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.

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.

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.

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).