

Woz supports Mike Daisey's message and says you should too - jerrya
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57400104-37/woz-supports-mike-daiseys-message-and-says-you-should-too/

======
DanBC
Well, Woz is sort of right. The message - some workers in some factories are
treated appallingly and that needs to stop and we can help it stop - is
something that most people agree with.

People are not complaining about that. People are complaining that it was used
in a journalistic programme, and the he lied about the authenticity of it when
asked. If he'd been honest from the start no-one would be complaining now.

~~~
uncoder0
I think in 'Retraction' the This American Life[1] episode that aired this
weekend does a good job of pointing this line of reasoning.

Specifically the second act.

[1][http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/460/r...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/460/retraction)

~~~
read_wharf
I think it's interesting that a news show, that is now going open kimono (and
good on them for that) to examine and explain how they were taken in by an
actor presenting his poetically licensed work as "journalism," labels its news
show segments "Prologue, Act 1, Act 2 and Act 3."

~~~
uncoder0
Good point. I have been a long time listener and afaik they clearly mention
when a segment is fictitious. That is pretty interesting though.

------
bebop
The important thing is trying to get corporations, like Apple, to take charge
in human rights. There is the saying "vote with your wallet" and Apple has the
power to get people like Foxconn to live up to expectations, just by using
their (Apple's) wallet.

What is unfortunate, and hopefully going to change is that some corporations
are not interested in human rights, but instead their bottom line - which is
understandable, as they have shareholders etc -. However companies like Apple
do have a moral obligation to make sure that their products do not negatively
impact the well being of human life, and this should be a part of Apple's
business plan/strategy.

I think what woz is talking about is that human rights should be included as a
factor of the bottom line, and Apple should be taking charge in making this
happen, lead by example.

Another company that does this, is Patagonia. Their mission is:

"Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire
and implement solutions to the environmental crisis."

This obviously relates to environmental concerns, however "cause no
unnecessary harm" also has human elements. Personally I would like all
corporations that I do business with, have this idea ingrained in their
business philosophy. One can always dream.

~~~
Cushman
> ... Apple has the power to get people like Foxconn to live up to
> expectations, just by using their (Apple's) wallet.

This is a fascinating observation. Also in the news this week is what Apple
plans to do with their massive profit margins-- surely one possibility is that
they could ensure that the people who actually make Apple products are treated
humanely.

> What is unfortunate, and hopefully going to change is that some corporations
> are not interested in human rights, but instead their bottom line - which is
> understandable, as they have shareholders etc...

This is likewise fascinating-- the implication that corporations imply not
only legal, but moral absolution. If I own a slave to do my housekeeping, that
is clearly immoral; if I am one of a hundred thousand shareholders of an
organization which owns a hundred thousand slaves, somehow that becomes simply
the nature of business and not something that I have accountability for. It
sounds ludicrous to say, but it is plainly true of the way we have structured
our economy.

------
SpikeDad
So does this mean that for Woz the ends justify the means? Lying through one's
teeth is a valid strategy to create a "message"?

What next, Woz being a spokesperson for Google?

If he thinks that the issue of Chinese workers and Apple is important, he's
sinking his own ship by lending credence to a bald-faced liar.

~~~
skilesare
I think he's saying the art justifies the means.

Daisey created a piece of art. It is a really good piece of art and it had
great success as art. He got into trouble when people started taking his art
as fact and he decided to let it ride to see where it led. He may have ended
up a 'bald-faced liar' but until he misled TAL he was just a really, really
good artist.

------
talentdeficit
Mike Daisy exploited a story about violations of human rights to benefit
himself. This is not a greater good situation.

~~~
Aqueous
I'm not sure that was his motivation. He seems genuinely motivated by the
plight of workers in poor industrial societies. He just went about it in a way
that has actually ended up hurting the very cause he was trying to help.

Which was certainly a stupid thing to do. Just not evil.

------
lawnchair_larry
If he would have owned up to it and said "No, it wasn't entirely real, I'm an
artist", that would be one thing. Instead he denied that he made certain
things up, and when This American Life asked him direct and specific questions
regarding the nature of his visit, he continued to lie. Perhaps Woz didn't
hear that.

------
msg
Key quote:

 _"A lot of people are saying [about Daisey] 'Oh you didn't experience this
yourself,'" Wozniak continued, "but in his style of art he's trying to help
the audience experience these things. I never expected the show to be real.
The 'Pirates of Silicon Valley' [the film about the early rivalry between
Apple and Microsoft] was not completely accurate. How could it be? But the
movie is very true in the way that matters most."_

What I do like about this is that you can't just dismiss an argument, or a
representation, because it makes a couple of mistakes. You can usually form a
model of it with the errors removed and see what's left. As an argument it can
continue to persuade and compel you.

What I don't like about this is that journalists are operating on the front
line of history, and introducing deliberate falsehoods is like rewriting
history. If they're not exposed, they might sit there, wrong, forever.

Thrown into this, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and will rewrite
their own reflections mentally as they recall, on the slightest provocation.
So it's important to know how far to trust but verify eyewitnesses.

I would put Daisey firmly in camp B, liar, and his argument firmly in camp A,
truthy if not completely accurate.

------
CurtHagenlocher
I always feel a little embarrassed when the media quotes Woz. Is that wrong of
me?

~~~
wmf
At least Woz isn't talking about technical topics this time. Presumably he has
plenty of experience being on the receiving end of the RDF.

------
prodigal_erik
I would be astonished if the Daily Show were found to be passing off bullshit
as factual (not obvious hyperbole), or that their audience would forgive such
a discovery. They take such glee in running clips that prove claims they've
made.

