Mike Daisey in China. Or, standing in front of a big poster. What difference does it make which, really?

Soon after I posted my article about Mike Daisey’s representation of fabricated events and facts as truth in his January feature on NPR, the actor/activist posted this dismissive explanation on his own blog.  It is Dan Rather’s Memogate excuse taken to the next level, the epitome of self-justification of the unapologetic zealot who believes that all is fair in the battle against (what he regards as) evil, employing a full battery of rationalizations for unethical conduct:

1) Daisey’s lies don’t matter, because they were used to expose a real problem (a.k.a “the ends justify the means”);

2) What he did was no where near as bad as what Stephen Glass and James Frey did (“a.k.a “it’s not like I killed somebody”);

3) The misconduct he attacked with his lies is infinitely worse than his lying, so efforts to criticize Daisey just serve to distract from the real issue (a.k.a. “Their unethical conduct lowers the standards for the admirable  people fighting them”). Slate has some perspective on this argument here. And finally,

4) Hey! He’s the good guy here, Apple’s the villain, and any criticism of his methods just lets the company off the hook. (a.k.a. “Don’t sweat the details if your heart is pure.”)

For good measure, Daisey implies that NPR’s Ira Glass, who Daisey lied to, unfairly pilloried him. All of which re-affirms my original conclusion, which was that Mike Daisey, and all untrustworthy advocates who are willing to recruit allies to their cause by manipulating them with falsehoods, is dangerous, and an enemy of fair policy debate and informed public opinion.

[Thanks to Fred, who brought the blog post to my attention]