Tag Archives: Daisey

Jason DeRulo Talks Dirty to Me

I actually got to meet Jason DeRulo after the concert last week– we talked ethics for a hot sec.

Do you think your goal as an artist is to be the most profitable tour or to express yourself and bring the most joy to your fans? Continue reading Jason DeRulo Talks Dirty to Me

John Mayer

Wow, a very open ended blog post! I love it. I like how this blog is evolving in terms of content and style.

I would have dinner with John Mayer. If you know me at all, this is extremely believable. Despite the flak I may receive from my peers, I stand by my statement. But why John Mayer? Continue reading John Mayer

The Agony and Ecstacy of Globalization

Alex Lyras, a Bucknell Alumni, plays Mike Daisey.
Alex Lyras, a Bucknell Alumni, plays Mike Daisey.

Bucknell’s play brought in several different aspects of the Daisey controversy that pushed me to think deeper. Several soliloquies allowed the audience to acknowledge background information that both Daisey and Ira Glass did not focus on. It made me think; what really is important? Are the lies? Did it really matter if Daisey’s speech was art? Both questions seemed negligible. The background information focused on something different. It brought new questions to the table. The first soliloquy featured a speaker native to China who addressed the forces of globalization. Continue reading The Agony and Ecstacy of Globalization

I Get It

…Literally, all this talk is driving me to insanity.

I get it.

I get that there is corruption within apple. I get that Steve Jobs is an innovative genius. I love the insights about how important innovation is in the technological realm. I really do. But I’m tired of reading everyone’s similar blog posts about the role of transparency and stakeholders. Most significantly, I am tired of analyzing apple as a company, so this blog post will be different. Continue reading I Get It

To Have a Job or Be in Poverty, That Is the Question

Each time I listen to one of the talks based on Mike Daisey’s The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, I pick up on a different detail. Continue reading To Have a Job or Be in Poverty, That Is the Question

The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth

After listening to Mike Daisey’s monologue last week, I was completely sold on the validity of his story. Hearing Mike so precisely, so vividly, and so confidently describe his trip to the Chinese factories left not even an inkling of doubt in my mind about the accuracy of the events that took place. However, throughout the 57 minutes and 35 seconds of “Retraction” and the multitude of attempts by Daisey to save-face while on the air, my confidence and trust in the accuracy of Mike Daisey’s account was shattered.

Continue reading The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth

Pushing Daiseys

mike-daisey-decoder-blog480Mike Daisey is an accomplished storyteller, there is no doubting that. So accomplished, in fact, that he was able to draw large quantities of empathy from his audiences through his captivating tale. Even more intriguing is that Daisey stays true to the mold of “storyteller” by fabricating parts of his story– in the same manner that an old bard in Ancient Greece might fabricate parts of the tales of great Odysseus to enthrall the audience. Continue reading Pushing Daiseys

Sensationalism: Is it ever justified?

A while back I was talking to a friend of mine who is obsessed with journalism. Like most journalists, she lives, speaks, and breathes controversy and through quick responses, emotional arguments, and sometimes (knowingly or unknowingly) dishonest statements she brings herself to the forefront of the conversation. In general, I like to share my opinion on any topics in the news, but with this person I felt like I could not accurately portray my opinion without it being twisted into something it was not. During one late night of a heated-debate I confronted her about her argument style describing it as “sensationalist”. She admitted to knowing that some of the things she said were not 100% true, but that she believed that it is okay to use arguments with more impact to get a point across. After all, there is no future for a journalist that doesn’t rouse support, and gather followers.This brought me to my understanding of the only truth behind media and journalism: The truth doesn’t sell.

For issues like the Apple, FOXCONN case, we want the answers be black and white. However, the truth is almost always grey, and the further dug into the story (with an open mind), the more complicated it becomes. The reality is that it would be impossible to convey the complexity of any issue in a podcast/report that would allow the audience to develop an informed decision. It then becomes the responsibility of the journalist 1. Create a short “snapshot” of the issue as a whole. 2. Create a story that will sell (which for most audiences is a sensationalist story they can repeat back to others) and 3. Represent the issue in a way that is (if fabricated) ethically justified.

I want to draw particular attention to the podcast titled 460: Retraction (found here http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction), where Rob Schmitz, an award winning journalist, refutes the emotionally-driving fabricated story “The Agony and Ectasy of Steve Jobs” as told by author/actor Mike Daisey. Rob Schmitz refutes some key points from Mike Daisey’s monologue; for example, FOXCONN does not have armed gaurds outside the factory, the percentage of underage workers is likely under 1% of the total workforce, and in general conditions are not quite as bad as he had made them seem.

I don’t want to go into analyzing which argument is correct, but rather point out the potential flaws in the reporting of both Rob Schmitz and Mike Daisey. Firstly, Mike Daisey has obviously fabricated many details in his monologue which, in my opinon, allowed the story to hit mainstream attention. I think that people should question whether his visit to FOXCONN really caused him to feel strongly about the treatment of workers, or whether he saw the opportunity to hit it big with a emotionally-appealing story. As for Rob Schmitz, I wonder what motivates him to cut down a movement to bring attention to work conditions. There are still many unsolved problems that globalization has caused, that need the attention and emotional rallying of a majority of people to create change. The bottom line question: When issues are never black and white, is it ever justified to sensationalize them into greater media attention?

Becoming the Machine

The overwhelming feelings of sadness, guilt, helplessness, and ignorance will almost certainly follow a story like the one told by Mr. Daisey regarding his visit to FOXCONN. How can Apple executives (and many other companies) let these conditions persist while maintaining consistently high profit margins? Perhaps, like Kathy, they have convinced themselves that the workers’ experience is an experience that too far disconnected from their own as to be compared to that of someone who is mentally ill. It is impossible for many to judge how it feels to be in a workers’ position, and so it is similarly impossible to empathize. To be able to trully understand transcends the ability to conduct everyday business, and is in many ways counterproductive. Also saddening, is the realization that we too are trapped in a society where it is no longer possible to be detached from our “machines” while maintaining a standard of living. Go ahead. Stop buying phones and computers.

So, It seems that we are all guilty of being complacent. While these conditions continue, we collectively nurture a social pressure to buy and use Apple products. Meanwhile, any story of the horrors that we have helped cause must be repressed. This is not the first time I have heard that FOXCONN employees attempt to commit suicide, yet I have largely just repressed any thought of it. It is too harsh, too ugly, and too foreign for many of us to ponder often. It is horrible, yet true, and we are all guilty.

Despite this knowledge, it seems that we have no choice. Similar to the dystopian society in 1984, most of us would suffer immensely if we tried to give up all of the bits and pieces of technology that we have acquired. It is a part of us, and we are a part of it. In this way we are slowly becoming the machine; an economic machine that encourages blind purchasing, complete with physical devices that break down real connection.

At this very moment, I am typing thoughts into a computer, instead of embracing the life that Socrates believed dialogue possessed. Ironically, I am contradicting the message that I may have been eluding to. Should I stop writing now? Should a passionate Apple fan refrain from buying the next big thing? I’d say probably yes to both, but we will ignore these things and continue on. More likely than not, we are preparing the future for a dystopian society in more ways than we can count, and this is a sad truth. If a radical solution were to exist, it would probably be ignored; repressed because incompatible with current society.