The substance of things unseen

[dynamicsymmetry]

So a while back I was making a fairly big deal out of This American Life's broadcast of "Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory", Mike Daisey's wrenching monologue about his trip to China and the Foxconn factory where many Apple products are made. Which is now apparently either mostly or entirely untrue. Mike Daisey made it up. He made it up and then

Comments

[maccaj]

Oh, I know one other thing I was going to say... I think writers have to be careful with what we call "truth" and I think journalists should be careful what they call "fiction" and I don't like the idea that everything is either one or the other. Of course journalists have to be interested in truth at their jobs, and facts are paramount... but for Ira to imply that if a work of theater presents itself as factual but doesn't carry a disclaimer, that author is somehow *lying* is ridiculous. (He's allowed to be ridiculous, in his situation. I would be, too. But that doesn't change the fact that it's fucking ridiculous.) When I watch the West Wing, it feels true. A lot of it *is* true, either factually or emotionally. But I don't get to go harangue Aaron Sorkin for claiming that "Honor thy father" is the third commandment. It's a dramatic work, in a non-fiction world, using real facts to depict a fictional presidency... and some of the real facts were wrong. And if that's okay for TV writers... if it's okay to point it out but not to scream about it - then it has to be okay for *all* writers apart from journalists... and even okay for journalists, as long as they're not *doing journalism* or presenting a given work *as* journalism.

There's an episode of This American Life about a disabled guy I happen to know, and it makes me cringe. It's not that any facts are wrong, per se, but it's an ablebodied journalist (Ira) failing to ask a whole hell of a lot of questions that any disabled person would have (should have, does) ask Mike. The net effect is that the portrait of Mike is inauthentic. Mike comes off as a combination of supercrip, inspiration, and someone to be pitied... not because Ira set out to portray him that way - it's one of the better "crips in media" interviews - but because he never thought to ask certain questions. I don't blame him for that, but does that mean I get to call his journalism "fiction"?

I don't think it does, and I think setting up a dichotomy of "everything 100% factual is fact, and anything else is fiction" not only insinuates that fiction is somehow less valuable (or more frivolous, or less work, or "a trick"), but also implies that journalists are open to just the kind of accusations I postulate could be valid with regard to his very own story on Mike.

And there be dragons.