Little White Lie?

      During a class discussion today in American Studies we talked about a blog post our teacher had written called "This American Lie". If you'd like to read the blog post you can click HERE and be linked to the blog. Earlier in the year we had listened to a podcast of a monologue by a man named Mike Daisey who talked about atrocities he had witnessed of the working conditions for people who make Apple products. The story of the workers strife he told was very compelling, however news has recently come out that a lot of the "facts" or claims in the story are falsified completely or exaggerated.

      People in class were connecting this incident to criticism the Kony 2012 campaign has received. Many believe that the issues in Uganda were oversimplified in the video for Kony 2012 video in order to generate  a massive public response. The oversimplified truth therefore becomes a lie in some peoples eyes. Some would argue that this is a necessary lie in order to get the public to pay attention and care. This begs the question is it okay to lie if it is for a good reason? However this isn't the question I want to discuss in this blog post.

I want to focus on the question: What constitutes a "lie" when it comes to story telling in the media today?

      I would argue that the Kony 2012 video isn't truly a lie. Or at least not to as great of a degree that Daisey's monologue was.

      Stories are all CONSTRUCTIONS. (In this blog I'll be referring to articles, nonfiction books, and historical/news accounts as stories). We've discussed this a lot in American Studies. Everything in a sense, is a construction. Even when people write history textbooks, they are reconstructing history. They have to decide what is important and what should be omitted for the sake of space. In story telling, people are allowed to omit information that they don't feel is relevant to the story they are telling. This doesn't make their story any less true, there just might be some things left out. It is the duty of a diligent person to research those extra pieces if they'd like. This is why I believe the Kony 2012 video is not a lie.

      However, there is a difference between omitting information and adding falsified information or exaggerating facts. This I would consider a lie and not a truthful construction. If something never happened, it can't be a part of a historical construction. For example, in Daisey's monologue he talks about a man with withered hands using an ipad for the first time. There was never a man and this event never occurred. Daisey didn't simply retell an event in a moving or dramatic way, he completely fabricated one that never existed. It's not a truthful construction because there was never a man or event that happened. He had no basis to construct anything from, he just made it up.

      My ideas only apply to stories that people claim to be accurate accounts of events. I would have been happy with there being exaggerations in Daisey's monologue if he had said that his story was a piece of fiction with some basis in facts. However, he claimed that his story was all true facts, which in fact, it was not.

What do you think constitutes a lie in story telling? Is omission a form of lying as well? How much should intent be considered in these situations?