Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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...

I think anyone interested in this whole matter would be well served by listening to Act 3. It lays out the facts that we know to be true, and provides the information necessary to make an informed decision as to whether or not you should be supporting Apple by buying their products:

To get a sense of what really is true of Apple's working conditions in China, Ira talks to New York Times reporter Charles Duhigg. Duhigg, along with Times reporter David Barboza, wrote the newspaper's front-page investigative series in early 2012 about this subject. And while Duhigg won't tell you how to feel about Apple and its supplier factories' practices, he does lay out the options for how you could feel, in a very clear and logical way. Duhigg is also the author of The Power of Habit. (12 minutes).

That's great, but it doesn't tell me how I should assess whether to buy from any other manufacturer.

To extend into t-shirts. (Not an analogy) I'm told that a discount shop selling t-shirts for £1 is using sweatshop labour. The obvious implication is that more expensive brandnames do not use that sweatshop labour. But I don't know who audits that stuff, or where the numbers are. Can I trust, say, TheGap to make sure all workers are paid properly?

It's a weird market niche that hasn't really been filled by FairTrade yet.

You always have the option of not buying from anyone, if you feel that you cannot find a manufacturer that meets your ethical requirements. There are likely enough used, functional mobile phones in the world to meet basic communication needs for decades to come.

I thought he did a good job too, but I think that lying at all, even about little details in order to have a more coherent, compelling story about an important topic poisons the whole thing, because it brings into question the author's credibility. You have to decide for yourself when he's finished lying and is now telling the truth.

In this particular case, I think it's safe to just take his story as fiction (even though some of it is true), since there are plenty of other journalists covering the same topic. It's just a shame that he felt he couldn't just tell Ira from the beginning what was storytelling and what was reporting, since his piece was so well done, and he really did not need to mislead or lie in order to be compelling.

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."

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

" The message - some workers in some factories are treated appallingly and that needs to stop and we can help it stop"

I think the message ought to be that workers in most jobs in China are treated appallingly, to the extent that Foxconn is an extraordinarily plum job that thousands of people apply for every time there are openings.

Both Mike Daisy and "Kony2012" really ask the question, "why do we need a character actor to tell us facts when we could be using journalists?"

When people are addicting to having situations digested into entertaining pap, we should be surprised that truth suffers.

Are you suggesting that journalists promote greater truth than entertainers? Have you read the news lately? Truth isn't limited to mere factual correctness.

Indeed. I often like to think of the difference been The Daily Show and Fox News. The former is often as insightful, accurate and ethically-oriented as good journalism -- but officially presented as comedy and entertainment. The latter is elite-serving propaganda thinly disguised as "for the little guy" journalism and low-brow patriotism.

I understand the line of argument that essentially goes "Daisey still highlights a situation that needs to be addressed", but that is fundamentally different from suggesting that factual correctness somehow doesn't matter. Indeed, Daisey is perhaps one of the most obvious examples of why factual correctness does matter, because all of his falsehoods seem to stem from an egotistical desire to paint him as the savior of China's oppressed worker. So while Daisey's overall point is true, it remains that a fundamental part of it- specifically the role of Mike Daisey- is completely false, and, insofar as it really amounts to Daisey attempting to stroke his own ego, it really is tremendously disgusting.

I find the behaviour repugnant. But the message is being overshadowed by the messenger.

That's true in the sense that factual correctness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for truth.

Take-away: Whether you're a journalist or not, if you're telling people a story that purports to be true, it needs to actually be true. Even in the case of 'pure' entertainers.

What about the truth elucidated in philosophy, religion and even fiction? It's not like philosophers ever obtain "factual" status, and yet there is tremendous truth in many philosophical works.

Perhaps I should have said it this way: If you're telling a story that purports to be factually true, it needs to actually be factually true.

Fiction by definition doesn't purport to factually be true, so that's ok. Most philosophy doesn't, either. Most or all religious texts do, and so most or all religious texts fail my test.

Am suggesting that entertainers don't have to put forward the literal and a literal, factual truth is sometimes crucial. Sure "other truths" are very important also but they can't substitute for factual correctness.

Obviously, also, I mean actually journalists rather than those who play them on TV (Fox News etc).

I found it surprising Woz would support Daisey, given what Woz said on his upbringing in Jobs' bio. He said his father taught him to never lie, and therefore he grew up with almost absolute honesty, which gives him troubles sometime. It's rather odd that a person who values honesty so much would support Daisey.

It doesn't surprise me one bit. Woz likely has more than one value, and one of those values is probably "treat people well". I can't imagine he likes the idea of labour abuses and harsh working conditions any more than he likes dishonesty.

Elsewhere in a related story: John Stewart presents fake news on The Daily Show. Remains unrepentant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com