Thanks to Cole for recommending this piece from the latest issue of Science about the Jared Diamond – Papua New Guinea flap by Michael Balter. Short version, Jared Diamond wrote a piece last year for the New Yorker about revenge warfare in PNG, then Rhonda Roland Shearer thought it was some nonsense, tracked down the original sources and got them to file a lawsuit. Balter does a good job summarizing the interface between Anthropology (aka SCIENCE) vs. Journalism (aka SCIENCE JOURNALISM), so I’ll leave that to him. But since we seem to be interested in Truth here at a Conservation Blog, that’s really what I want to address.
First to one of Shearer’s claims in her lawsuit: “[The lawsuit] also claims that Wemp’s life is now in danger from other clans that might want to avenge Mandingo’s alleged injuries, or even from members of his own clan for portraying them as ruthless killers.” Bummer! Then Balter talks to Pauline Wiessner, a Real Anthropologist, who says that, “young men in PNG often exaggerate their tribal warfare exploits or make them up entirely.” Balter also says that a report on the incident published by Shearer states that one of the participants in the case, “expressed surprise at The New Yorker article and claimed that Diamond had never told him about it.” So an article published in The New Yorker, an article that the litigant had never heard of, (you think they have a lot of subscribers in the highlands of PNG?*), has caused serious damage because of its inflated claims of violent exploits, which are extremely common to that area. Huh.
But don’t worry, there are liars on both sides of this story! This is journalism, Diamond and (NYer editor) David Remnick argue. JD: “In journalism, you do name names so that people can check out what you write.” DR: “Using real names is the default practice in journalism.” Except when Sy Hersh gets some awesome anonymous tips about what a ghoul Cheney is. Or every single article about psychology published in their magazine. Fine. But then Remnick takes us further down the rabbit hole. He has the audacity to claim that the fact checker on the story “is one of the best I have ever had the privilege of working with.” Except, “Remnick says that the fact checker was unable to find Wemp before the story was published. After Shearer’s team found Wemp, however, the fact checker did speak with him by telephone.” WHAT. THE. FUCK. The New Yorker‘s fact checkers are legendary. They’ve been called “second authors” on articles because they get so much new information in the process. This is the best fact checker Remnick has ever worked with? Who can’t track down the main source of the article until somebody else does the job for them? And, by the way, if it’s traditional practice to name names, what is the name of this fact checker? If Remnick had just thrown this person under the bus, that would have been fine. But doubling down just throws your whole operation into question. This is the best they can do?
I’m sure a court case will clear this all up.
“‘Vengeance’ Bites Back at Jared Diamond,” M. Balter. Science, 5929: 872-874. (doi: 10.1126/science.324_872)
*In fact, the idea that one tribe would go to war with another tribe because of an article published in The New Yorker sounds more like the premise for a cartoon in that very same magazine.
I really do appreciate the debunking you did about Remnick’s double-speak. But I would ask you to re-consider your views about several things you cited above.
First of all, it is not my lawsuit nor did I get them to “file a lawsuit” as you claim above.
The Handa tribe comprises among its members lawyers. They are naturally upset with Diamond’s false allegation that their people raped Huli women as Nipa tribesmen (they are not, and did not) along a highway that they lived hours away from, for example. New Yorker nor Diamond checked their facts before stating that named individuals and tribes committed murder rape and mayhem.
There is fall-out seen already from these libels. Mako John Kuwimb is a Handa (the same tribe as one of the plaintiffs) and PhD candidate in law in Queensland, AU. He submitted a paper for peer review and the reviewer suggested that he was not being honest because he did not mention all the violence in his area–the referee then cited Diamond’s bogus article. Meanwhile these are peaceful tribes that only had one fight in 1993 where 4 were killed (not 47 from 1989-1995 as Diamond claimed).
I have verified Diamond’s “facts” with missionaries, gov. officials and police from that area of the Highlands, as well as tribal leaders from both sides. They all say that Diamond’s story is wrong and that this has endangered Daniel who is quoted as the source for the story. He says he told Diamond things he heard and Diamond messed the facts up. Diamond even said villages were tribes.
Isum and Daniel are their “own men” with their own will and sense of justice. To say I instigated the lawsuit suggests otherwise and is untrue. We waited to publish our report until they decided what they wanted to do. In fact, Daniel Wemp made the key legal decision to demand that New Yorker (and other data bases like Lexis) take the Diamond article down from their web site. (I would have never thought it possible and low and behold it happened under Daniel’s direction and orders to lawyers!)
See our report for details if you are interested in truth as you claim here on this site. http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-149.php The New Yorker is discussed at universities (the Obama cover was debated) and it is available in library data bases and the Internet. Our reports explains the dangers for Wemp.
Thanks for your comment. Your example of Kuwimb’s experience with peer review is very different from what is presented in the Science article, though, don’t you think? The idea that a peer-reviewed paper would be rejected because a referee cited an article from the New Yorker is astonishing in its own right. However, you haven’t stated that it was rejected, merely that the referee referenced it. If it were rejected, that reflects poorly on the referee, the editor, and the peer review process in general. I maintain that the situation is complicated by the fact that neither Isum nor Daniel (nor, presumably anybody living in either of their villages) would have known about the article without your group’s intervention. However, the broader point – that Diamond appears to have made things up whole cloth – is important regardless.
Isum and Daniel are their “own men” with their own will and sense of justice. To say I instigated the lawsuit suggests otherwise and is untrue.
Point taken, I apologize.
The report you’ve linked is a good read, and anybody interested in delving further should click over. When I say we’re interested in “Truth” here, I certainly don’t mean to imply that I’m going to arbitrate which side is right in this particular case, and I wrote about it not to decide who was right, but to think about how we go about determining who’s right. I’m interested in the way that we, as a society, are beginning to deal with the fact that Truth is incredibly difficult to pin down. Okay, maybe not society but just me as a second-year grad student. Originally I had included a paragraph about the lack of consequences in journalism these days (where were the reporters for steroids + baseball / financial meltdown / Dick Cheney), but decided it was a bit over the top. Nevertheless, the point stands: it is insane that journalists are this bad at even approaching the truth, and it calls into question the entire profession. It’s infuriating. In that regard, I appreciate the work your site is doing.
Tim, appreciate your comments and frustration. Your comments about New Yorker editor’s BS about using names when the examples you cite (Hersh and psychology articles) blow that arguement up.
In terms of dangers for Wemp, even here in NYC it would be dangerous for you to have someone say in a publication that you sent assassins to kill someone who is still alive. The tribes blame Daniel and the way things work there is compensation must be made for him to get out of the trouble of being party to a foreigner insulting them and accusing them of crimes. Until he pays, he will have to avoid roads, public ceremonies etc. He is shamed and deprived of his status in the community. Diamond himself will not be safe given the circumstances. Multiple experts will explain and be cited about this in our forthcoming 40,000 plus word report.
I mention Mako not just because of what happened with the peer review (his paper was turned down) but as proof that Daniel would have found out about the article. Mako would have told him if he had not already heard Daniel knew already. Daniel is well known in the conservation community as a former World Wildlife Fund employee for many years and is part of the Handa like Mako. Mako is an educated leader who is related to both Daniel (Handas) and the Ombals. He also knows Isum well.
Internet cafes are in every town. I checked one university , Divine Word University, who has 60 students from Daniel’s and Isum’s area. They follow Diamond’s work on Papua New Guinea. He gives lectures there. http://www.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/papua_new_guinea/?uNewsID=142962
These are small communities and the educated people bring home news to the ones in the village. A famous scientist who has being going to PNG since the 1960′s is known. Think about it–for Diamond to say Daniel was a killer in charge of thousands of warriors that never happened or that Isum was in a wheelchair also not true, or that the Ombals and the Handa raped Huli woman —it is easy to understand that such inflammatory and false claims would eventually make it back from the cities to the villages the Sourthern Highlands. It is not a question of if, in the modern Internet connected world, but when.
Diamond said Isum was in a wheelchair with a spinal paralysis –when in fact he is walking around. Isum is a prime example that truth is knowable. All the lies in the world and BS from Remnick and Diamond won’t put Isum in that wheelchair!
Thank you for being open and appreciating our work. I agree it is infuriating the way the media treats the public like we are dopes. Again, I admire how you called Remnick out. Keep up the good work.
Please forgive me for adding one more clarification. You quoted Remnick, who said, “however, the fact checker did speak with him by telephone.”
Here is the ugly truth of the matter. They only called because we forced the issue!
When Daniel Wemp first requested in July 2008 that Diamond and New Yorker speak to him –they refused! I received an email from New Yorker editor saying that a “staged phone call” was not necessary. They had absolutely no interest in my offer of phone numbers to their named sources that they failed to speak with before publication!
It took many calls and emails to The New Yorker PR, editors and to Remnick himself before the agreed to speak to Daniel–once. I finally left a message with Remnicks’s assistant– as he refused to speak with me–I said at least on two occassions– “You did not talk to the man before publication, for God’s sake speak to the man now!”
After I quoted a Poynter ethics person who said, in principle, that they had a duty to talk to any source who was unhappy to try to resolve things–they FINALLY agreed to call Daniel .
But instead of having an objective person call to really investigative they had Chris Jennings–the guy who did not fact check in the first place, and whose job was obviously at stake–call him. I read the transcript of the call between Daniel and Jennings. Daniel was very upset during and after the call as he felt bullied by Jennings Instead of fact checker, the transcript reveals Jennings role as more intimidating prosecutor.
When Daniel would say a fact was wrong, Jennings would say something to the effect (I don’t have time to get exact quotes) “but that is not what Diamond’s notes say that I have right here in front of me.” Jennings repeated this intimidating retort, if memory serves me correctly, about 12 times! Finally, Daniel upset was building, he just gave up, saying basically, “whatever.”
The day after the call with Jennings, Daniel asked me to request that they call back with someone else besides Jennings (a reasonable request) as he was unhappy with a non-objective person calling and treating him badly..that’s when New Yorker unleashed their lawyer. Up until that moment, no lawyers were involved.
Make no mistake about it, this is a war for truth and justice, not just for Daniel and Isum in a far off place, but right here and now for us in our own backyard! If you have any ideas or can help in some way–please let me know!
Tim:
Be advised that Ms. Shearer is a publicity hound who cares very little about the truth of any of these stories, and whose own “research” is almost comically inconsistent and falsifiable. You can read a full takedown of her work on Savage Minds.
In the meantime, prepare yourself to receive email after email from this woman: she is only interested in promoting her own name, and she’ll do so at the slightest provocation. INdeed, you can expect to receive a 1500-word reply to this comment from her, complete with hysterical misspellings and absurd accusation.
In 5…4…3…2…