Sanding down the facts to support a neat worldview and a moving story is arrogant, and it’s lazy. But that’s not what bothers me most about Daisey and D’Agata. When they “streamline” (the latter’s word) the facts, they demean the public, and they demean the truth, by conditioning all of us to think that simple answers abound, even when they don’t. In a small way, their work trains us all to hold less in our minds. Is that really a Greater Truth?
There’s a simple solution to this dilemma: Let these artists announce at the start of their work that a little, or a lot, of artistic license lies ahead. Had either told us that their work were fictions rather than truths, we would have judged them as both claim they want to be judged—as artists, rather than as mere reporters bringing issues to the public square.
But D’Agata’s and Daisey’s work requires our belief. Deception is the keystone of their art. They need us to trust in facts, even as they manipulate them. That’s why their work feels so parasitic. As long as people are willing to deceive us in the name of truth, our only antidote is to embrace the old saw taught to every cub reporter: If you mother tells you she loves you, check it out.
D'Agata and Daisey's excellent writing sets the bar very high for mere journalists. It isn't surprising that they achieve their smoothness and emotional resonance by "sanding down the facts" to fit their narrative.
The real danger of this kind of thing as that it crowds out real, reported, unaltered stuff. Editors (not to say readers) begin to expect every story to be as neatly pinned and packaged as the essayists'.
It's insidious, and it doesn't end there.
Next thing you know, the music industry will be using machines to make the pretty girls and boys sing on key . . . .
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 20 Mar 2012 at 04:17 PM
Since when has drama had to be fact checked before performed?? Macbeth is not factual to this extent but there was a Macbeth in northern England who did fight with MacDuff in Scotland. Does the presence of witches there cancel out Shakespeare?? Even the illiterate folk on the street in 16th Century that watched Macbeth be performed knew the difference between fiction in the play and the facts--if they even cared. Yes, Daisey has a point to make about Apple and FoxConn but whether he has all his facts in line doesn't cancel out his efforts. Whether there were 7 suicides or 14 or one was a murder or some died of poisoned air--the point made and to be made again is that Apple created horrid working conditions for those in China that worked 18 hours a day 6-7 days per week just to make sure Steve Jobs and the customers waiting for their ipods received their goods on Jobs's time. As if those customers couldn't have waited a few more days/weeks and be just as satisfied. Jobs wanted the cheapest worker one could find. He didn't care two bits for the conditions of the factories nor the workers. He's the one I slammed then and do now--rest his soul. And why I won't purchase an Apple computer!! Give Daisey his due.
#2 Posted by Trish, CJR on Tue 20 Mar 2012 at 11:56 PM
The answer to Trish's comment is that drama has no need of fact-checking. No one suggests that works of fiction need to proven factually; this is neatly summed up by the descriptive term "fiction".
Works of non-fiction, by their very definition, purport to be true. At no time in the Mike Daisey saga did he tell his listeners that his was a fictional account, or "based upon actual reports", either at his performances or more importantly at any of his numerous media appearances. Rather, he actively deceived his audiences by insisting the playbill for his performance be printed with the unambiguous legend "This is a work of non-fiction." He spoke to journalists and repeated his firsthand accounts of what he "saw", which he knew to be falsehoods. He sought the much wider audience and recognition a TAL appearance would give him and, we now know, actively deceived them to get his story aired: While the story was being prepared he assured the producers he understood their journalistic standards, that the piece had to be "totally, utterly unassailable", and kept right on lying after making those explicit assurances. When confronted with his actions, he dodged and parried, and took no responsibility for his actions, instead offering a Moebius-strip excuse that his "work of nonfiction" is "theater".
Daisey is entirely getting his due.
#3 Posted by Jeff, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 10:48 AM
As I wrote before, this is a minor incident which is receiving much coverage not because of the fudging practice, which we have seen in climate science, economic policy, political campaigning, building a case for a country's invasion, destroying an organization for registering poor voters, etc.. but because of the because of the high profile of the target (prompting swift investigation of Daisey's claims) and the journalist's public recognition of his mistakes.
If the victim is percieved as meaningless and the 'journalist' doesn't care whether mistakes in his coverage weren't corrected and the prevaricator is, on the one hand, expected to lie and spin for his team and, on the other hand, is not expected to be challenged publicly in a away that would reduce his credibility because of the David Gregory rule of journalism, "It's not our role" then there is no accountability for lying to the public and there's multitudes of people waiting to take advantage of the public's gulibillity which is a result of BAD JOURNALISM.
Ira is the exception.
Stuff like what has happened to Bob Lutz and the Chevy Volt, is the rule:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE80J20X20120121?irpc=932
http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/03/19/i-give-up-on-correcting-the-wrong-headed-right-over-the-volt/
"But, just as I was savoring Krauthammer’s prose, I see … WHAT!? … the Volt cited as yet another example of Obama’s misguided, interventionist energy policy. To make matters worse, Krauthammer could not resist attaching the adjective “flammable” to the Volt.
Now, Krauthammer is a smart, highly educated and well-informed individual. I have to assume he knows the truth. The fact that he persists in the myth of Volt combustibility and Obama-conception of the vehicle cannot be in error.
I am, sadly, coming to the conclusion that all the icons of conservatism are (shock, horror!) deliberately not telling the truth!
This saddens me, because, to this writer, conservatism IS fundamental truth. It only damages its inherent credibility with momentarily convenient fiction...
So who am I going to believe now? Good question!"
Not even global warming denying conservatives can trust conservatives, but it won't matter in many of our papers, it won't matter on politico, it especially won't matter on meet the press because challenging the narratives which few people are invested in is safe. No one is going to engineer a freak out to protect Mike Daisey and the Chinese laborers at Foxconn.
Challenging the tea party, the 'starve your grandma' republicans, Fox News, pelican slicking subsidized oil companies, robber banks, narrative driven think tanks, etc? Challenging them to tell the truth involves taking risks.
And journalists in today's business climate, with the business approach to news we've seen take over since the eighties, avoid risk. Reporters in the field, like Michael Ware, take risks and get rewarded with layoffs For PTSD - just another casualty of war.
David Gregory? He's applying to the Chevy Chase Country Club! No way he's going to risk that. It's not his role.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 02:17 PM
How is the Daisey incident different from the unchallenged people spreading "gas prices are all Obama's fault" on politico:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/15/stupid-voters-political-reporting_n_1349779.html
Or the "gas prices are all Obama's fault" propaganda on fox:
http://grist.org/media/media-produces-laments-public-ignorance-on-gas-prices/
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 02:35 PM
Ha! Fox News can't even trust their own conservatives on the Chevy Volt:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/27/451932/fox-news-debunks-right-wing-lies-about-chevy-volt-anti-terrorist-weapon-safest-car-on-the-road/
It's not a news network, it's a looney tunes segment.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 27 Mar 2012 at 07:05 PM
Mike Daisy's show reminded us of that which deep down we know, but do not want to admit. We are all connected. There are real people on the other end of that phone, gadget, or next best thing. Sometimes stories tell the truth with a capital T, better than the facts.
#7 Posted by ithink, CJR on Thu 29 Mar 2012 at 10:04 PM