fan of This American Life– so I'm not looking to throw pie in their face. But this was, indeed, a screw up on THEIR part.

 

[entropys]

Exactly. I still remember a show they did years ago about about Canadians. It was hilarious. But journalism? Give me a break. They seem to be confused about their mission, so no wonder this happened to them. I actually have no real problem with Daisey's piece, so long as it's treated for what it is, first-person expository storytelling. That's exactly what I expect to hear on TAL anyway.

But this story was not presented as"first person expository storytelling" but as fact USD to attack the reputation of another. And people believed it, and this man profited by denigrating another, in this case a corporate entity.

In the past, faking up news for a clear political purpose has cost people jobs, an example being Dan Rather and his producer.

And as for his justification, what is the cliche used by dirtbags such as this? Oh, yes:

Fake but accurate!​

 

[IJ Reilly]

I get your point. But they guy was recounting a trip to China to interview Foxconn workers. I understand he is a 'storyteller' but at the same time I'm sure NPR would not have run it had they known what they know now.

I'm not that critical of Daisey myself, and I never got the impression he was out to get Apple.

I'm not saying what the standard is or should be, but am not surprised at NPR's response to all of this I guess. It would be a lot different if there were factual errors discovered in some adults re-telling of his summer camp back in 1957 in Lake Obowogoeee.

Again, this is not a program from NPR. It's run on public radio stations, many of which also run programming from NPR, but that's the only connection. I think the response we are hearing is a function of the producers of TAL taking themselves way too seriously. More seriously than I do as a listener, that's for certain.

Have you ever read any of Mark Twain's travelogs? Do you think they were meant to be taken completely literally? It's very impressionistic, shamelessly opinionated and subjective. Twain was the first to call himself a professional liar, mostly as way of having fun with his readers, but also as a way of reminding us that this is just the way he saw things. The only reason I can see why some are so horrified by Daisey taking the same literary license is because TAL is claiming to be a journalist program. I think that claim is silly.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Oops, I hate making that PRI/NPR mistake.

So then you don't think they should retract the episode, and do a follow-up episode about it?

I guess I don't have a problem with it either way, and I am interested in hearing the follow-up episode. If the interest level of the original episode was partly due to dramatization, then there's no reason to criticize a follow-up, is there? Or are you just specifically criticizing TAL's assertion that they are a journalistic program?

Thanks for the response-

Again, this is not a program from NPR. It's run on public radio stations, many of which also run programming from NPR, but that's the only connection. I think the response we are hearing is a function of the producers of TAL taking themselves way too seriously. More seriously than I do as a listener, that's for certain.

Have you ever read any of Mark Twain's travelogs? Do you think they were meant to be taken completely literally? It's very impressionistic, shamelessly opinionated and subjective. Twain was the first to call himself a professional liar, mostly as way of having fun with his readers, but also as a way of reminding us that this is just the way he saw things. The only reason I can see why some are so horrified by Daisey taking the same literary license is because TAL is claiming to be a journalist program. I think that claim is silly.

----------

Is his defense, he's not saying this is completely factual. I don't know why they need to lead an investigation into why they didn't investigate in the first place. It was This American Life's job to do that. So the story should really be about how that process failed.

I think that will probably be part of the episode. I mean they are drawing further attention to themselves by doing this follow-up at all.

If TAL has an issue with Daisey, I think it has more to do with what Daisey told them while discussing/negotiating using his monologue in a TAL show, rather than what Daisey says in the monologue. From their retraction page (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/2012/03/retracting-mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory):

"Daisey lied to me and to This American Life producer Brian Reed during the fact checking we did on the story, before it was broadcast. That doesn't excuse the fact that we never should've put this on the air. In the end, this was our mistake."

----------

I'm a big fan of This American Life– so I'm not looking to throw pie in their face. But this was, indeed, a screw up on THEIR part.

I agree with you in general. But it seems that TAL did investigate before airing the episode, and they are saying that Daisey lied to them about the piece itself (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog...pple-factory):

"Daisey lied to me and to This American Life producer Brian Reed during the fact checking we did on the story, before it was broadcast. That doesn't excuse the fact that we never should've put this on the air. In the end, this was our mistake."

We don't know what TAL and Daisey discussed, we'll hear one side of the story when the follow-up episode airs.

 

[IJ Reilly]

But this story was not presented as"first person expository storytelling" but as fact USD to attack the reputation of another. And people believed it, and this man profited by denigrating another, in this case a corporate entity.

The entire program is presented that way. Has been for years. Much of the outrage over this incident is totally synthetic, coming mostly I suspect from people who've never listened to a single episode of TAL and who would otherwise never give a hoot what stories they broadcasted.

 

[onomike]

Apple ought to litigate against Daisey over his slanderous statements. At the very least, they should sue for any sums he collected from the TAL story and his "theater" performances. He intentionally lied, disparaging the reputation of the company, and then comes up with the weaselly "it was theater, not journalism" crap.

If it was theater, he would have changed or cleverly masked the names of the company and principals. Using Apple and Steve Jobs names directly in his "performance" implies his statements were factual. He began with an answer in his mind and decided to fabricate a story to fit that answer.

 

[alephnull12]

Journalism is a sh*thole of liberal arts majors with a few hidden gems here and there.

Advocacy journalism is the worst of the lot.

If he really lied about things, Apple or Foxconn should sue his ass off as a service to humanity.

 

[Frobozz]

I agree with you in general. But it seems that TAL did investigate before airing the episode, and they are saying that Daisey lied to them about the piece itself (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog...pple-factory):

"Daisey lied to me and to This American Life producer Brian Reed during the fact checking we did on the story, before it was broadcast. That doesn't excuse the fact that we never should've put this on the air. In the end, this was our mistake."

We don't know what TAL and Daisey discussed, we'll hear one side of the story when the follow-up episode airs.

True. Good point.

I suppose this might shed some light on the subject. They took his word and were not able to independently verify the facts by talking to the translator. I am curious about the word "lie" in this context. It certainly seems like a harsh word and I didn't get the impression that this guy was a liar from his MSNBC interview. Liar implies malicious intent. He seemed very genuine and transparent about what he does and doesn't do. So I have an easier time believing it was a misunderstanding– though the facts may bare witness to something else.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Oops, I hate making that PRI/NPR mistake.

So then you don't think they should retract the episode, and do a follow-up episode about it?

I guess I don't have a problem with it either way, and I am interested in hearing the follow-up episode. If the interest level of the original episode was partly due to dramatization, then there's no reason to criticize a follow-up, is there? Or are you just specifically criticizing TAL's assertion that they are a journalistic program?

More the latter, I suppose. I don't care if they retract it or not. They'd have done themselves and listeners a better service if they'd have simply explained/admitted that the story was not journalism because the program itself is not journalism. They've been doing these sorts of stories for years, and nobody was outraged to my knowledge. When people start getting passionate about stuff they'd probably never even heard of five minutes ago, you have to wonder.

 

[guch20]

Hmmmm, I wonder how many other media outlets who've had this fat piece of crap on their airwaves are going to retract. I doubt any of them will, which is just sad. People only want the bad news to reinforce their negative views on Apple.

Good on TAL to admit its mistake.

----------

True. Good point.

I suppose this might shed some light on the subject. They took his word and were not able to independently verify the facts by talking to the translator. I am curious about the word "lie" in this context. It certainly seems like a harsh word and I didn't get the impression that this guy was a liar from his MSNBC interview. Liar implies malicious intent. He seemed very genuine and transparent about what he does and doesn't do. So I have an easier time believing it was a misunderstanding– though the facts may bare witness to something else.

He never saw the things he said he saw. He's a liar.

 

[JamSandwich]

Again, this is not a program from NPR. It's run on public radio stations, many of which also run programming from NPR, but that's the only connection. I think the response we are hearing is a function of the producers of TAL taking themselves way too seriously. More seriously than I do as a listener, that's for certain.

Just to be clear, do you like the show or not? You earlier said you didn't, now you describe yourself as a listener.

Anyhow, I think it straddles a line. A lot of what they do is journalism (their investigative piece on a Georgia judge seemed to effect change: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...nvestigates-glynn-county-superior-court-judge)

Much of what they do is journalism in the non-breaking news sense (I think back to a show on the NUMMI auto plant in California)

More of what they do is storytelling... but it's commendable and desirable that they hold themselves to journalistic standards.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Saw this guy spewing his crap on the Dylan Ratigen show, they were lies then ,as well as now

 

[nervouk]

I love it when people justify all manner of exaggeration, lies and evidence fabrication so long as the 'intent' is pure. It's as though they've just put all that effort and work into forming a worldview only to understand it isn't really like that, but stick to their guns anyway.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Just to be clear, do you like the show or not? You earlier said you didn't, now you describe yourself as a listener.

Anyhow, I think it straddles a line. A lot of what they do is journalism (their investigative piece on a Georgia judge seemed to effect change: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...nvestigates-glynn-county-superior-court-judge)

Much of what they do is journalism in the non-breaking news sense (I think back to a show on the NUMMI auto plant in California)

More of what they do is storytelling... but it's commendable and desirable that they hold themselves to journalistic standards.

I'm a public radio listener. I hear programs that I don't go out of my way to find if I'm in my car. Sometimes TAL catches my interest and I leave it on. Just as often I find it irritating and turn it off.

 

[MattG]

What a douche. Guy even looks like a douche.

Good on Ira and TAL for setting the record straight.

 

[interrobang]

And by crying wolf on Foxconn, he's ensured that reports of actual worker mistreatment at other companies in the future will be easier to ignore.

 

[jonnysods]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9B176)

You can't say you have integrity in regards to truth if you are using artistic license.

 

[IJ Reilly]

You can't say you have integrity in regards to truth if you are using artistic license.

So all artists are nothing more than liars?

Expand, discuss.

 

[madmaxmedia]

True. Good point.

I suppose this might shed some light on the subject. They took his word and were not able to independently verify the facts by talking to the translator. I am curious about the word "lie" in this context. It certainly seems like a harsh word and I didn't get the impression that this guy was a liar from his MSNBC interview. Liar implies malicious intent. He seemed very genuine and transparent about what he does and doesn't do. So I have an easier time believing it was a misunderstanding– though the facts may bare witness to something else.

Okay, this is the stuff I was thinking about-
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/03/16/dramatic-license

Worse, Daisey, in his numerous interviews and media appearances, has made these same claims under the pretense that they were factual. Here’s a transcript of his appearance on the Ed Schultz show on MSNBC:

If he's claimed these things in TV interviews, I am thinking he told the same thing to TAL- basically claiming as fact the things he is now defending as a 'theatrical piece'. I think somewhere he might have forgotten what really happened, and what he created for his show.

I think telling an MSNBC interviewer (and apparently others) these things, is a bigger deal than that his monolgue was aired on TAL.

EDIT- And again here in an op-ed piece published by The New York Times on October 6:
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/03/16/nyt-daisey

 

[SoGood]

Pathetic bit of sensationalistic journalism, $AAPL and China bashing! Shame it has to come out of NYT.

For all the money and time $AAPL had to expend to defend these biased accusations, shareholders should have the right to lynch this guy!

 

[vrDrew]

Apple ought to litigate against Daisey over his slanderous statements. At the very least, they should sue for any sums he collected from the TAL story and his "theater" performances. He intentionally lied, disparaging the reputation of the company, and then comes up with the weaselly "it was theater, not journalism" crap..

Do you think that would do anybody any good?

Every day people here at MR whine about Apple "bullying" Samsung, Motorola, HTC etc. in their patent disputes. (As if one multi-billion dollar company suing another is some sort of unfair fight.) How's it going to look if they start suing some chubby guy with a one-man show?

Its a complicated case. The things Daisey talked about (underage workers, people poisoned by N-Hexane, mangled hands, etc.) DID all happen. Just not in one place, all at the same time.

At the end of the day, Apple re-doubled their efforts to make sure the workers in their Asian factories are treated ethically and decently. Did Mike Daisey's piece play some part in that decision? I don't know - but I'd say it had at least something to do with it. Just as This American Life's piece probably gave some impetus to the New York Times "iEconomy" series.

Should This American Life has done some more fact-checking before running that story? Absolutely. Am I going to stop listening to them because of that mistake? Of course not.

Was Apple hurt by this story? Maybe, a tiny bit, for a couple of weeks. But maybe its the sort of attention thats good for Apple. Keep them ahead of the curve - them same way as they are on design, and manufacturing, and marketing.

The Mike Daisey story left Ira Glass with some egg on his face. He'll get over it. But the Mike Daisey story also led to Apple signing up for Fair Labor Association inspections of Foxconn factories. If this prevents even one Chinese worker from being harmed or abused - then I'd find it very hard to condemn Mike Daisy, or This American Life for their mistakes.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The Mike Daisey story left Ira Glass with some egg on his face. He'll get over it. But the Mike Daisey story also led to Apple signing up for Fair Labor Association inspections of Foxconn factories. If this prevents even one Chinese worker from being harmed or abused - then I'd find it very hard to condemn Mike Daisy, or This American Life for their mistakes.

Still not going to be a TAL fan, but then I never was, and you make good points about the power of impressionistic reporting.

This controversy reminds me of Spalding Grey's "Swimming to Cambodia." Grey had a bit part in the movie "The Killing Fields" which he spun into a famous stage monologue about the Cambodian genocide, later filmed as a movie. Not that Grey had any direct knowledge of the genocide. He spent most of his time on location in Cambodia hanging out in bars and whorehouses (by his own admission, as I recall). This didn't detract from the power of the piece one bit and few complained that his "reporting" wasn't precisely accurate.

Considering what we're really dealing with here, the indignation over the Daisey business seems at least a few notches too righteous.

 

[SlugBlanket]

There is no excuse for the way in which he embellished his monologue.

When someone is presenting an expose and states "I saw This ..." when they didn't it is plain wrong. When someone is presenting an entertaining story/movie and states "I saw This ..." then it's fine.

He made his quite valid and important point about the working conditions without the lying but this just stinks.

I hope this follows him around for the rest of his professional working life and that it has a suitably negative effect on his reputation and his earnings.

 

[Analog Kid]

Here's the problem with clowns like this: the issues he's concerned with are real issues, and there are real problems, but when people go out and muddy up truth and fiction the public loses it's ability to nail down facts.

Half the world heard what he had to say, half the world heard he's a stinkin' liar. The first half probably doesn't even remember where they heard it, and the second half aren't really sure what he lied about. For the rest of eternity we're going to have people absolutely sure of their facts and completely unable to understand where the other side is coming from.

 

[immigrantsong]

I was thinking more of a brown-haired "TV's Frank" from Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Absolutely! And about as intelligent too, probably. LOL.