Comments

1
So you should do a dollop of Daisey only with a few grains of salt?
2
So does this mean I can stop feeling bad about owning an iPhone?
3
So this is pretty fucking disappointing.
4
Not only is this pretty fucking disappointing but also makes one feel like a complete asshole when one cites Daisey's show over a thing like a big family dinner, using it as a source to implore close relatives to think about the real impacts of globalization and consumer ethics. Sheesh. Mother fucking sheesh.
5
Seeing Daisey live was the closest thing this atheist gets to church; the experience was both enlightening and transformative. That said, regarding this TAL debacle, it's not the lie that bothers me -- but the apparent coverup. I have no problem with "dramatic license." On the contrary -- I expect such literary indulgences. But his part in this expanding drama stretched far past the role of monologuist. He appeared on countless networks as an expert witness to the conditions and attitudes at Apple and Foxxconn. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but at no time during these interviews do I remember him talking about or disclosing these "dramatic shortcuts."
6
"I'm not a journalist."

Also known as the BlueOregon/Bojack defense.
7
I see no problem with what Daisey "did." He took real events and for the sake of narrative expediency in his theatrical piece, put them all in one place. Further, what everyone seems to be overlooking is Daisey's ultimate point about shitty working conditions is ultimately true and that Apple has taken great pains to keep the consumers of their products from considering those conditions.
8
THE PART WHERE DAISEY FUCKED UP WAS NOT BEING MORE FORTHWRIGHT ABOUT HIS METHODS. HE LET PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT HE WAS VAGUELY JOURNALISTIC. HE *DID* STRAIGHT UP LIE TO THE 'TIA' FACT-CHECKERS HOWEVER.
9
@7, That's odd. By lying dozens of times in multiple forums and getting caught, he's undermined the worthy goal he started out with, and he's played into the very worst stereotypes about the people who care about this, i.e. that they're shrill, uninformed, and will glom onto whatever the cause of the moment is, no matter what.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be crying into my NPR tote for the balance of the afternoon.
10
@meanrepeater (#7):

Riiiiight. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

Have we stooped so low that we want everything spoonfed to us with a neat, tidy bow, facts be damned? And even when we learn that's what's happening, we "see no problem" with it? Sad.

Please don't tell me you honestly believe that if someone's heart is in the right place, we shouldn't hold them to any kind of standard of factuality or accountability.
11
Drudge is already linking to the story, no surprise there. This'll make things more difficult for anyone trying to expose abuses in the future. Not very entertaining.
12
The initial intent of the piece was NOT journalism, correct? Daisey admitted that the one mistake he made was letting it be construed as such and obviously that mistake has come back to bite him (and possibly others) in the ass. I'm just saying that Daisey had a right to take artistic license with his piece. And, as a piece of art, not journalism, it still has the power to make people take a second look at the working conditions of the people making our magical little devices.
13
I don't know if anyone's saying he didn't have a right to use artistic license while on stage. It's just that maybe he shouldn't have lied to NPR's fact-checkers when directly asked about it. He purposefully lied about the factual content of his piece specifically to keep it on the air.
14
You can't really argue with the fact that Daisey dicked over This American Life, I don't think, and that listeners of that show were misled by what purported to be a fact-checked, journalistic story.

The question of how people who encountered the show in a live theater context should feel right now is stickier. For my part: Daisey constructed his first-person, activist-oriented monologue in such a way as to lead audiences to believe that the experiences recounted in it were his own—that he observed certain abuses first-hand. He didn't. He framed his message as being based on his real-world experiences and he asked audiences to take action based on the experiences he shared. It's disingenuous to now say "what'd you expect, it's theater?" Art isn't a loophole. Was I aware Daisey's monologue might've been embellished in some ways? Sure. Did I believe Daisey saw the things he said he saw? I absolutely did.

As to whether audiences should've been less credulous—absolutely. That's on us. (People like me—people who wrote about the show—in particular.) Daisey's an amazing performer. He inspires trust and loyalty in his audiences. I'm guessing a lot of his once-loyal fans feel like that trust has been broken.

Would the show have been as successful had it been framed more accurately, as a dramatization of actual events? Maybe; probably not.
15
I'm only seeing plusses to this story.

Plus: Self-promoting, fame-chaser is brought low.

Plus: Apple is exonerated (partially). Hopefully people will stop citing the Daisey work as an argument for differentiating Apple and all other companies exploiting cheap labor.

Plus: Apple's shares continue to go up.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.