My biggest problem with Daisey? The fact that the only thing he gains from his fabrications is self-aggrandizement.
So many of the things he claims to have seen aren't in essence untrue: hexane poisoning did happen, he just didn't meet (and tell a true story) about how. Underage workers do exist, but I think it is less than clear whether Daisy met any of them. Terrible abuses resulting in lasting, terrible physical damage (or death) clearly are occurring, but Daisey isn't the one uncovering them, he isn't the heroic reporter interviewing the victims to reveal their plight.
When Daisey defends his work, he's really defending himself as the champion of the oppressed. This, I think, is really about his ego, not about the plight of any abused Chinese worker.
One of the unfortunate aspects of this episode is that, as Daisey says, the problems he discusses are mostly real. He didn't have to lie.
For example, he could have talked about the N-Hexane poisoning without lying. He could have cited news reports, or traveled to interview people, or done it over the phone, or even gotten the info from secondhand interviews. He could have said "imagine a man who..." and proceeded to paint a painful picture based on the facts that were already public.
But he didn't. He chose to pretend he had met these people. He would say that made the story more emotionally impactful, and maybe that's true. But it also poisoned it. It was a very condescending move to pull on his audiences; there is neither artistic nor factual integrity in it.
If he had stuck to the facts, he would still have had a great performance. Too bad.
Has no one considered the possibility that this Chinese citizen, who lives and works in China, might not be well served by asserting the truth of Daisey's story?
His apology seems to concede a fair amount of dramatization, and he didn't (in advance of hearing the Ira/Mike conversation) appear to assert the truth of those specific parts of the story. But supposing he did stand by some of these details, we'd have a he said/she said, with strong incentives on each side.
But you don't help fixing problems by telling a lie about them, you just make it more difficult for those trying to tell the truth about the issue. It does not seem Daisey understands that he has hurt the cause he claims he was trying to help.
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.
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.
Wrong. Mike Daisey presented his lies AS FACTS to reputable news organizations.
I'm not wrong. I said that he's not a journalist, and that's true. He's a playwright.
Beyond that, and beyond what I heard him say on This American Life, I have no idea. The man could be a pathological liar. But he's not a journalist, and never pretended to be one.
What astounds me -- I think -- is his honesty. He overstates and overestimates his value... but... he wrote it as it is.
I read his account and think he is a goddamn idiot... basically a self-indulgent, petulant child. I think it shows a profound disconnect with reality, he legitimately thought that if he told the story... people would be on his side.
I am deeply curious about his mental state... he considers himself victimize, he considers disclaimers meaningful, he really can't understand why people would take offense at his shallow, low value wrapper trading off the names and content of other people.
What I found interesting in the This American Life episode over the weekend is that Mike Daisey claimed that the reason why he didn't retract his story before is that he was afraid that it would undo all the 'good it had done' in spreading 'the truth'. At the same time, he suggested that it was he felt it was his best work yet. I suspect that he really feared the disintegration of 'his best work' when the lies were uncovered, and his supposed fear of un-doing the 'good' his story has done was really just another layer of justification. There are certain personality types that will justify anything questionable that they do - and those justifications are often complex with many layers.
He said that he didn’t believe his own words. I just don’t believe him. He literally tells employees all the dodgy things they are doing is justified to help them “connect” more people. In no way do I believe he didn’t believe that.
Not only that, but he told his employees what they are doing is totally justified and to keep doing it, because it was sanctioned by management.
That's a perfectly legitimate question and it's surprising that the reporter didn't follow up on it. But if he were lying about that at this point, it would certainly ruin him, so it's probably true. The part that I find unsavory is that his comment repeats the detail twice. That's milking it, which to me makes the whole thing read like PR. He also shouldn't have included the bits about forgiving himself and employing hundreds. Someone is giving this guy bad editing advice. On the other hand, the claim that an abused kid would join a gang of criminal nutcases because they offered him belonging when no one else would, seems completely credible to me.
His claims are directly contradicted by his employee's actions. When asked about this, he provides no clarification. I just don't understand why you'd consider him even remotely believable.
So many of the things he claims to have seen aren't in essence untrue: hexane poisoning did happen, he just didn't meet (and tell a true story) about how. Underage workers do exist, but I think it is less than clear whether Daisy met any of them. Terrible abuses resulting in lasting, terrible physical damage (or death) clearly are occurring, but Daisey isn't the one uncovering them, he isn't the heroic reporter interviewing the victims to reveal their plight.
When Daisey defends his work, he's really defending himself as the champion of the oppressed. This, I think, is really about his ego, not about the plight of any abused Chinese worker.
reply