The story has everything: murder, tribal warfare, a famous writer, and a lawsuit involving him and one of the world’s most prestigious magazines. So why are so few media watchers paying attention to the suit recently brought against Pulitzer winner Jared Diamond and the New Yorker? At the very least, it raises questions about how this particular article was cleared by the magazine’s venerable fact-checking department.
First, some background. The $10-million defamation suit was filed in April on behalf of two men in New Guinea, Henep Isum Mandingo and Hup Daniel Wemp. They were the focus of an April 2008 New Yorker article entitled “Annals of Anthropology: Vengeance Is Ours: What can tribal societies tell us about our need to get even?” It was written by UCLA geography professor Jared Diamond, who won the Pulitzer for his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. The story was removed from the free section of the magazine’s Web site months before the suit was filed, but here’s a relevant passage:
In 1992, when Daniel Wemp was about twenty-two years old, his beloved paternal uncle Soll was killed in a battle against the neighboring Ombal clan… And Soll had been very good to Daniel, who recalled him as a tall and handsome man, destined to become a leader. Soll’s death demanded vengeance… As it turned out, it took three years, twenty-nine more killings, and the sacrifice of three hundred pigs before Daniel succeeded in discharging this responsibility.
Aside from its claims of mass murder, the story also reported that Mandingo, the main target of Wemp’s vengeance, was confined to a wheelchair as a result of an attack. The story was based on Diamond’s detailed notes of a conversation between him and Wemp. The two met years ago in New Guinea when Wemp worked as Diamond’s driver during a bird research trip.
When the lawsuit was filed late last month, the Associated Press and New York Post picked up the story, but since then it has generated little interest among media reporters. However, one press watchdog dedicated time and resources to untangle the allegations.
The Art Science Research Laboratory, which is run by Rhonda Roland Shearer, operates StinkyJournalism.org. It published a lengthy and detailed examination of the New Yorker story around the same time the lawsuit was filed. (Disclosure: Shearer’s site interviewed me when my book, Regret The Error, came out in 2007 and she hosted a reception for me at her offices. We have kept in touch since then but have never worked together.)
Stinky Journalism’s report on Diamond’s story was the result of months of research that included hiring researchers in New Guinea to locate Wemp and Mandingo. When tracked down, Wemp confirmed he had driven Diamond but said he had never spoken to anyone at the New Yorker and had no idea he was the subject of an article claiming he had been involved in theft and mass murder. He denied taking part in any killings. On top of that, the supposedly paralyzed Mandingo was found to be able to walk just fine. (The Stinky Journalism report has a picture of him.) Shearer’s team claims to have unearthed a mass of other errors in Diamond’s story. Diamond and the New Yorker dispute Shearer’s findings.
Up until Science magazine published a story about the affair last week, New Yorker editors and Diamond hadn’t offered any official comment. (The Sciencearticle is available only to subscribers, but some excerpts are here.) A New Yorker spokesperson told the AP, “We stand by our story; we stand by Jared Diamond.”
The Science article notes that the New Yorker’s fact-checker was unable to track down Wemp or Mandingo before the story was published. David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, said the checker in question “is one of the best I have ever had the privilege of working with.” In terms of fact-checking, he said:
we had Jared Diamond’s meticulous, detailed notes from the 2006 interview with Daniel Wemp, … and we consulted with people with expertise in the Southern Highlands, who confirmed that Daniel Wemp’s description of the revenge battle was consistent with known practice.
thanks for this! i love TNY and was fascinated by the original tny article making this very interesting. it does sound like tny has been very stalinistic about this case where it seems very clear they majorly screwed up. would like to hear more clearly from cjr on their judgement of tny's handling post being called on this. once they are sued i guess it's par for anybody to become totally legalistic and act like complete despicable so-and-so's. but it sure does not sound like they have ever done the right thing around the entire article and the questioning of its accuracy and their total lack of fact checking before accusing people in PNG of murder.
The globe is such a small place now anything published anywhere is now accessable anywhere including to folks in the jungle or any remote locale.
#1 Posted by steve schmandt, CJR on Sat 23 May 2009 at 10:51 PM
Anthropological literature is fraught with made up stories. In some cases it is a matter of sources telling researchers what they think the researchers want to hear. In other cases it is gulling fools. There is an entire genre in anthropological literature that black culture refers to as "putting on the honkey." In African American and Native American literature, it happens often and is used satirically in some imaginative works.
#2 Posted by David Newquist, CJR on Sun 24 May 2009 at 12:19 AM
I've been a journalist in Southeast Asia for a decade and in and out of Papua, the West side of the island, with many ethnic groups that cross borders, such as the Dani (I think). I'd treat any tales of heroism with a big, big grain of salt. My impression is there's a tolerance of competitive boasting when it comes to great or dastardly deeds in alot of Papua, both sides. I'm surprised jared got taken in. Can't help thinking that Jared himself was surprised that he was called on it.
#3 Posted by Tom, CJR on Mon 25 May 2009 at 12:12 AM
Interesting article - but what is New Guinea? Do you mean Papua New Guinea?
#4 Posted by Jonas, CJR on Mon 25 May 2009 at 01:07 PM
Thank you for this, and I hope you continue to follow this story. Some of Jared Diamond's previous work has not withstood close scrutiny, but most of the criticism of his writings that I have found has been in academic publications. There is a lengthy and very good criticism of Diamond's Easter Island observations that are online, and show to me deliberate efforts to distort the record. I am not a lawyer, but I do not understand why this is not filed as a libel suit, instead of a defamation suit. Would not a libel suit bring several magnitudes greater financial consequences than defamation.
#5 Posted by edward, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 11:11 AM
Having read Tim Flannery's book Throwin Leg Way concerning New Guinea and growing up in Australia, where documentaries whose intent in showing the 'primitive savages' was the norm 20-30 years ago, including beating up stories of head hunters, the inflection was that their tribal wars are savage and ours our noble.
It is most likely that boasting has caused this article and a failure by Jared Diamond to see this story in the context of a greatly modernised Papua New Guinea, rather than as a story from the 'jungle'.
Not to make too much light of this, Mandingo brings Monty Python to mind, When burning the village witch a villager (Eric Idle) accuses: "She turned me into a mute: I got better"
#6 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 06:38 PM
Is there any chance that the CJR could get a little more sophisticated about its reporting of lawsuits?
After all, what makes this a "$10-million lawsuit"? Nothing, other than the plaintiff asking for $10 million, a sum they plucked from the air. The number is a fantasy.
And yet the CJR, and most journalists, report that number as if it has real meaning. Doing so displays their ignorance of the process, as that number has no legal signifance whatsoever. (In fact, some jurisdictions forbid the incusion of such a sum in the Complaint so as to prevent such gullible reporting.)
So CJR, show some leadership and sophistication and stop referring to the sum in the Complaint as if it had any legal or factual significance.
#7 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 07:05 PM
I'm surprised Silverman has not applied his usual "worst intention" standard to jared Diamond, as he does in almost every other case of journalistic error he castigates. Of course, he has also has a somewhat different standard--the benefit of the doubt--for such publications as the New York Times.
#8 Posted by Jake, CJR on Wed 3 Jun 2009 at 07:57 PM
has this lawsuit been settled? seems so.
#9 Posted by Peter Smith, CJR on Thu 10 May 2012 at 06:24 PM