

How a Google Search Unraveled Mike Daisey’s Apple-Foxconn Story - panarky
http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2012-03-16-how-a-google-search-unraveled-mike-daiseys-apple-foxconn-story/

======
jonnathanson
_"'What I do is not journalism,' Daisey wrote. 'The tools of the theater are
not the same as the tools of journalism.'"_

How many times are we going to hear this excuse -- and from how many
"entertainers, not journalists," or "bloggers, not journalists," or "pundits,
not journalists," or "novelists, not journalists" -- before we conclude that
something is fundamentally flawed with the state of modern journalism? I don't
care what Daisey chooses to call himself or his work; he knew full well that
the claims he made would be interpreted as factual, and he did nothing to set
the record straight until someone actually decided to fact-check him. (Where,
for the record, were the fact checkers at TAL, or at any other rebroadcaster
of Daisey's story?).

In our urge for salaciousness and timeliness, we've happily allowed our
journalistic and storytelling ethics to atrophy. In this case, it's sad that
someone with a genuinely compelling story to tell (Daisey) felt he needed to
embellish the record to appeal to a set of audience expectations, real or
imagined. Why wasn't the set of legitimately factual information deemed
compelling enough for this story? Alternatively, if he truly felt that
crossing into the realm of fiction was necessary to capture the artistic
essence of this story, then why did he keep real names, real players, and real
locations intact?

Many people share some blame in this phenomenon, as far as I'm concerned. The
issue seems so pervasive as to be a broader problem of cultural expectations
and incentives, and no longer a series of individual failings from a string of
perpetrators (of whom Daisey is just the latest in a long line). Regardless,
it's troubling.

~~~
panarky
The TAL retraction explains this pretty well -- what fact-checking they did,
how they let Daisey slide on identifying his translator, etc.

PDF transcript here
[http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/special/TAL_460_Retracti...](http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/special/TAL_460_Retraction_Transcript.pdf)

As with many big lies, this one started small then snowballed as Daisey tried
to cover his tracks.

Even though the motivation may have been pure -- to make people care about the
real human costs of our consumerism -- in the end the lies have detracted from
that cause.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"Even though the motivation may have been pure -- to make people care about
the real human costs of our consumerism -- in the end the lies have detracted
from that cause."_

Exactly.

I'm all for the careful taking of artistic license to convey the emotional
truth of a setting. But license extends only to one's _impressions_ of a
scene, and not to the factual details. There's clearly a line, between the
"truth" of one's impression and outright fiction, that Daisey -- and others
like him -- feel pretty comfortable crossing these days.

For example, let's imagine that I've just come back from touring a very dour,
depressing factory in Shenzhen. The place was subject to severe security
measures -- creating an atmosphere that would have been quite striking to any
foreign visitor like myself. In order to express the emotional impact of what
I saw, I might consider the following two sentences:

"The factory was under such tight surveillance that a patrol of armed guards
around its perimeter wouldn't have seemed out of place."

or

"The factory was under such tight surveillance that armed guards patrolled its
perimeter."

Both sentences convey the "emotional truth" of the scene, but the second is
quite obviously a falsification. What troubles me is how free people today
feel to go with Sentence 2. In fact, leaping that seemingly fine line places
the entire story squarely in the domain of fiction. And the work should then
be labeled and presented accordingly -- both by its author, and by those who
exhibit it on his behalf.

To your point, even if 90% of Daisey's story is factually accurate -- even if
99% of it is -- that little bit of fabrication calls the validity of the
entire piece into doubt. And that's a damned shame. It's so easy, and so
tempting, to take one small step and wind up over a gaping brink.

~~~
beatle
The motivation was not "pure". Mike Daisey lied for money and self-promotion.

------
lbo
Glad to see this blow up in his face. Corporate victimization is a two-way
street, and it's a little-discussed fact that companies of all sizes very
often find themselves at the mercy of liars like this. At least he didn't sue
them and get away with a large settlement like most do.

------
huhtenberg
Does anyone have two side-by-side bullet point lists of what this guy said was
true and what was false? With the former being far more interesting than
latter.

~~~
rbarooah
Have you looked at Apple's supplier responsibility report? It's two clicks
from their home page and lists basically everything that was true. (e.g.
underage workers, aluminum dust explosions)

------
Natsu
So how much was true and how much was a lie? So far, the accounts I've read
say that there were no guns, that guy who had his hand crushed doesn't exist,
and Daisey didn't see under-aged workers.

But they apparently really do work their guys incredibly hard, workers did
threaten (and attempt) suicide, and some actually were poisoned by n-hexane.

~~~
protomyth
Foxconn's suicide rate is significantly lower than many places in the US and
lower than the Chinese average. This bugs me because these are simple stats to
look up (never mind ignoring the problem places here at home).

~~~
batista
_Foxconn's suicide rate is significantly lower than many places in the US and
lower than the Chinese average_

This --repeated constantly-- doesn't say much. Statistics are very tricky to
get right.

How does it relate with the average Chinese "suicide IN THE WORKPLACE" rate?
It's one thing to kill yourself at home, and another to kill yourself at work.

Second, do they also count the suicide rate of Foxconn employees that choose
to kill themselves OUTSIDE of the company buildings/campus? Or are just
workplace suicides counted? Because then, the comparison to the "chinese
average" is also skewed.

Third. How does the suicide rate of Foxconn workers compare to EMPLOYED
chinese suicide rate? Because if the majority of chinese killing themselves
are unemployed, poor, with financial difficulties etc, then Foxconn numbers
could be above that average.

~~~
moonchrome
>It's one thing to kill yourself at home, and another to kill yourself at
work.

And on the other hand they have huge dorms for workers which could skew the
statistics in the other direction (off work counted as work). If the suicide
rate is 10% of the general population rate then it's fair to say that it would
take a lot of "skewing" for it to be significantly higher than the average.
And that's sort of the point - when you hire 1 million low skilled employees
you are bound to hire mentally unstable people - the kind that commits suicide
over a relationship breakup, an argument, etc. So while it's possible that
work conditions "triggered" the suicide they likely weren't "normal"
individuals and it doesn't say much about working conditions at Foxconn - the
suicide rate would have to be much higher than the average to claim that
Foxconn is a deathtrap in which a normal person would commit suicide.

~~~
batista
_And that's sort of the point - when you hire 1 million low skilled employees
you are bound to hire mentally unstable people - the kind that commits suicide
over a relationship breakup, an argument, etc._

I think this is a little biased, if not "racist" (class-ist?). I also take
offense at the " _they likely weren't 'normal' individuals_ ". Who said that
highly skilled people are less "mentally unstable"? If anything, they can be
much more fickle and prone to self-questioning over minor shit. In any way,
the workers at those places weren't much lower of higher skilled than the
majority of the Chinese population --which includes expansive masses of no
degree holders, factory and retail workers and farmers.

(Let me unleash the anecdotal: Howard Hughes, Godel, Turing, Nash, the list of
highly skilled guys turning cuckoo is huge. Not to mention highly skilled
Asperger sufferers and the like).

~~~
moonchrome
>Who said that highly skilled people are less "mentally unstable"?

What I meant to say is that you do a lot less screening/bulk hire with low
skilled workers so it's not going to affect the statistics/you're even more
likely that you will be close to the averages than if you were doing
interviewing/management.

