Doing their jobs would be not making up a story and presenting it as fact. Not a single aspect of the story was right. Not a single interview or quote was real!

Reply

Idiots.

Foxconn is actually a Taiwanese company (Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.)with facilities in the US, UK, Ireland, Japan and elsewhere, and has been in China since 1993 (all this according to their website). I wonder how long before they realise what a sh!t storm they're creating and drop the action...what's Chinese for "hari kari" again?

Reply

Yes, it should only have been published if they can back the story up with solid evidence. Journalists have influence and power through their readerships, so they have a responsibility to report facts rather than speculation IMHO. Or at least to not present such speculation as fact, assuming that's what happened.

As for the amount in question... why should it relate to how much the journalists earn? My feeling is that claims for damages should be based on a reasonably estimated amount of damage done, not the ability of the person to pay it.

I didn't see the exact story in question though.

Reply

It might be helpful to send an email to the company suggesting that they drop the suit, as this makes them look even more guilty. I enclose the link to their contact page below, where I just dropped them a note suggesting they drop the suit.
Dan Amyx

http://www.foxconn.com/other/contactus.asp

Reply

I'm not sure I agree with it making them look more guilty.

If they have a strong enough case to prove the story was largely innacurate, then in actual fact it will reaffirm their innocence.

Reply

At the risk of appearing dumb, do we know that "Not a single aspect of the story was right. Not a single interview or quote was real" to quote Rus, or that the reporters were actually reporting speculation?

Genuine question, to which I don't know the answer...

Reply

Just like much of the media today, it appears that the journalists probably had an agenda. The story that they "reported" fit the template to advance the agenda.

Reply

Well they weren't exactly doing their jobs well considering that Apple later investigated and found out that there weren't any abusive labor practices being used.

Reply

The fact that a labor violation was found was no consequence of what the reporter found. Foxconn denied speaking to ANY reporter from The Mail (UK) that reported this and especially about any labor conditions. The allegations were overworked/underpaid/poorly housed/poorly fed workers.

Apple (in an investigation (not really related to the story from The Mail) found that workers WERE working too much overtime but were doing so volutarily and at extra compensation.

As for the conditions ... the report was entirely false and it seems that it was found that the factory had well above average income, housing, and board.

One thing the "story" didn't report was that Apple found immense career advancement oppotunity and an education benfit in place that they were unaware of and pleased to see.

Reply

The report was that there was no evidence of abusive labor practices. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. In fact, it reminds me of the Special Prosecutor's Office's final conclusion at the end of Whitewater: "No evidence of wrongdoing."

Two things two remember when thinking critically:
1) Consider the source of the information, noting the source's own interest in a particular outcome.
2) Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Reply