4 ms·

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 a

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/retraction http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/r...

georgieporgie 15y ago
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).
- DanBC 15y ago
  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.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    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.
morrow 15y ago
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.
read_wharf 15y ago
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."
- uncoder0 15y ago
  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 15y ago
  [deleted]

georgieporgie 15y ago

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).

DanBC 15y ago
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.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  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.

morrow 15y ago

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.

read_wharf 15y ago

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."

uncoder0 15y ago
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 15y ago
[deleted]