If I could I would like to steer the conversation in a slightly different direction.

Before doing that, I accept that some people may be disappointed in Mike Daisey for “pretending” that something happened to him when it didn’t. But I agree with those writers who have said that it is through the contrived artifice of art that we usually find the truth of a subject rather than when we are constrained by an obedience to the “facts”. I can also accept that Tommy Tune’s work benefits from a statement of the facts, but I don’t think that means that all work must stick to the “facts”. Rather I think most theatre finds its power and truth in metaphor not in facts.

The direction I would like to steer the conversation towards is my general disappointment with journalism at getting to the truth in a factual way, in a meaningful way or indeed in any overarching way. In the arts we have all experienced journalism’s inability to get the “facts” right. It happens almost every time we have an encounter with a journalist. Many times they even manipulate the “facts” in a determination to support an argument of theirs, which they had before interviewing us. So I have no faith in journalism’s purity on the matter of truth.

Naturally I am saddened that this “situation” with Mike Daisey has allowed room for the apologists to rush in and claim that things are not so bad in China. But I am not convinced that we should lay the blame for that at Mike Daisey’s feet. I would like to point the spotlight at the “journalistic” community who have been extremely silent on the matter of Human Rights within the manufacturing sector in China. Apart from anything else China even uses prisoners in their manufacturing sector and many of these are prisoners of conscience.

There are clear human rights abuses in China’s manufacturing industry and we are not getting that story from the press. Why did it take Mike Daisey to bring a high level of attention, that had an impact, to this gross violation of human rights? That is what is upsetting to me.

More specifically I take issue with the Public Radio journalist Rob Schmitz. On CBC’s Q radio show I listened to Mr. Schmitz talk about blowing the whistle on Mike Daisey. (http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/qpodcast_20120323_49840.mp3) The interview galled me because he did not adequately answer the question “Why have journalists generally not been talking about human rights abuses in the Chinese Manufacturing sector?” That is a problem. And listening to him tell Jian in detail about the niggling little inaccuracies in Mike Daisey’s work disturbed me. Where is he? Living in China. And he hasn’t make a huge deal about working conditions. Why? Because as he explained to Jian: “Things are complex in China…These people who grew up on a farm and were working in manure…And they are very brave people who moved thousands of miles away to live in a dormitory…and yes they are still doing the repetitive movements they did when they were farming but it is one step up from the reality that they understand and working in a factory isn’t fun, it isn’t fun anywhere…but this is the reality of China today and China is a developing country.” What about what he said is “true”, is a “fact” and what is his interpretation of circumstances that I think are not acceptable and should be decried. I even challenge him on the truth that working in a factory is never fun, anywhere. What he is crafting here is an apology for all the serious human rights violations occurring today in China. That is the extent of his journalistic truth? That is not an objective truth and those things I quoted were not objective facts. I believe that Mr. Schmitz is telling a fairytale that is a distortion of the truth. Compared to Mike Daisey who had distortions that amplified the truth. I know whose subjective truth I want to fight for, Mike Daisy’s, warts and all.

So my point is that if Rob Schmitz and other journalists had chosen not to search hard for some factual inaccuracies in the story of Mike Daisy’s subjective experience in China then they could have let Mike Daisey’s story live free and aid all of us in getting to the truth about what is going on in China’s manufacturing sector, which is the whole point of what Mike Daisey was doing.

The day journalists impress us with their accuracy and their determination to tell the stories that need to be told, is the day they can turn their sights on digging dirt on Mike Daisey for not telling the objective truth.

I hated what Glass did—hated it—but really, it’s more fainthearted in these post-postmodern times which, like it or not, are filled with the desire for authenticity, for documentary—to think, if you get caught, you’re not going to suffer the consequences. That’s all there is to it. Documentary-makers sometimes get caught in a lie too. To cry ‘theatre’ feels less like granting theatre exception than demanding its marginalization from the tenure of the times.

When we were working on You Should Have Stayed Home, we referred to both Gray and Daisey throughout the process. I imagine Daisey was the only one mentioned here because he was at the centre of this discussion.

Daisey has apologized, and written articulately on that point, and I hope people will follow the link he provided to his own blog, where he wrote:

“When I said onstage that I had personally experienced things I in fact did not, I failed to honor the contract I’d established with my audiences over many years and many shows. In doing so, I not only violated their trust, I also made worse art.”

So to say that Daisey, and other theatre artists shouldn’t be asked to “understand and practise the complex and detailed rules of engagement that professional journalists take years to master”, is – to me – beside the point. Daisey knew very well the “contract” he had established with his audiences, and he knew very well where he went wrong.

I’ll be interested to see the next iteration of AGONY/ECSTASY, because I agree with my Praxis colleague that Daisey is indeed one of our greatest living storytellers, and I continue to admire the work he has made in the past, and very much look forward to what comes next.

And as a proponent of “open source theatre”, I’m a huge fan of the fact that it’s all being posted as it happens.

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this great discussion, and I agree with you Kris, I try to avoid comments almost everywhere else.