Foxconn "Glad That Mike Daisey's Lies Were Exposed"

theodp writes "Foxconn Technology Group, Apple's largest supplier and the target of allegations of poor work conditions, welcomed a retraction of a This American Life radio program episode it said was based on lies. 'I am happy that the truth prevails, I am glad that Mike Daisey's lies were exposed,' Louis Woo, a spokesman for Taipei-based Foxconn said. 'People will have the impression that Foxconn is a bad company,' Woo added, 'so I hope they will come and find out for themselves'. Foxconn also said that it has 'no plans to take legal action.'"

Comments

I hope he realizes he did more harm than good

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the problem here not that what Daisey reported was false, but just that he didn't directly speak to people he claimed to speak with? Of course from a journalistic standpoint that is awful but it is now sweeping these problems under the rug.

Foxconn can now act like there were no problems and ignore them just because the source used was a secondary source reported as a primary source.

Re:I hope he realizes he did more harm than good

[Maury Markowitz]

> but just that he didn't directly speak to people he claimed to speak with

No.

"The China correspondent for the public radio show Marketplace tracked down the interpreter that Daisey hired when he visited Shenzhen China. The interpreter disputed much of what Daisey has been saying on stage and on our show."

Basically he stated that all of the "bad stories" were simply made up.

Re:I hope he realizes he did more harm than good

[greyc]

(Note: I am neither of the AC ancestors, but I'm pretty sure I understand their position, so I'll try to explain it regardless)

The critical difference here is that those Chinese workers are /not/ slaves. They are not forced into taking jobs at foxconn; they take these positions voluntarily, just like people in western countries do, because they think it's a favorable trade for them.

Why do they do this? Because as bad as the working conditions and pay at companies like Foxconn are by western standards, they are very competitive compared to the local alternatives. This point is crucial: Foxconn are not exploiting people in the sense that all else being equal, the people who work for them would be better off just not doing so.

You can make an argument that people living in sufficient poverty to make such a deal favorable is a terrible thing, and I'd agree with that. However, destroying Foxconn's business model by preventing them from selling to western countries does nothing directly to fix these people's poverty; in fact it makes it worse, by reducing the pool of jobs available to them (and not just randomly reducing it; you're taking away some of the best jobs in the pool!).

As an analogy, think of how you'd react if people in a hypothetical country that's even more wealthy than your's decided that your working conditions are far too horrible for your pay, and somehow stopped jobs like the one you have right from being offered anymore, resulting in you having to choose a worse job instead. Would that make your life better? Would you be happy about it? It's the same thing here.

The above is how the simple economic argument goes. Real economies and societies are complicated, of course, and there's several vectors by which driving Foxconn out of business oculd potentially improve the situation for common workers in China. But those aren't clear to me (and aren't clear to various other people who've looked at the issue) - the direct, obvious and robust effect is strongly negative. If you're going to argue that there are other effects compensating for it, it would be good to present your reasoning or link to other people arguing for the above reasoning being incorrect.

Re:I hope he realizes he did more harm than good

[Grygus]

This is, of course, nonsense. What is holding the entire process back is greed.

Apple makes large margins on the sales of iProducts. If they were interested, they could pass some, not even a lot, of that back to their suppliers and conditions there would improve. But they do not; they keep those margins, which are as large as they are precisely because they pay their suppliers as little as possible.

These people are in poor working conditions, not because it is inevitable, but because it is cheap.

Re:I hope he realizes he did more harm than good

[iluvcapra]

At no time in The Jungle does Upton Sinclair write "I, Upton Sinclair, saw..." And while much of the incidentals in The Jungle are based on real things that happened, you'd be in a lot of trouble if you tried to use The Jungle as evidence to indict anybody. Upton Sinclair never accused a living person of a criminal act in The Jungle, but Daisey makes several falsifiable claims alleging real crimes by real people against real victims.
Upton Sinclair also never represented his work as an account of actual people in an actual situation, which Mr. Daisey repeatedly did to the TAL producers.

"Muckraking," such as it is, still requires that real claims come with real evidence. Modern examples like Michael Moore's or Kirby Dick's works are content to jump back and forth between factual claims, innuendos, and moral appeals, but what makes it "muckraking" is that they never affirmatively lie. They might edit out things against their agenda, they might represented a sequence of events in such a way as to maximize emotional response, they may choose their subjects in such a way that slants their presentation of the truth.

But they never tell you the sky is green, because to them such species of claims shouldn't be necessary. When Mike Daisey said the guy with the claw hand was injured making Apple products, he was telling us the sky was green. His stories in the end aren't even about China or technology manufacturing, they're just a narrative about guilt and his emotional response to globalization, and a certain sort of liberal NPR listener, highly susceptible to demonstrations of guilt, is the consumer. That's why he made it a narrative with himself witnessing things, to elicit emotions and empathy.

If he'd said "people were poisoned by hexane, making the gadgets in your pocket," it still would have accomplished muckraking and had the virtue of being true, but instead, he said "I saw a dozen 13 year olds poisoned by hexane at Foxconn making iPhones," not because he saw that, but because doing a one-man show with "Steve Jobs" in the title sells more tickets than a one-man show about Chinese labor abuses as such.

Louis Woo is their spokesman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that the real story that Mike Daisey didn't uncover is that Foxconn is a Puppeteer front company.

Avid TAL Fan Here

[eldavojohn]

Wasn't the problem here not that what Daisey reported was false, but just that he didn't directly speak to people he claimed to speak with? Of course from a journalistic standpoint that is awful but it is now sweeping these problems under the rug.

Foxconn can now act like there were no problems and ignore them just because the source used was a secondary source reported as a primary source.

So, being an avid TAL fan, here are some things I remember from the two episodes that he lied about (remember Cathy Lee was his translator):

• Guards with guns (in fact, Cathy has never seen one)
• Factory workers meeting at Starbucks
• Visited 10 factories (he only visited 3 according to Cathy)
• Meeting N-Hexane victims
• meeting underage workers (he actually guessed a bunch of young looking girls' ages)
• meeting a hundred factory workers (play says 100, Daisey later says 25-30 now cathy says 2 or 3)
• metal press victim who was fired for workin too slowly
• a lot of the emotional interractions with Cathy
• he presented himself as a "writer/actor" to Cathy but influenced our impression of Apple
• didn't go on the exit ramp with Cathy
• did go to dorm rooms for workers but lied about cameras in them
• Cathy claims she never separated with Mike at the factory
• Cathy says he never spoke to workers in English
• he lied about Cathy's availability and phone number to occlude This American Life's factchecking

The things that really worry me are he calls this "unpacking the complexities of how the stories get told" or "untying the story" in the second episode. This guy reminds me of the religious leaders from my youth who will tell you complex lies about their own personal experiences and they justify it by the fact that you are duped into believing past a mark that the evidence justifies. It's gross and disgusting that he washes his hands of it and calls his thing a performance while never straightening out TAL on the specifics.

Like you said, some of the things happened but at what scale? Daisey makes it sound like you could fly there and pick a factory and you'd find it all. Good for TAL for devoting a full hour to what they had misrepresented. I'm still a huge TAL fan.

And every time you think twitter and blogging and Slashdot have replaced modern journalism, behold the above danger.

Americans are essentially competing against slaves

[Lorien_the_first_one]

A point that is not often addressed in public discourse is that Americans have been surrendering rights just to keep their jobs in the face of demands by corporate American. Corporate America is using slave labor in China as leverage to demand and acquire concessions from workers and to bust unions here. Once we call it what it is in the mainstream press, we might see greater awareness in the general population.

"Oh, wait. When I buy a phone, be it Android, Apple or *gasp* Microsoft, I'm supporting slavery. That slavery is being used against me."

This has coincidentally been accelerating for the last 30 years. 30 years? Around 30 years ago we saw the start of:

* The rise of intellectual property
* The lowest income tax rates in history
* The acceleration of the outsourcing of labor to China, Vietnam and Thailand.
* The acceleration of the continual decimation of the middle class.

I'm sure there is more, but you get the picture. Slavery is a great way to cause a depression.