Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
Apple Computer Inc. recently investigated itself, concluding (lo and behold) that there was no evidence of “forced labor” at a Chinese iPod factory, although some of its subcontracted workers there may work too much.
“The probe by the Cupertino, Calif.-based company was in response to a recent report by a British newspaper, the Mail on Sunday, alleging that workers at the factory were paid as little as $50 a month and forced to work 15-hour shifts making the devices,” reported the Associated Press.
Like any good company forced by a British newspaper to investigate itself, Apple announced its findings to the world, with enviable PR results.
“Apple says iPod factory in China treats workers fairly,” read the headline in the San Francisco Chronicle last Friday.
“Apple Computer said Thursday that it had found no evidence of forced-labor conditions at a Chinese factory that makes iPod digital music players,” reported the New York Times (also from San Francisco). “But it said that a company investigation found several violations of Apple’s code of conduct and that the supplier, Foxconn, was changing its practices as a result.”
Which, in turn, yielded this MarketWatch report from New York: “Apple Computer said it found no evidence of forced-labor conditions at a Chinese factory that makes iPod digital music players, the New York Times reported in its Friday editions.”
This is not to suggest that reporting on a Chinese factory from the home office is necessarily the worst way to go about things. After all, the most befuddling story on Apple’s self-deliverance was the aforementioned AP dispatch, datelined Shanghai.
Apple’s probe “revealed that workers were exceeding the company’s limits on hours and days to be worked per week, the company said Friday,” the AP reported. “The company said it was taking immediate steps to resolve that and other issues.”
We jump to paragraph four: “‘The team reviewed personnel files and hiring practices and found no evidence whatsoever of the use of child labor or any form of forced labor,’ Apple said in a report on its Web site that summarized the findings of its audit of the facility.”
Not only did the company “say” things, its report “said” things too. Unfortunately, those seemed to be the AP’s only sources — with no evidence that the reporter spoke to the Chinese workers, factory managers, or even an Apple spokesman. Paragraph seven: “The company running the factory, which was not named in the report, was ordered to enforce Apple’s overtime limits, it said.” (Our other sources filled in the blank: the company is Foxconn, or Hon Hai Precision Industry, a company based in Taiwan.)
Paragraph eleven brought more confusion. “Minimum wage for Shenzhen in southern China, where the factory is thought to be located, is about 800 yuan ($100) a month,” said the AP. But despite not knowing where exactly this mammoth complex was, the AP knew a lot about it: “The factory, which supplies electronics components and accessories to other companies as well as Apple, is a small city in its own right, with clinics, recreational facilities, buses and 13 restaurants serving its 200,000 workers.”
Clearly more skilled at using the Internet, the Times told us (from San Fran) that the factory is “in Longhua, a suburb of the southern city of Shenzhen,” while the Mail on Sunday‘s original story in June pinned the location down to “Longhua, just 20 miles from Hong Kong.”
But, sadly, the Mail on Sunday‘s follow-up performance was not nearly as impressive, for one simple reason: It carried the AP report.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
