Sheehan was one of the top Vietnam journalists. He was the reporter to whom Daniel Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers. The subject of A Bright Shining Lie was a man named John Paul Vann. Sheehan had met Vann in the early ’60s when he was a UPI reporter in Vietnam and Vann was a kind of maverick army officer who was very critical of the way that the world war was being conducted even then.
Not only a maverick but also a loose cannon—he talked readily to the press, and he was a source for a number of the early journalists. But Vann increasingly became a strident dissident voice within the military, which did not make the military happy. Eventually he alienated himself from the army command and left the army in disgrace. But due to a peculiar genius that this character had, he returned to Vietnam as a civilian and became the number three person in command of the Vietnam War after the ambassador and the commander-in-chief, which I think is completely unprecedented in American military history.
He was eventually killed. It was typical of him that even in this elevated position, he was involved in a battle and had to escape by helicopter. The helicopter got shot down, and he was killed. After his death he became an obsession for Sheehan, who had worked on the book about him, A Bright Shining Lie, for sixteen years.
Another checker and I spent two months working on The New Yorker excerpts of A Bright Shining Lie. It was made particularly difficult because Sheehan lived near Washington and he had his sources for this book in twenty-five army-surplus file cabinets lined up in a special room in his house. And these were not little Door Store file cabinets, these were heavy industrial file cabinets that stretched a good three or four feet back to the wall, and they weren’t filled up with fat reports but with single sheets of paper. This was sixteen years of work, and it was really out of the question for him to send this stuff to New York, so we went to Washington. Then life got more complicated because Sheehan is an insomniac and he didn’t get up till three in the afternoon every day. So we had to adjust our schedules to that.
One more thing I want to say about Neil Sheehan is that it was a particularly frustrating experience for us fact-checkers because Neil Sheehan never got anything wrong, and at the end of two months we would go, “Neil, give us a break, you know? Give us one little thing we can change.” If every writer were like this, the checking department would be a complete waste of time, but it is really to Neil Sheehan’s credit that he was like this.
I can’t leave the subject of the Shawn-era New Yorker without at least one more story that illustrates a completely different aspect of the old magazine, and this was its tendency to warehouse complicated fact pieces. There was an inventory sheet that went around every week, of fact pieces, and I think it was 100 pieces long. And considering that each of these pieces was worth $10,000 or $20,000 to the magazine, that was a lot of inventory.
One of these bottom dwellers had been in house for many years. It showed no signs of running, but I took a liking to it. It was called “A Scottish Childhood.” I can’t remember the name of the author, but it was a woman who had grown up in a drafty little castle in the Highlands of Scotland, and when her father died, her oldest brother inherited everything through primogeniture.
She was essentially, sort of in a gentle way, disinherited. She went to London. She wrote a memoir about growing up in this delightful and strange environment and she sold it. She sold it in The New Yorker as a work of fiction, but it was thinly fictionalized. By the time I latched onto this piece, it had become a fact piece and showed no signs of ever getting published.
Nice story, but it's about The New Yorker before 2002. Why don't you assign somebody to do a followup on The New Yorker today under David Remnick.
Barney Kirchhoff, Paris
#1 Posted by barney kirchhoff, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 10:05 AM
It is a pleasure to read details of fact-checking at a publication that encourages such a meticulous and leisurely process. I also appreciate the sensitivity to the interviewer's split-mind problem, and the process of reconstructing an interview from necessarily hasty notes. When personal computers became available, my preferred method was to interview over the phone, and simultaneously transcribe the interview on my word processor—often in abbreviations, but also often word for word.I certainly did not think it necessary to ask permission to do this, but on one occasion only, the interviewee became aware of the steady clicking in the background, and claimed that such detailed note-taking required the same notification and permission as taping an interview.
#2 Posted by Barbara Michalak, CJR on Wed 24 Oct 2012 at 06:26 PM
In this sentence, the word "world" is probably meant to be "war."
"Sheehan had met Vann in the early ’60s when he was a UPI reporter in Vietnam and Vann was a kind of maverick army officer who was very critical of the way that the world was being conducted even then."
#3 Posted by dutch garvey, CJR on Wed 31 Oct 2012 at 08:04 AM
Thank you for publishing this. I work as a science editor, in both clinical and bench research, and fact-checking in that field is a complex thing. In scientific publications, the ethical implications of correct reporting fall to the investigators and biostatiscians. I limit myself to grammar, style, and usage. The differences in the genres are obvious, though fact-checking in scientific papers might well have ethical implications that exceed those of humanistic reporting. On a regular basis, that is. Nice to have some added perspective.
For what it's worth, I share Dutch Garvey's doubt about the word "world." Is it possibile that this is a transcription of an oral presentation, and the transcriber simply got it wrong? Even if we were to construct actively, I doubt that the verb "conduct" can carry the object "world."
#4 Posted by Warren Blumberg, CJR on Wed 31 Oct 2012 at 07:12 PM
I read a lot of Vietnam war stories by South Vietnamese military men. They all said Mr. John Paul vann's helicopter crashed near Kontum. I checked Wikipedia and it says the same thing. Can you guy fact-check this?
#5 Posted by Bang Nguyen, CJR on Sun 4 Nov 2012 at 09:21 PM
The word "world" should have been "war" in the last sentence of the eighth paragraph above. It has been corrected. Thanks Dutch and Warren, and also to Steve Swonk, who e-mailed about the transcription error.
#6 Posted by Mike Hoyt, CJR on Mon 5 Nov 2012 at 12:28 PM