It's been interesting to see Daisey's position change over the course of this incident. It seems that he's slowly coming to terms with the fact that he lied in his story. Listening to him in the This American Life podcast last weekend, it was almost as if he had started believing the things he's been saying in his performance.
I still think he's an entertaining storyteller, and he's brought attention to a real problem. It can only help him if he's more honest with himself and his audience moving forward.
From his last post I didn't think he'd ever change his tune. It seemed like he had the backing of those in his profession, and he tried to spin it into an us vs. them situation.
Unfortunately the facts weren't on his side, and nor were others in his profession.
Ultimately this is the best response he could have given. Come clean. Although the couple of weeks of denial kind of eroded a lot of trust. However now it seems it was just an internal issue, and he's come to terms.
This is a great piece and is more than I expected from him.
However, he still falls short of apologizing to Foxconn or Apple for slandering them in the pursuit of making a name for himself.
He can apologize to his audiences and "The theatre" all he wants. Until he apologizes to his actual victims, he's still a first class scum bag in my book.
That brings up an interesting point in that there are two distinct victims of slander, the person being slandered (Apple, Foxconn) and the innocent dupe (me) who believes the slanderous story.
I stepped up to defend Mike Daisey here and in other places, largely because of my respect for This American Life and the way they take journalism seriously. If Ira Glass tells me he's fact-checked something, then I'm going to believe it.
So I'm glad to see he's being more contrite these days, but I agree that he's falling short of what he needs to do.
I listened to the follow up piece by Ira Glass.. It seems that Mike D. has done the same thing to someone else's autobiography (i.e twisted the truth) and went back to the "theater" claim when he was caught.
I am no psychologist, but listening to his 'apology' gave me a strong sense that he was playacting a role of someone who sought forgiveness. He had these dramatic pauses that seemed forced, and was dancing around technicalities. I don't think this is the last time someone is duped by him.
He's also not specific enough about what he's apologizing for. He admits to exaggerating what he saw but doesn't explain what exactly he did see, if anything, and what exactly in the show is a fabrication. He needs to come clean about everything. Remember that he was still arguing at least a week ago that he did meet underage workers, for example.
If Daisey's story wasn't politically charged, if it was just a whimsical autobiographical human interest story I wonder if people would care as much? I think everything I've read indicated that most if not all things he described actually happened, just not in the way he described or to him. Does it matter that much how he tells it? I don't really think it does personally, to me it was just an enjoying story and even now it didn't sound like he was creating fabrications out of nothing. Ira wants him to to be more explicit about what is truth and what is fiction but does he demand it because this crosses the line from theater into journalism? Since these autobiographical dramatic performances are a regular occurrence on the TAL maybe they should start putting disclaimers on each one? I wonder how much Sedaris and other contributors exaggerate and invent for the sake of comedy and drama?
How can Daisey's story be politically charged? It's only politically charged if we had an Apple party and an anti-Apple party (Slashdot party? Google party?).
Did you listen to the TAL retraction? Some of the key points retracted make all the difference between complete outrage (employment of 12 and 13 year-olds) and disappointment. Did you hear the most emotional scene in his story, of the man with the crooked hand, is a complete fabrication? Did you read the NYTimes article by Duhig and Barboza, which was factually correct, and think that was not enough exposure of the harsh working conditions at these factories? And if you heard the TAL retraction, you surely must've heard the bit where many workers do want to work over 60 hors a week, to make more money. That surely is an interesting factual point that splashes some gray into the black and white matter presented by Daisey.
All works of fiction on TAL are identified as such. IME when Sedaris et all retell their stories, they add comedy and drama via colorful descriptions of their feelings or using exaggerated analogies. However, they don't lie.
Politics in the general sense of politics of power and social activism (not all politics need to involve governments). I didn't read the NYT article but I've probably read enough snippets online to get the gist of it. I guess I'm more skeptical of dramatic stage readings (which this was) more than the average guy on teh street. Also I have no doubts (probably can't prove) that Sedaris makes up stuff that never actually happened for the sake of drama and comedy. Non-fiction just isn't that funny (here is one link I found related to the topic http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/20...)
I still don't get how "storytelling" and "entertainment" have anything to do with investigative reporting and blowing the whistle on alleged workplace abuses.
Daisey did Foxconn employees and all emerging-market workers a dis-service with his mistruths... all in the name of "entertainment" and his bottom line.
The real danger is that someone who really questioned the labor conditions at the factory that produces Apple (and Dell, Microsoft and many other companies) products is now left confused as to whether it's really a problem.
Given that the subject of worker treatment in China hasn't died down as Daisey has pointed out it so often did, even in light of the retractions and apologies, can we say yet whether he's done those workers a disservice? I think it's too early to tell.
If you look at the fabrications, they weren't even necessary to make the story more entertaining. Lies like "the guards had guns" and "I met the hexane-n victims" just make him look more heroic, daring, and groundbreaking than he actually was.
The true story would have been entertaining enough for me, but apparently wasn't good enough for Mike Daisey's vanity.
I'd encourage you to listen to his georgetown talk. He admits his vanity and talks about how those things seeped into the show.
It actually made me think of startups and raising money. Person after person after person asking questions, making suggestions, framing questions that have really detailed answers, but sometimes it is easier to nod and be seen in a better/bigger light than to clarify.
Thanks for the heads up. I'm eager to hear the Georgetown talk now.
In most contexts, I don't have any trouble with vanity. If you need to stretch the truth to make a better stage show or memoir, that's great. I loved "The Social Network" even though I knew that a lot of the story was stretched to fit a traditional film narrative. I'm OK with that.
The only thing that really went wrong was when he let his story be presented in the wrong context, and how he deliberately misled the TAL folks during fact checking.
Attention seeker milks a publicity stunt with more stunts. This guy is either mentally ill or getting paid by someone with a vested interest in his story.
Early on I wondered why he wouldn't just be properly contrite say "I lied" and get this over with. From his point of view it's better for him if he doesn't do this. Like a politician, who's been caught doing something wrong, if he can weather the storm long enough people forget what he's done. If he comes clean then he loses the last vestiges of his support. I don't think it's a matter of coming to terms with what he's done I think it's a matter of selfishness. He sought fame and money, received both and he wants more.
19 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 53.2 ms ] threadI still think he's an entertaining storyteller, and he's brought attention to a real problem. It can only help him if he's more honest with himself and his audience moving forward.
Unfortunately the facts weren't on his side, and nor were others in his profession.
Ultimately this is the best response he could have given. Come clean. Although the couple of weeks of denial kind of eroded a lot of trust. However now it seems it was just an internal issue, and he's come to terms.
However, he still falls short of apologizing to Foxconn or Apple for slandering them in the pursuit of making a name for himself.
He can apologize to his audiences and "The theatre" all he wants. Until he apologizes to his actual victims, he's still a first class scum bag in my book.
I stepped up to defend Mike Daisey here and in other places, largely because of my respect for This American Life and the way they take journalism seriously. If Ira Glass tells me he's fact-checked something, then I'm going to believe it.
So I'm glad to see he's being more contrite these days, but I agree that he's falling short of what he needs to do.
I am no psychologist, but listening to his 'apology' gave me a strong sense that he was playacting a role of someone who sought forgiveness. He had these dramatic pauses that seemed forced, and was dancing around technicalities. I don't think this is the last time someone is duped by him.
He's also not specific enough about what he's apologizing for. He admits to exaggerating what he saw but doesn't explain what exactly he did see, if anything, and what exactly in the show is a fabrication. He needs to come clean about everything. Remember that he was still arguing at least a week ago that he did meet underage workers, for example.
Did you listen to the TAL retraction? Some of the key points retracted make all the difference between complete outrage (employment of 12 and 13 year-olds) and disappointment. Did you hear the most emotional scene in his story, of the man with the crooked hand, is a complete fabrication? Did you read the NYTimes article by Duhig and Barboza, which was factually correct, and think that was not enough exposure of the harsh working conditions at these factories? And if you heard the TAL retraction, you surely must've heard the bit where many workers do want to work over 60 hors a week, to make more money. That surely is an interesting factual point that splashes some gray into the black and white matter presented by Daisey.
All works of fiction on TAL are identified as such. IME when Sedaris et all retell their stories, they add comedy and drama via colorful descriptions of their feelings or using exaggerated analogies. However, they don't lie.
Daisey did Foxconn employees and all emerging-market workers a dis-service with his mistruths... all in the name of "entertainment" and his bottom line.
The real danger is that someone who really questioned the labor conditions at the factory that produces Apple (and Dell, Microsoft and many other companies) products is now left confused as to whether it's really a problem.
The true story would have been entertaining enough for me, but apparently wasn't good enough for Mike Daisey's vanity.
It actually made me think of startups and raising money. Person after person after person asking questions, making suggestions, framing questions that have really detailed answers, but sometimes it is easier to nod and be seen in a better/bigger light than to clarify.
In most contexts, I don't have any trouble with vanity. If you need to stretch the truth to make a better stage show or memoir, that's great. I loved "The Social Network" even though I knew that a lot of the story was stretched to fit a traditional film narrative. I'm OK with that.
The only thing that really went wrong was when he let his story be presented in the wrong context, and how he deliberately misled the TAL folks during fact checking.
He talks about it here...for an hour...and it is good.