The Veracity and the Vicissitude of Mike Daisey
by Paul Fidalgo
Listening tonight to the nearly-unbearable “Retraction” edition of “This American Life” in which Mike Daisey is taken to task for his fabrication of details about his experiences in China, I kept waiting for Daisey to more effectively counter the assertion by Ira Glass that people who come to see a monologue expect that every word of it is true.
Perhaps it’s because Glass and the myriad bloggers and reporters feasting on this story are themselves journalists, and therefore can’t help but expect something like this to be akin to what they do, a retelling of actual events. And perhaps it’s because my roots are in theatre that I feel like Glass is wrong; one may not even think about it consciously while watching a show, but I feel that people on the whole do understand that a show is a show. I know that when I saw Daisey perform his excellent How Theatre Failed America in DC a few years ago, I certainly had no illusions that he was giving a 100% factual account of his life in theatre. Of course he was going to embellish, exaggerate, and invent. Why? Because he was spinning a tale, based on facts but not relying on them, that told a larger truth.
I understand that at least as far as “This American Life” and, perhaps even more damning, his op-ed in the New York Times are concerned, it’s the packaging of his story that matters. It does indeed sound as though Daisey offered his play as an entirely factual retelling and therefore worthy of being used as such on the show (and that his manufactured experiences could be written as though they were actual reportage for his New York Times piece). There’s no excusing the presentation of fiction as fact to news outlets.
But I have to wonder at “This American Life” for even wishing to do so with Daisey’s play. If they wanted to use his piece as a springboard, why not simply excerpt some pieces of a performance, make clear that what we’re hearing is a story told by an actor in a play, and then delve deeper into the very real, no less serious issue at hand? Why even decide to hand essentially an entire episode over to what they know is a piece of theatre? Glass says not killing the show after being thwarted in their attempts to contact Daisey’s translator was their big mistake. I think their big mistake was in thinking that a play might possibly be, not just the inspiration, but the substance of one of their reports. I find it hard to believe, but I am forced to believe, that Glass and company are as naive as he claims they are when it comes to credulousness about the veracity of performance art.
I don’t know what Mike Daisey was thinking. He’s such a brilliant writer and performer, and I think it would be a genuine, substantive loss to the culture if we were to lose what he does because of this — particularly since his larger motive was so crucial, so real. I can only presume that the idea of getting his show on “This American Life” and of getting to be treated with a kind of reverence by the media became con-fused with that larger motive. He is an actor, after all, and we are nothing if not attention whores of the worst kind. (Hey! Go download my music!!!!) I wish so badly that he had handled this all so differently. All he had to say to Glass, to the media, to his audience, in any subtle form he wished, that his play is just that, a play, but that it is based on many true events and reports. Done.
I also wish that when Ira Glass pressed him as to whether it was acceptable for his play to be in part constructed of fictions that he had said, proudly, that the art of storytelling has a different goal than journalism, and that his job is to get his audience to think and to feel something. Daisey does that extremely well, and the things he wants us to care about remain worth caring about.
Side note: I am more than a little sickened by many of the tech bloggers and journalists whose work I usually think extremely highly of, but are now dancing on Daisey’s reputation’s grave, almost delighted that Daisey is facing this new firestorm. This seems to me to be borne out of nothing other than their own desire to not have to feel anything about the source of the gadgets off of which they base their careers. Now they’re off the hook, so they believe, and they have someone to put in the stockades for his heresy. It’s deeply disappointing.
Awesome, Paul. Well done.
“All he had to say to Glass, to the media, to his audience, in any subtle form he wished, that his play is just that, a play, but that it is based on many true events and reports. Done.”I think the point that he did not tell Glass something was fiction when they directly asked. TAL was clear that they did not want to put fiction on the air, and Daisey made them believe that was the case. Did Glass and TAL screw up, yes. They did not properly fact check.I am a big fan of Daisey’s work and seen his three previous shows and wrote many blog posts about him. That being the case I believed what he said in his shows were true or REALLY close to the truth. I think the larger debate going on in the theater world is what happens with the storyteller is speaking in first person? Do they have to put the disclaimer “based on a true story”? I am not sure I have the answer, but if a disclaimer is not used it allows people to think it is a true story, which might upset them when they find out it is not.
Right on all counts. Daisey made a huge mistake in not being explicit about the embellished aspects of his show, to every outlet on which he appeared, not just TAL. I don’t feel like such a notice is absolutely necessary for the context of theatre alone, but I also don’t think that such a disclaimer would detract from the power of the piece.
Here’s the thing about it being “true for theatre” vs, you know, “factually accurate true”. While there is a lot of power in compressing and combining stories into a smoother narrative, these distortions run the risk of misrepresenting the scope of the problem. For example, here’s a powerful moment from Daisey’s monologue:But I do know that in my first two hours of my first day at that gate, I met workers who were fourteen years old, I met workers who were thirteen years old, I met workers who were twelve.Do you really think Apple doesn’t know?We run at least partially on anecdote and gut checks. When we learn that there are underage workers and it took almost no effort for Daisey to run into them, we assume that the problem is rampant. Our gut tells us so and Daisey encourages this.But reporter Rob Schmitz says that Apple is widely acknowledged to be aggressive in ferreting out and preventing child labour at it suppliers. They number in the tens in a supply chain that numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Which means that if you listen to Daisey and get up in arms about Apple’s child labour practices you are getting angry about the wrong thing.These things matter. Details matter.There is a broader set of problems at Apple’s suppliers. Harsh working conditions, too many instances of unsafe conditions. These are real issues that need to be really discussed and solutions need to be demanded. Daisey’s his insistence on taking his distortions to the media and presenting them as factual first hand experiences was bad enough, but the distortions themselves are also damaging.Here’s hoping that the damage is outweighed by the good.
Paul, Thanks for posting this. I heard part of this interview today and felt as uncomfortable as Daisy did while Glass repeatedly spoke of his regret of doing the story. I really wish that Daisy didn’t apologize so much, I mean Glass went forth with the story even though they didn’t get to interview that person who knew and experienced the poor conditions of the workers.Look at Spalding Gray’s monologues. He “dramatized” his journey by finding a cure for his eye condition. When you saw him perform his monologues, he took you on a very unique journey, and most of it was fiction, based on actual people and events in his life. Any theatre go-er expected that when they bought the ticket. In the end, I just wish Daisy stood by his performance piece more which I’m sure is very thought provoking.
I have been gathering more info regarding this story and have mixed feeling about all this. Daisey should not have led on that his play was completely true to Glass and then later change his tune. It reminds me of that book scandal Oprah had with the book, “A Million Little Pieces.” Daisey I’m sure is nervous that he might end up like James Frey. Let’s hope that people will forgive his mistake and go and enjoy his show for what it is, a play.
Most ironically, Daisey’s actually done a play about Frey!