Last Wednesday the New York Times published a fairly scathing report about the conditions inside the Chinese factories of Foxconn and others. Foxconn is one of Apple’s main suppliers and the company that builds the iPhone and iPad. It also builds a lot of other popular consumer electronics. Unsurprisingly the story has set the web on fire with people understandably shocked by what they read. The problem with the story though, and the reaction that followed, is not so much about what the story contains, but rather what it doesn’t.

Published a few days after Apple announced record earnings, it is pretty clear that it has been timed to capitalise on the hype surrounding Apple. In a way, you can appreciate why the writers would do that: to put a spotlight on what is a very important issue. Unfortunately the side effect of that focus is a very unbalanced report that hides the bigger issue here. This isn’t an Apple problem but a problem with the whole electronics industry and our consumer society in general.

I want to make it clear that I don’t condone the conditions in these factories and this is in no way an attempt to absolve Apple or anyone else. I know this will be seen as a “typical fanboy response” defending Apple, but the reason that I find fault with this exposé isn’t really about Apple though. It is about journalism and the impact that it can have when a publication with the weight of the New York Times doesn’t do a subject justice.

The root of the issue with this article is that it unjustly focusses on Apple and neglects the fact that virtually all major electronics companies use these factories in China. This is only given a passing mention in the article in a single paragraph. As Devin Coldewy from Tech Crunch points out:

Something the article only fleetingly acknowledges is that Foxconn is used by most of the major electronics brands in the world. Samsung, Microsoft, Amazon, and the rest all contract with Foxconn to manufacture, assemble, or finish their products. The threatened mass suicide the other week was, in fact, at an Xbox production facility.

Apple has arguably done more to address the responsibility of its suppliers than any of the other major manufacturers that use Foxconn, but this is not addressed in the article at all because it is written in a way that, intentionally or not, implies that this is primarily an Apple issue. It mentions that Apple has published a report on its suppliers and some of the other steps it has taken, but the article’s writers fail to put that in perspective by showing what other companies have or haven’t done.

Tim Cook was understandably furious at the way Apple was singled out. In a letter to employees, published by 9to5 Mac he says:

Any suggestion that we don’t care is patently false and offensive to us. As you know better than anyone, accusations like these are contrary to our values. It’s not who we are.
For the many hundreds of you who are based at our suppliers’ manufacturing sites around the world, or spend long stretches working there away from your families, I know you are as outraged by this as I am. For the people who aren’t as close to the supply chain, you have a right to know the facts.

Every year we inspect more factories, raising the bar for our partners and going deeper into the supply chain. As we reported earlier this month, we’ve made a great deal of progress and improved conditions for hundreds of thousands of workers. We know of no one in our industry doing as much as we are, in as many places, touching as many people.

Unfortunately, unlike what the article would have you believe, this is not a simple problem to remedy. Apple can’t simply stop using manufacturers in China because, as the New York Times themselves pointed out in an article published the previous week, no one else can make Apple’s products. The alternative is to simply stop making iPads and iPhones, shut up shop and go home. I’m sure that notion appeals to many out there who have a grudge against the Cupertino company for one reason or another, but that won’t solve anything either. The problem goes far beyond simple commerce and is as much a geo-political issue as anything else.

The government in China bears as much responsibility as any of Foxconn’s customers. Unfortunately an American company can’t start dictating terms to the Chinese government. Again, the article does nothing to show the context. An entire lengthy exposé attacks Apple for not doing enough, but never once tells us how it compares to the rest of the industry. The article also makes the dubious claim that Apple could change things if it wanted to. It implies that it has all the power in the relationship with suppliers, but the article from the previous week strongly contradicts that.

Regardless of the accuracy of the facts in this piece, which for the most part I don’t think anyone is disputing, the big issue with this article is about balance, and in this case I think the lack of balance is dangerous.

By holding only Apple’s feet to the fire and only focussing on Apple’s role in the situation, the New York Times in effect let everyone else off the hook. I understand that Apple is a leader in the industry, but this should have been about the whole electronics industry and not just one company. It isn’t about fairness to Apple but about a fairness and duty to ones readers. This could have been an exposé of the dark side of our consumer electronics addiction, but it instead paints a misleading picture of a single tyrannical company acting alone.

The problem with this approach is that people seem to think that punishing Apple will assuage their conscience. Meanwhile the rest of the industry keeps exploiting workers and everyone goes back to not caring. The New York Times gets a sensational article and lots of attention, but the situation won’t change and may even be made worse.

Think I’m exaggerating? Already some people have come out calling for a Boycott of Apple products as the Guardian reports. While this is clearly a knee jerk reaction, it won’t solve anything. Unless you boycott every product made in China, boycotting Apple would have no effect. If anything it would only serve to hide abuses committed by the rest of the industry. Apple is being singled out for its role in these abuses while simultaneously not being given any credit for the leadership it has shown on this matter. As Jim Dalrymple at The Loop points out:

We can’t simply ignore the problems that arise in manufacturing the devices we love to use, but we can’t throw the blame at Apple’s feet and demand they do more. At the very least the reporters blaming Apple should contact the other companies and ask what they are doing to solve these problems.

But why is the focus so strongly on Apple in the first place? In an interview with CBS News, Mike Deasy (A comedian who is somehow being treated as an “expert” in this story) says the reason the focus is on Apple is because Apple is a leader in the industry. The reality is more likely that any story that tarnishes Apple in any way always generates lots of sensation and attention, regardless of the veracity of the actual story.

It is an important issue to raise consumer awareness about but my fear is that unfortunately it will become a rallying cry to those who already have a dislike for Apple to hammer home their views. If groups do organise a boycott of Apple (which is unlikely), everyone may think that they have claimed a great victory for workers rights, but instead conditions in China won’t improve, and the factories will keep churning out electronics for other companies who have been far less vigilant at dealing with supplier abuses than Apple. The issue will go away in the publics attention while nothing will have been achieved.

If the New York Times had shone its spotlight across the whole electronics industry it would have been a lot harder to hide the bigger issues behind a single scapegoat. It will only serve to damage Apple and not Foxconn, while giving the rest of the companies who produce goods there a free pass to keep exploiting while the worlds media attention focuses on the wrong side of the story.