Woz supports Mike Daisey's message and says you should too(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Woz supports Mike Daisey's message and says you should too
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57400104-37/woz-supports-mike-daiseys-message-and-says-you-should-too/
35 comments
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...
Specifically the second act.
[1]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/r...
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.
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.
[deleted]
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).
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
> ... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As opposed to the lies of journalists who emphasise the wrong facts.
Mike Daisy exploited a story about violations of human rights to benefit himself. This is not a greater good situation.
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.
Which was certainly a stupid thing to do. Just not evil.
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.
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.
"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.
I always feel a little embarrassed when the media quotes Woz. Is that wrong of me?
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.
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.
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.