"I believe that when I perform it in a theatrical context in the theater that when people hear the story in those terms that we have different languages for what the truth means." Mike Daisey, This American Life #460-Retraction
I recently listened to TAL's retraction episode (first aired on March 16) and I admit I was baffled by Mike Daisey's insistence that "truth" meant something different in theater than it did in journalism. Scott Walters defends Mike Daisey in the Huffington Post citing that in "creative non-fiction" (huh?) there is a distinction between "emotional truth" and "factual truth."
[Short summary: Mike Daisey is a writer/performance artist who wrote and performed a one-man play called The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs (NY Times gave it a good review). As part of the play, Daisey recounts his trip to a Foxconn factory in Shenzhen where he observes firsthand the deplorable working conditions. That's the part that gets him press from the mainstream media, including TAL. The problem is, however, that many of the details were not factually correct; in fact, many were just plain outright fabricated. Hence the retraction from TAL. To his credit, Daisey admitted he made a mistake and has since publicly apologized.]
Following this story (yes, I realize that it's a month old), I found myself asking a few questions:
1. Does fact=truth? Or truth=fact?
2. Can fact and/or truth mean different things in different context? (e.g. we believe the Bible to be true, but is it true in the same way that a math book is true? Can something be sort of true and still be considered true?)
What do you think?
"Creative non-fiction," despite your "huh?", has been around for quite some time, and in fact there are courses of study in it at many universities.
ReplyDeleteMy argument would be that, when you let little truths get in the way of condemning big truths, you are allowing evil to grow.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks for the comment. I'm aware that "creative non-fiction" is a legitimate form, and my "huh?" was more or less tongue in cheek. However, I was under the impression that the creative part had to with the style of writing rather than substance, (e.g. "The word “creative” refers simply to the use of literary craft in presenting nonfiction—that is, factually accurate prose about real people and events—in a compelling, vivid manner." Lee Gutkind) In my experience, I find little truths generally help make the case for big truths; it's the little lies that undermine big truths.
DeleteScott, taken in the specific context of Apple/Foxconn story, and all the other things we know about it because of other media channels, I get what you say about "little truths getting in the way of condemning big truths." I even find myself agreeing, to a degree. But as a general rule, seems like a lot of fire to be playing with... as "little truths" being set aside for the sake of the "big truth" is an all too convenient justification for abuses in all sorts of situations.
Deletein other words, who gets to decide which truth is more important? Is truth of a story solely in the possession of the storyteller?