The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs- Page 3

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 9:46pm

AC, I appreciate your efforts to help me understand the difference. For the record, I have published both fiction (in the form of theatrical and musical works) and non-fiction (academic publications) and I certainly have very different standards for each. (But in terms of non-fiction, I wrote for publications where every claim had to be cited; so the difference between truth and truthiness was easy to discern.)

You are correct that the term "creative non-fiction" can be misleading, even though I understand that non-fiction must also be "created".

And as you know, even mass-market history books nowadays frequently report the "thoughts" of historical figures and private conversations the writer couldn't possibly have witnessed. In such a world, I'm not sure that Daisy has gone so very much further.

Perhaps the moral is that we all need to receive everything we read and hear with a critical attitude.

Here's what I wonder: will the fuss over Daisy's methods eclipse our concern for working conditions overseas? I suspect it will.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 9:52pm

Charles Isherwood has weighed in with a thoughtful piece:

Mr. Daisey may not claim to be a journalist, but there is little question that in his show, which he has been performing since 2010, he gives no indication that some of the events he describes as having witnessed himself were embellished or based on incidents that took place elsewhere. The program at the Public Theater described it as “nonfiction.”

Nonfiction should mean just that: facts and nothing but the facts. For its part the Public released a statement saying: “Mike is an artist, not a journalist. Nevertheless, we wish he had been more precise with us and our audiences about what was and wasn’t his personal experience in the piece.”

___

The problem is Mr. Daisey’s particular brand of theater is experienced by the audience as direct and honest testimony to events that he witnessed. (His previous monologues include “The Last Cargo Cult,” about the financial system, and “How Theater Failed America.”) This is also known as reporting, which is journalism. The weight, authority, emotional power and — like it or not, theatricality — of “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs” derive precisely from the assumption that Mr. Daisey is telling the truth about the events he describes.

I certainly believed that the stories Mr. Daisey told — of seeing guards with guns at the Foxconn factory, of interviewing a 13-year-old girl who worked at the factory, of talking to an elderly former Foxconn worker whose hand had been destroyed — were true. According to Ms. Lee and the producers of “This American Life,” they were not.

Speaking Less Than Truth to Power

Updated On: 3/18/12 at 09:52 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 10:10pm

Terrific essay, AC, thanks.

I keep thinking of Spalding Grey's shows. Although they purported to be autobiographical, I'm not sure I ever assumed that meant every sentence was objectively factual. (And maybe that's my problem in this discussion: I assume every piece of autobiography comes complete with some sort of agenda.)

It's too bad Daisy didn't just find a different way to label his piece, since the working conditions he discusses do seem to be deplorable. Calling the piece "nonfiction" in the program is undeniably misleading.

But when someone above wrote that surely The Public knew Daisy was stretching the truth, I don't know why. I doubt The Public or any other theater employs fact checkers.

Maybe they'll have to start doing so if such shows become the norm.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 10:52pm

Gaveston, I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Stop it.

Daisey was representing his words as the truth about what was going on in China. He presented it as true and he was lying when he did so.

Your comparisons to Spalding Gray and Truman Capote and Norman Mailer are specious and beside the point. They were not lying, even when they were dramatizing events.

Good writing reveals truth, whether fiction or nonfiction, whether it is objective truth or the writer's personal truth. What Daisey did (and what Frey did) was tell untruths and present them as truths.

Isherwood's Times article makes the same points you make about the blurred line between entertainment and journalism without resorting to false and melodramatic comparisons.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 11:15pm

The thing is, the Public is not the first theatre to sponsor the work. It played at numerous several other venues. Daisey has had other pieces performed at the Public before- why would they fact-check this? It's coming, in their view, from not only a reputable source but known commodity in the theatre world. They are as thrown as their audience members- and even more so, because Daisey has had a relationship with them. He's performed at Joe's Pub, through Under the Radar, and so forth. They also have to appear nurturing to artists. "We'd love to accept your play... but you claim it's based on or inspired by real events? Alright, well, we need to fact check that, then."

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 11:55pm

I don't think anyone is laying the full blame on The Public here. In fact, I imagine they'll probably come out of this relatively unscathed, just as they James Frey situation didn't sink Random House or its credibility completely. I have no idea what kind of research department, if any, The Public has. But even considering The Public's longstanding relationship with Daisey, it's still surprising that no one would seem to think to verify certain facts in a theatre piece that purports to be so grounded in verifiable truth. It's surprising that none of the various news programs Daisey has appeared on prior to This American Life didn't uncover anything. Maybe it's because I've spent some time on the literary side of this debate, where it's such a big deal right now, that I can't comprehend this. As Isherwood noted in his piece, Daisey claimed to be presenting facts, and the piece is labeled non-fiction. This isn't an autobiographical play or a roman-a-clef. It's basically theatrical journalism, whether Daisey wants to call it that or not.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 12:54am

There is no fact checking department at the Public Theater. Hell, there barely are at newspapers or magazines anymore. The thing is, there are problems with the supply chain for American products in all Chinese factories. Those have been documented and verified elsewhere. There was nothing to dispute about that.

The issue is the creation of the permanently disabled factory worker who perfectly illustrated the economic disparities of the west and the east and the physical harm our culture does to theirs. Not only was he the perfect embodiment of the whole stinking system Daisey was trying to get people "to care about," (as if nobody cared about it before he came along), but he also supplied Daisey with the perfect final image for his show. If that man hadn't existed, Daisey would have had to make him up, the guy was that perfect. Well, he didn't, so Daisey did, and the rest is recent history.

[Brick]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 1:26am

The biggest issue in this is that the piece was intended to expose the truth behind how Apple makes these products. That is the core of the piece. For these truths to be made up neither serves the piece, nor the intention.

And by the time it got to NPR, it was pure hubris. Who wouldn't want to take such exposure? But to think he could outsmart journalists and fact-checkers was hubris into delusion.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 1:45am

My comments were mostly directed toward Whatever2, who did seem to be laying some of the blame at the Public's feet.

Fact-checking is a time consuming process that I doubt very highly most theatres have the capabilities (or, as aforementioned, time) to indulge in. And I imagine it would become off-putting for artists to have to be proven innocent before going onward with a production.

Namo- although certainly people were at least vaguely aware of the nature of the construction of so many of their goods, Daisey did open peoples' eyes more. People don't consider where their money goes or how their iPods are made. And, until fairly recently, no one knew Foxconn or its ilk. Daisey's monologue certainly got a lot of people talking about the conditions. But Daisey did not need to distort or fabricate to get that effect. But two of the fabricated moments- the revelation of 12 year olds working in the plant and the crippled factory worker- consistently got some of the most audible responses. But the audience would be convinced regardless of their presence.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 10:24am

Foxconn Decides Not to Sue

[Kad]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 11:21am

I'd be surprised if they did, since a good deal of what Daisey spoke about them is indeed true and can be verified with numerous other sources. The suicide nets, for example.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 2:23pm

Gaveston, I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Stop it.

Daisey was representing his words as the truth about what was going on in China. He presented it as true and he was lying when he did so....

Joey, I don't think you're qualified to judge my interior motivations and who put the bug up your ass anyway?

Am I supposed to be insulted that you think Isherwood did a better job addressing the subject in a paid Times article than I did in an off-the-top-of-my-head internet post? Well, I'm not. I agree with you.

But my intentions weren't so different from Isherwood's. I was trying to move the conversation away from simplistic notions of "truth" and "falsehood" (such as the second grader's notion of "truth" and "lying" in your post) by noting that fiction can also be "true" in its way, just as nonfiction can use entirely verifiable facts to tell a lie.

And the conversation did move in this most recent page, thanks to Kad, Namo, AC and others. I can't take any credit for it having done so, but neither can you.

As for Capote, IN COLD BLOOD was in its day far more controversial than Daisy's work, if only because the Capote book reached far more people. That it is no longer controversial only shows how the line of acceptable invention has moved in half a century.

I didn't mention Gray, Capote or Mailer because I thought they were the same as Daisy, but because they represent something this side of pure, objective reportage (which probably never existed). As such, I think they make better starting points for comparison than a history textbook.

In short, I was thinking out loud. Please PM me a photo of your keyboard and I'll point out the scroll bar to save you future aggravation.

Updated On: 3/19/12 at 02:23 PM

[cardamon]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 2:31pm

In case you haven't already seen it, Mike Daisey has a new post up on his blog.
“Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 3:05pm

Still not quite ready to admit that his own choices may have eclipsed the story he wanted to tell, is he?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 3:16pm

What Else Has Mike Daisey Lied About?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 5:07pm

Thanks for the Gawker article, Phyllis.

Sometimes lying is just not telling the truth when it matters, and the truths we learn in second grade are true enough.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 6:26pm

Daisey underestimates the effect this will have on his career. The well has been poisoned. Who will want to drink from it now?

He's an excellent storyteller and performer, who surely did not need to embellish anything at all. The actual facts are quite repellant and alarming enough. He did not need to wrench up the drama.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 8:34pm

I don't know, Kad. I mean I agree with you that the untruths were unnecessary, but as for how the scandal will affect Daisey in the future, I think it's hard to predict.

We have an entire "news" network devoted to even more egregious lies under the banner, "Fair and Balanced."

As opposed to the quiz show scandal of the 1950s, when the producers of SURVIVOR were caught rigging the outcome of their game a decade ago, the public, the press and the FCC shrugged as one.

When Errol Morris used dramatic "recreations" in his documentary, THE THIN BLUE LINE, there was quite a bit of response, from concerned discussion to outrage. Yet nobody bats an eye at doc reconstructions nowadays. There are entire channels devoted to true crime recreations, including one program on ID Discovery that uses a narrator's voice to tell us the purported thoughts of the murder victim, before and AFTER death!

Hell, we went to war based on false assertions by a President and Vice-President and then proceeded to re-elect them!

So while Daisey may lose a few bookings in the short term and his future works will no doubt face greater scrutiny, I wouldn't count him out just yet. His argument will be that any errors he made were made for the greater good of improving labor conditions in Asia. And for some producers, that argument will be enough.

Just to be clear for those who see everything in black and white, none of the above is intended to excuse Daisey's fabrications. I'm just saying let's be realistic about the moral climate in which he (and we) are functioning.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 9:05pm

From what I've seen, popular opinion right now is very much against Daisey.

The public has a strange relationship with the truth- where it can excuse embellishment and dishonesty in some cases, it finds such behavior unforgivable in others.

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/19/12 at 11:01pm

Kad: responding to your earlier post re: "blaming" the Public ...

Go back and re-read my original response to the what-do-i-expect-from-the-Public question ... of course I don't hold the Public responsible for Daisey's lies. What I do blame them for is their utterly unacceptable response to those lies. Instead of having yhe BALLS to do what This American Life did (face their audience and say: we were lied to and as a result we allowed our stage to be used to lie to you ... that's wrong and we regret it), they actually ENDORSED Daisey's bullsh*t theater-vs-journalism excuse, and adopted it as their own position on the matter.

Even though their program termed the work "non-fiction"???

Yeah, I think they deserve some blame for that response. Plenty of blame.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 9:18am

Gawker also posted this, claiming Daisey told the same lies OFFSTAGE too. There's also a similar claim in the article's comments section as well.

http://gawker.com/5894216/how-i-was-duped-by-mike-daiseys-lies

[Kad]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:41pm

I think the nature of responsibility varies between the Public and This American Life in regards to this simply because the two entities are entirely different. This American Life is indeed journalism, and Daisey's piece was therefore a detriment to their credibility. The Public is a theatrical institution, its responsibility in regards the pieces it sponsors varies piece by piece. Yes, the programs said that the show was a piece of nonfiction. It was most likely included at the behest of Daisey himself. When this all was revealed, the Public removed the programs. Unlike NPR, they can't retract a production, and disowning it could lead to a blowback from audience members demanding refunds.

I think there's a difference between journalism and general nonfiction, and I have a feeling you do not agree with that.

Regardless, the Public is sponsoring a panel discussion on the topic this Thursday.
Post–Mike Daisey panel Truth in Theater: A Conversation to be held on March 22 at 8pm

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:51pm

No question, Kad: the tide has turned against Daisey for the moment. I won't be surprised if he loses some bookings in the months just ahead. But tides have a way of ebbing and flowing.

Frankly, I think it's easier to get worked up about one man's falsehoods than a large company's unhealthy working conditions. In condemning Daisey, we get to feel smugly superior; in criticizing Apple, we might feel compelled to take action. And we like our shiny iThings. (This is a general observation and certainly not a description of you personally.)

But I thought we were talking about the long-range effect on his career and I think that is much harder to predict. I gave a few examples above and I'm sure we both could give many more where false reports were quickly forgotten by the public. (We might also discuss the fact that most news outlets have stopped requiring two sources for every item and instead are content to "report what has been reported elsewhere.")

The ethics of representation have been blurred in all media, not just by an on-stage storyteller. I don't mention this to excuse Daisey or The Public's response; but stamping our feet and proclaiming "true is true and false is false" (again, not a reference to you, Kad) doesn't really tell us much about the context in which Daisey (or countless others) feels free to embellish a story.

(ETA that I forgot to agree with your assertion that the public isn't entirely consistent in its outrage, especially over the long haul. And Daisey's appeal thus far has been largely in a venue (the theater) dominated by people with some commitment to traditional values of truth in journalism. So maybe Daisey's goose is indeed cooked.

But sometimes public outrage is deliberately manipulated by other parties. The condemnation of Mike Wallace survived in part because CBS was so easily intimidated, and Fox News and the conservative blogosphere were around to mock Wallace repeatedly and in the process obscure the fact that his report of Bush's war record was essentially correct. At the same time, the proven falsehoods of Swiftboaters were drowned out by the volume at Fox and elsewhere.

The evidence of Mike Wallace, Anita Hill and the Dixie Chicks suggests that those who tell uncomfortable truths are punished for far longer than those who tell out and out lies.

Perhaps all we can say about Daisey is "time will tell".)

Updated On: 3/20/12 at 03:51 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 4:17pm

> I think there's a difference between journalism and general nonfiction, and I have a feeling you do not agree with that.

No, Kad, i don't agree with that -- truth doesn't come in flavors.

perhaps you mean the duty to assure accuracy is different? but even there, only so much ... the law, fwiw, makes almost no distinction between a slander uttered in the New York Times and a slander uttered on the stage of The Public Theater.

and - again -- my analogy to TAL is intended only to contrast how one "platform" responded to the issue with integrity and the other thus far has not. (though the scheduling of the forum is an encouraging development.)

ultimately in this case, though, the distinction you are willing to draw between journalism and general non-fiction doesn't really matter. Daisey's work turned out to be neither, notwithstanding the fact that he billed it as both and The Public billed it as at least the latter.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 5:23pm

...truth doesn't come in flavors....

Except it does. I'll grant you that Daisey's fabrications aren't the best examples; I think most of us will agree that when he invented under-aged workers and a man crippled on the job, he was simply doing wrong in a piece labeled "non-fiction".

But as a rule, each of us sees a slightly different flavor of the truth. Pretending we don't is self-deception.

Certainly Oskar Eustis is aware of this. He was the dramaturg for the world premier of Emily Mann's EXECUTION OF JUSTICE in the Bay Area. Although every word of Mann's play is taken from public statements (either court testimony or media interviews) and every word is therefore "true" in one sense; the editing of those words was Mann's job in a highly creative process. As far as I'm concerned, she did her job with great integrity and concern for the "truth", but I don't know if Dan White's family or the judge at the White trial would agree.

At the very least, we have to acknowledge that the "truth" Mann found in public records differs from the "truth" somebody else might have found. (Full disclosure: I studied under Eustis at UCLA and have discussed EOJ with him at considerable length.)

So if Oskar's statements re Mike Daisey seem to equivocate, I suspect it's precisely because he is aware of how subjective "truth" can be and how fiction as well as fact can be employed in the service of raising public awareness of injustice. Obviously, he wishes Daisey had disclosed the invention of some characters out of whole cloth, as do we all.

At the same time, he may recognize the good Daisey has done in raising awareness of how Apple products are made. The bottom line, per the Times and other media, seems to be that Daisey is correct that Apple needs to improve conditions at the factories where its products are made.

We don't do the cause of "truth" any favors if we forget that fact just because Daisey got carried away while playing to the house.