Can Pinocchio sue for defamation?
Pulitzer Prize winner, Jared Diamond, wrote a story in the New Yorker about a blood feud taking place among some yahoos from New Guinea. Apparently the story goes like this: One guy kills another guy, so that guy gets mad and kills another guy. Next thing you know, over a few decades, 47 people die and someone makes off with 300 pigs. The article, ““Annals of Anthropology: Vengeance Is Ours: What can tribal societies tell us about our need to get even?” is a difficult-to-believe tale. Nevertheless, Diamond is no Jayson Blair. Diamond’s book, Guns, Germs, and Steel cemented his name as an award winning anthropological author. Accordingly, it is easy to see how “Vengeance is Mine” might have some built-in credibility.
However, the subject of his story is now claiming that “Vengeance is Mine” is a complete fabrication. The problem is, the fabrication appears to have been spun by the subject.
From the abstract of the story:
The highlander explained that people in his clan are taught from early childhood to hate their enemies and to prepare themselves for a life of fighting. His first attempt at revenge was a failure, so he hired men from other villages as allies for his next attempt. Mentions intermarriage between enemy clans. In a battle, each warrior faces dozens or hundreds of enemy warriors, many of whom he’s related to, and some of whom he’s not permitted to kill. The highlander stressed the clear thinking necessary for fighting well. Eventually, a battle arranged by him succeeded in achieving revenge against the man held responsible for his uncle’s death. The highlander was unapologetic and enthusiastic about this outcome, although he himself was now, of course, a target for revenge. Fortunately for him, several years later a shift in clan enmities and alliances ended the whole cycle of revenge killings and united both clans against a common enemy, a neighboring tribe. The highlander said, “I admit that the New Guinea Highland way to solve the problem posed by a killing isn’t good…we are always in effect living on the battlefield.” (source)
“The Highlander” is a man by the name of Daniel Wemp, who served as Diamond’s driver when Diamond went to Papua New Guinea. Over a period of time, Wemp started telling Diamond stories of his tribal warfare including murder, rape, and pig theft. Diamond ate up the dramatic stories like any journalist or author would — and realized that they would be great fodder for an article. Unfortunately for Diamond, Wemp now claims that none of the stories are true — and he wants Diamond to pay.
Wemp and fellow tribesman Isum Mandingo are suing Diamond for defamation because they claim that Diamond’s story falsely accuses them of “serious criminal activity” and “murder.” (source) Wemp claims that the stories in Diamond’s article are false, and he is working with a New York organization (The Art Science Research Lab) to bring that to light. ASRL provides a scathing dissection of Diamond’s article here.
Here’s the problem for Mr. Wemp: Wemp actually told these stories of death and pillage to Mr. Diamond. He just claims that he made the stories up in the first place — not realizing that Mr. Diamond would share them with others.
Wemp friend and legal adviser, Mako John Kuwimb, explains: “When foreigners come to our culture, we tell stories as entertainment. Daniel’s stories were not serious narrative, and Daniel had no idea he was being interviewed for publication. He has never killed anyone or raped a woman. He certainly has never stolen a pig.” (source)
Guess what? His real name isn't Henry Krinkle.
I don’t know if Wemp was really living up to some local custom which demands that they bullshit the white guy, or merely engaging in a time-honored cabbie tradition. In any event, Wemp did tell Diamond the stories that Diamond later published. Whether Diamond got all the details right or not seems to be open to argument, and it seems that if the stinkyjournalism.org report is correct, Diamond did fumble a lot of details. Nevertheless, it also seems that Mr. Wemp’s problems began when he started telling fairy tales to Mr. Diamond — not when Diamond screwed up the details. Wemp indeed claimed to have done the terrible things that Diamond said he did. To complicate matters more, others in the area seem to have confirmed the stories as part of another local tradition — that everyone “keep their stories straight.” As one of Wemp’s U.S. supporters wrote:
In my investigation, as I explain even in short report was that everyone’s telling of the 2 K fight was remarkably uniform among enemies, friends and Gov. officials we spoke with. It was only later I came to realize why this was so. It is the settlement and compensation practices that make keeping one’s story straight vitally important. Any departure to the agreed upon narrative could rekindle a fight. (source)
One commenter, who was very critical of Mr. Diamond, wrote:
Highlands [Papua New Guinea] has a very oral culture, and people “stori” as a way of socializing, entertaining, joking and welcoming as well as sharing important information. Having great oratorical skills is a prerequisite of being a Big Man (chief) of a clan. It is not at all unusual to get an exagerrated tale as Diamond apparently got during his drives with Wemp. This doesn’t mean it’s okay for him to print it and suggest that it’s real or truth or evidence about people running around PNG pell mell raping and killing and pig slaughtering. But it is a real difficulty of working on the ground faced by Western researchers since Malinowski. It can take many, many years of finessing and listening and asking questions in many different ways to get the “accurate” story. (source)
In other words, Wemp lied to Diamond — or at least embellished his story, but Diamond believed Wemp. Wemp now thinks that since Diamond published his embellished tales, that he is entitled to $10,000,000. The fact that he is being backed by an organization that calls itself a “media ethics” watchdog is troubling. Someone has an ethics problem here for sure, but it seems like there is enough blame to go around.
I spoke to one of Mr. Wemp’s supporters about a year ago. She asked me if I might be willing to give an expert opinion on Mr. Wemp’s case like some of the other experts on her website. I told her that I might be willing to issue an opinion, but that my opinion would not be favorable toward Mr. Wemp given that that the damaging statements that Wemp complained about originated with Mr. Wemp himself.
With great passion in her voice, she explained the “story telling” tradition among Mr. Wemp’s people — that telling remarkable tall tales is part of their culture — and that Mr. Diamond should not have taken Wemp’s accounts of his life at face value. She said that Mr. Diamond should have understood that about Mr. Wemp’s culture.
This might be grounds for a product liability suit, but not for a defamation suit.
It is entirely likely that Diamond’s article mis-portrayed Wemp and his fellow tribesmen as bloodthirsty savages. It is equally likely that Diamond could have done more/better/deeper research. It seems certain that Diamond mixed up some details and had failures in his translation. It is also fair to criticize Mr. Diamond as possibly exploiting Mr. Wemp, taking advantage of him, and even misquoting him.
Nevertheless, just as Mr. Diamond may get some lessons in proper journalistic practices and having one put over on him by the locals, Mr. Wemp will (I hope) get an education in how our culture treats people who lay on bullshit and then expect to be compensated for it. His case has zero chance of survival if it lands before a judge with more than six operating brain cells. One can only hope that the New Yorker will refuse to give him so much as a nuisance money settlement, as doing so will only encourage more “story tellers” to lie to journalists and then sue them for believing them.
By Email
By RSS Feed
April 27, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
“He has never killed anyone or raped a woman. He certainly has never stolen a pig.”
That’s amazing. CERTAINLY he has never stolen a pig (oh yea, and he probably hasn’t done those other minor things like raping and killing either).
April 27, 2009 at 9:02 pm |
There’s a pretty substantial difference between a journalist and an anthropologist, Jared Diamond notwithstanding. You’re making a big mistake by lumping him in with lay people and following that up with the statement that cultural literacy is a two-way street, that grossly oversimplifies what’s actually going on here. It also cuts against the attempt to reduce the scope of the argument to consideration of a single viewpoint.
Jerking around the anthropologist is a notoriously popular game, which is supposed to be guarded against through sound methodology. As part of “our” culture, training in anthropological field methods includes never taking people at their word. I’m curious to see if Diamond’s methodology measures up to the prevailing standards of the ethnological community.
April 28, 2009 at 7:22 am |
“I’m curious to see if Diamond’s methodology measures up to the prevailing standards of the ethnological community.”
Me too. Diamond is not an anthropologist, but he is a trained scientist and scholar so he should have triple checked his “facts” and research before publishing anywhere. Nevertheless, that does not change Randazza’s argument that there is simply no legal cause of action for Mr. Wemp.
April 28, 2009 at 8:27 am |
Yup, Diamond’s methods might not have been sound anthropological science. But, he is not being sued for “negligent anthropology” nor is there such a cause of action. He is being sued for defamation.
Perhaps Mr. Diamond should not be invited to the next anthro-awards ceremony. (But, his methods might have been flawless too – I just don’t know).
The issue here is whether he committed the tort of defamation. Mr. Wemp told a fib. Diamond repeated that fib. Wemp loses. Time for this “tribesman” to learn about our culture — we have a thing called “ethics.” If his culture has a different view of ethics, that’s fine. Then he should file a cause of action in New Guinea for whatever tort might have been committed, or steal Diamond’s pigs or something like that. But Wemp is on our turf now, and our laws apply.
April 27, 2009 at 11:08 pm |
[...] Marc Randazza talks back to the New Guinea tribesman who says he’s suing Jared Diamond and the New Yorker for reporting as fact what he says were merely tall tales he spun about blood feuds on the island (earlier). [...]
April 28, 2009 at 9:00 am |
You state as if you know–”In any event, Wemp did tell Diamond the stories that Diamond later published.”
I have spent the past year unpacking and investigating what was said, by Wemp, by Diamond as well as using the text and facts uncovered, but somehow you have been able to dispense with all that hard work, and by talking to me once, early in my research, know exactly what happened?
I don’t think you know, just as Diamond did not know what he was talking about. The principle being that you can not talk to one person one time about a conflict and know the truth. Especially if that person does not even know they are being interviewed.
Daniel Wemp was never advised by Diamond that he was going to be featured on the Internet in the New Yorker as a murderer and that real names he mentioned would also be published (and indeed Diamond used real names of others he never met and had no idea if they were criminals or not–but said they were anyway). There are two eye-witnesses that support Wemp’s claim that he told them in front of Diamond that their talks were private (“Secret tok tok”).
Even in our culture the amount of precision morally or legally required in context based. If I speak to a reporter or the Court, it is a higher level of duty for care–than if I am in a bar. This is a norm and culturally acceptable.
Diamond is a powerhouse in the world and so is New Yorker. They had a duty to make it clear to Daniel and others, named, that what was said would be published and to ask permission for their names to be used as it sensitive (due to the accusations of murder, rape and theft. They had a duty to protect their one source, Wemp, a private person and inexperienced source and the others named–who New Yorker and Diamond never spoke with, and did not verify as criminals.
Diamond and New Yorker knew, or should have known, they would be putting Wemp and others at risk.
Right in Diamond’s article it states that you don’t use real names tied to killings because it is too dangerous and that Daniel himself was threatened–and yet, inexplicably, Diamond goes on to use real names for them all (with two exceptions including his AU white, former policemen friend who confirmed with me that the anonymous policeman was him it was him)!
Since finding out about the article, in July 2008, Diamond has refused to speak to Daniel despite his numerous requests and providing a cell phone number.
This lawsuit could have be avoided by Diamond. Daniel Wemp, Henep Ism and the Ombals and Handas deserve justice–apology and correction, as their culture dictates, fair compensation for damages, just like any white person.
April 28, 2009 at 9:26 am |
Although they are well written and articulate, I don’t think paragraphs 4-7 matter. You make a decent argument that Diamond failed to use journalistic integrity… but to focus on the defamation suit instead of these other related but (seeming to me) not pertinent matters–I am still at a loss. And Diamond may not be willing to speak to Daniel because of the lawsuit! And what is up with bringing race into the equation with a cheap nuts-shot at the end?
FWIW I’m totally not a lawyer but I’m totally open to being educated here.
April 28, 2009 at 9:42 am |
I know enough by simply reading your response and your website. You don’t deny that Daniel told the stories — you merely say that Diamond should have checked with other sources or should have kept them confidential.
I can agree that Diamond may have departed from journalistic norms and/or ethics. Diamond might have been sloppy. Diamond might have been sleazy. I’ve seen no evidence of any of that yet, but even if we take every word you’ve written about this case as true — that is ALL Diamond could be accused of. Diamond may have had some duty — in order to maintain his integrity. But, that is not a legal duty.
Daniel put himself at risk by flapping his mouth trying to impress Diamond. Diamond had plenty of reason to believe them — since they were being told from a first-hand experience. Are you saying that there should be a new legal rule — if you talk to someone from New Guinea, you should presume they are full of shit?
April 28, 2009 at 11:19 am |
Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. There was no lawsuit or threat of one in July 2008, when Wemp first stared requesting for Diamond to speak with him to explain what was going on. The total disregard and lack of responsibility towards the man he used as a source for The New Yorker article without his knowledge, led the the lawsuit.
New Yorker is the one that suddenly inserted lawyers when Wemp was asking the editors and Diamond to call him and I was just asking questions. There were no lawyers mentioned. I was talking to editors and press people.
Documents proves that New Yorker put this whole process in the context of lawyers. They had to their suddenly contact me. She was giving me orders to get my report to them by a certain deadline because they were going to act…that is when Daniel had to act to defend himself and obtain lawyers of his own. With lawyers suddenly on the scene, I also did not feel qualified to represent myself during this period and hired counsel to protect myself.
As far as race, let’s not be coy. If Wemp was a driver and World Wildlife Fund worker in Austria or Norway, do you really think they would have gone ahead and named “John Smith Green” (instead of Henep Isum, an indigenous person from a remote area of the Pacific Islands)–a murderous leader, paralyzed in a wheelchair from Wemp’s killer’s arrow to the spine–without knowing and confirming “John Smith Green” was real person and had, in fact, committed multiple criminal acts? I think not.
Wrongly calling people murderers, rapist etc in a publication is serious business. I am not a lawyer but the fact that the author and publication did not contact any of the accused before publication is the one thing that is universally condemned by all courts according to textbooks and handbooks I have read. Wemp and the rest were private people. There seems to be obvious negligence on the New Yorker’s part.
I mean really. Who would talk to one person, not take notes and then 4 years later take a few notes, then write up a history of a war after not making any real attempt to contact your one source or the others you will name as criminals.
New Yorker’s fact checking standards of practice and care are internationally recognized and promoted by them. They supposedly fact check “every word” as described by former and current employees.
And yet they incorrectly published that Wemp was a “Chevron” employee when Diamond had talked to him in 2002-2002 during drives in the Panda festooned WWF truck.(Diamond, according to 6 people we spoke with, had to know Daniel was a World Wildlife Fund employee with the big Panda logo the truck and with Wemp’s desk at the WWF office. He would contact the WWF office to get picked up at Moro airport and Daniel a simple working stiff would go to pick him up. Diamond, as a hugh level WWF agent had a duty to not exploit Daniel, low level WWF employee for his own financial gain. Diamond’s lecture agent used Daniel’s and the tribes names and false accusations of crimes on his web site to sell Diamond’s bookings for $25,000 fee each, asking price).
Diamond easily found Wemp at his new job in May 2006 at Oil Search Ltd. –the same location as the WWF offices. (Chevron sold out to Oil Search in 2003.Something else Diamond had to know).
So how is it that Diamond tells New Yorker fact checkers to call Chevron–not World Wildlife Fund or Oil Search–when they requested contact information for finding Daniel? Diamond is a WWF Board member in US and gets the perks of drivers like Daniel as a consequence of benefit when In PNG. He could have easily found Diamond by asking WWF employees for help.
I easily found him.
Instead when New Yorker called Chevron, they were told they had no employee records, but went ahead and said Wemp worked there anyway. I easily verified that Wemp’s employers were Oil Search and WWF with both companies.
Do you really think New Yorker would normally take the risk to go forward without any verification and accuse named people of crimes if this did not have something to do with the assumed powerlessness of the named parties? Again, I don’t think so.
But more importantly that is what they think and feel and they have a right to defend themselves and better still, hold New yorker and Diamond accountable so such negligence happens again. Just like you would not as a publisher state these unverified criminal claims, as facts, about a New Yorker taxi driver and family, for fear of a lawsuit–the same goes for people in PNG. They have the same rights.
More information will come out where you will see the suggestion of race comes directly from New Yorker –in writing.
From their beliefs expressed in their letters, I am sure they are surprised when a Handa lawyer, Mako John Kuwimb, rises up and is, whoops, not a savage who can’t speak English, but is an educated man, a PhD candidate, and lawyer in PNG for six years who had a peer reviewer crtique him for not mentioning in his peer review journal submission that his Handa clan is violent according to the gospel of Diamond’s New Yorker un-peer-reviewed article.
It is obvious from these referee notes that he viewed Mako through the false lens his group’s wanton violence when they are innocent of what they are accused of. A view created only by Diamond’s fake history and misuse of the authority of his position.
Justice needs to be served.
All of you act like you know what Daniel said to Diamond…How do you know? Even the post above wobbles on this point… “It is entirely likely that Diamond’s article mis-portrayed Wemp and his fellow tribesmen as bloodthirsty savages.” When when says you are a murderer and you are not, this can be called a sympathetic term– “mis-portrayal” –by the defense, …and at the same time, harmful and irresponsible libels by the ones who are harmed. Any real lawyer will tell you that you never can know in advance how a case will turn out or what a judge will do.
All this soft soaping–
1. “It is entirely likely that Diamond’s article mis-portrayed Wemp and his fellow tribesmen as bloodthirsty savages.” (Libel?)
2. “It is equally likely that Diamond could have done more/better/deeper research.” (One of the measured used to determine libel)
3. “It seems certain that Diamond mixed up some details and had failures in his translation.” (There were no translation, Daniel spoke in English. Mixing up facts, when these facts are false assertions crimes is libel per se.)
4. “It is also fair to criticize Mr. Diamond as possibly exploiting Mr. Wemp, taking advantage of him, and even misquoting him.” (They are likely employee/employer protections and privacy rights violated here. Diamond only got access to Daniel, a WWF emploee, through his position as WWF Board member. A WWF Board member should not being using an WWF employees name for commercial exploitation without his permission as it was given in the course of his working for his company. Misquotations, if they are fabrications that include false accusations of crimes –misquotation is no excuse or magic protection from a libel claim.
April 28, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
I’m using the facts that YOU provide, no others.
And frankly, your rambling postings seem like you’re coming unglued about this. If I took every fact you’ve asserted as true, there is still no libel here. Diamond reported what Daniel said. That’s that. End of case. Why do you think you couldn’t find a lawyer to take this case?
Justice may be served, but I highly doubt that it will be to your liking.
April 28, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
The problem is the facts you mention–but do not quote–are wrong. My post was long because I was trying to address multiple comment in one.
Frankly it is rather wild that you, with no knowledge would state as fact, “Why do you think you couldn’t find a lawyer to take this case?” You are wrong.
You (marcorandazza) wrote “You don’t deny that Daniel told the stories ” But, in fact I do. Daniel told stories of what he heard from others, read in newspapers etc. swapping stories in the car, and he used real times and stories about warfare in his and other areas of PNG–this was no interview by a journalist or a scientist interviewing an informant. That’s all fine when it is private.
Read what the Harvard media law site says under heading “Risks Associated With Publication” :
“If you publish private or personal information about someone without their permission, you potentially expose yourself to legal liability even if your portrayal is factually accurate. For example, in most states you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term “private facts” refers to information about someone’s personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. This would include such things as writing about a person’s medical condition, sexual activities, or financial troubles.”
Also see Practical Tips for Avoiding Liability Associated with Harms to Reputation. What measures a journalist takes or does not take is directly to libel claims.
I am not a lawyer but you are clearly misinformed about libel and privacy law.
April 28, 2009 at 12:39 pm |
No, you are not a lawyer, and you are sorely misinformed.
PRIVATE facts. PERSONAL information.
Read ALL the words — not just the ones you want to see.
That doesn’t mean that if I have a “private” conversation with you about a public event that I can’t repeat that conversation. Of course, if I have a private conversation with someone and he tells me that he has HIV, then revealing that might be a private facts tort.
Here’s what you need to do… step one, realize that you don’t know squat about the law. Step two: read your own rambling, incoherent, and half-crazed writing on your own website. Step three: realize that this is not your chance for a payday nor for 15 minutes of fame.
This is going to end badly for Daniel. All your “help” has done for him is perpetuate the story and breathe new life into it.
April 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
I won’t argue the point because I am not a lawyer but I consulted with privacy law experts, one who at a major university law school volunteered to help pro bono.
Did Isum give permission for private medical information to be released–even if wrong? I have checked with literally dozens of legal experts and can proof it.
Your personal attacks have no basis in fact. They will reflect badly only on you.
April 28, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
Oh, wow, you got a law professor to agree to help you? You mean someone who has zero idea about how to practice law? Good luck with that. I’m sure I can guess who it is.
Which “private medical information” about Isum was released? The only thing I saw you discussing was Daniel’s false claim that he put Isum in a wheelchair. It may be false, but it isn’t invading anyone’s privacy.
April 28, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
typo–should say “can provide proof of it.”
April 28, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
First I tell you you are wrong to state –“Why do you think you couldn’t find a lawyer to take this case?”
Then I mention we have an expert in law who offered services free…then you mock that…It obvious to me and anyone else who will read this thread that you are not serious in having a respectful discussion. I will not continue posting.
April 28, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
I see no lawyer’s name on your filing. And an “expert in law” is not the same as a “lawyer.”
I’d love to have a discussion about this, but I’d rather have it with someone a little less disconnected from reality.
See, I agree that there may be oodles of holes in Mr. Diamond’s reporting, interviewing, and even his ethics. He might have been mean, insensitive, stupid, and sleazy. I can accept any number of critiques of his work.
But, where you and Daniel crossed the line is when you filed a defamation action — especially if (as you wrote) it is because Mr. Diamond didn’t return his phone calls.
April 28, 2009 at 11:20 pm |
What Daniel told Diamond during their casual informal conversations in the jungle on Diamond’s trip to watch birds is different from what Diamond published. Diamond has reconstructed the wrong story. That is the problem. Second, Diamond never informed Daniel that the story he told would be published in the New Yorker. Third, Diamond writes the story as if it is the factual history of Daniel’s clan, when in fact, it is not. Fourth, Diamond’s article is written in the Annals of Anthropology, as if it is an anthropological piece. Diamond’s was not working as an anthropologist, he was on a trip to watch birds. Your comparison with the work of anthropologists and the difficulty they face with the bird watching trip of Diamond is far fetched. Daniel is defamed and he certainly has a case for Diamond to answer.
April 29, 2009 at 4:29 am |
Mako,
With all due respect, I don’t see how Daniel has been defamed. Defamation, under American law, requires that there be a false statement of fact about another that damages that person’s reputation AND that is not privileged.
April 28, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
What Rhonda has done is appreciated by Daniel and his clan in PNG. Why not you come and find the facts out for yourself instead of attacking Rhonda on behalf of Diamond. Diamond can defend himself; he is a big boy and does not need your personal attacks based on assumptions and no factual knowledge about Daniel and his people. It’s time people who come to our country as tourists and bird watchers extract stories from simple villagers for their fame, name and profiteering take heed that so long as we have people like Rhonda around, we will not allow ourselves to be defamed as murderers and rapists and exploited.
April 29, 2009 at 4:27 am |
Mava,
I appreciate your comment, and it is nice to see a reasoned response. However, under American law, you can’t defame a group — you must defame an individual.
The facts, as Rhonda reports them, do not support a claim under American law. Daniel sued in an American court. There *might* be a *moral* wrong here — but not all moral wrongs give rise to a valid cause of action. The lawsuit is frivolous.
April 29, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
Is there a link to the complaint? Seems to me (and I agree with Marc) that the defamation claim is way off base (legally speaking, under US law – I too am a lawyer), because (1) Mr. Wemp was the source of the information, and (2) Mr. Wemp was well aware that what he was telling Diamond were lies (or, colorful stories). I think you’d be hard pressed to find a court that would be willing to find that a person was (again, legally) defamed by their own tall tales.
Maaaaaaaaaaaybe there’d be a cause of action for negligence, on the theory that Diamond owed Wemp a particular duty of care as a journalist. A key point being that “duty of care” is a legal term of art, with a precise legal meaning. I’m not aware, however, of any legal duty of care imposed on journalists to investigate the recountings, stories, lies, etc. that a person tells about themselves. It very well may be some super sloppy journalism. But, that’s not the same as breaching a duty of care.
I also think any negligence claim would be pretty much snuffed out by Mr. Wemp’s own “contributory negligence” (another legal term) in telling the tales. Mr. Wemp may well have been accustomed to telling stories as a part of his own culture, and to entertain foreign looky-loo’s who come ’round to have a peek at the “natives.” I get that, and I get the humor in fooling foreigners with stories that not only entertain, but also are a way of keeping them from really getting to know your culture.
At the same time, its a big world out there, and Mr. Wemp and his clansmen are going to come into contact with people of all kinds, from a wide variety of cultures. Some, like Mr. Wemp and his clan, will accept fibbing as a normal part of social interaction. Other cultures may view lying as a serious offense, a severe insult to the listener.
What gives Mr. Wemp the right to assume he should be able to control how others interpret his storytelling? (hint: not US law)
April 29, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
How do you know just what Wemp said to Diamond?
Wemp is quoted in July 2008 saying “The facts are totally wrong in The New Yorker story. I have given all those stories to Diamond and those stories are very true and those names are not fake” in Jared Diamond’s Factual Collapse, stinkyjounalism.org
Wemp says “those stories are very true” Even if the culture accepts “story telling” that doesn’t mean they don’t accept “truth telling”. Wemp is saying he told Diamond true stories, real names. Diamond did the rest and the New Yorker let it happen.
May 20, 2009 at 9:44 am |
You should know Shearer published the name of a little 11 year old boy who received death threats because of what she wrote. Here is the proof you can see for yourself http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,394344,00.html so she is a hypocrite too.
May 21, 2009 at 10:46 pm |
Manny Manny Manny, if you tell lies they will catch up with you. Now you know (others may not) that you were blocked on Savage Minds for saying something untrue, and now you are spreading this false personal attack here?
1st Charge: I revealed the boy’s name–false
The boy and his name were on the front page of the NY Post and around the world via AP — that is how I found out about the story. Here is the time line.
New York Post, May 26th,
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/images/stories/NYP_hog_page3.jpg
My first story was May 29th
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-45.php
2nd charge–also false
The death threats turned out to be bogus–just like the fake hog photos and the fake hunt. FBI and the Sheriffs dept, and the 911 call center all confirm the father never reported any death threats.
May 22, 2009 at 10:57 am |
You don’t think the “if you tell lies they will catch up with you” comment is a little ironic in the context of the post about Mr. Wemp above?
May 22, 2009 at 12:11 pm |
There is no evidence that Wemp told lies– that is an accusation and assumption made here by some in this comments section.
Diamond did not take notes or tape recordings during the 2001-2002 car rides while Wemp drove him around. The complex and erudite paragraph-long-quotations attributed to Wemp (about 16 of them) are falsely back-dated as being said by Wemp during those car rides.
Referring to 2001-2002, Diamond writes: “During our hours together on the road, we enjoyed sharing our life stories. Despite some big differences between our backgrounds—Daniel’s Highland village life focussed on growing sweet potatoes, raising pigs, and fighting, and my American city life focussed on college teaching and research—we enjoyed many of the same things, such as our wives and children, conversation, sports, birds, and driving cars. It was in these conversations that he told me the story of his revenge.”
None of the quotations, as New Yorker freely admits in Science, and to me in documentation, came from 2001-2002, but were re-constructions from the only notes Diamond has–taken May, 29,2006 in the dorm area of the Oil Search Ltd company– Wemp workplace in 2006 as an oil field technician.
May 22, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
Well, look, if it’s true and provable that Diamond made it all up, and took bits of information from Wemp (like the names of people and places) and then wholly constructed a fictional story that he attributed to Wemp — in that case, it seems like Wemp’s lawsuit will be very successful.
But, your own website and the comments from Wemp’s supporters here seem to suggest that Wemp was “telling story”…which doesn’t mean that Wemp intended for the stories to be taken as true. And, which doesn’t mean that Diamond didn’t take too many liberties, or that he didn’t fail to do the investigation that he should have before publishing his article. Frankly, I have no idea. Nonetheless, even if Diamond mixed up who did what or who said what to whom in reconstructing the story (and, I’m not saying that’s ok), it still appears that the source of the tales was Wemp.
May 22, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
You have no evidence of that–even if it may appear that why to you and others. It is all guessing. I actively tried to find others that Wemp might have told tall tales to–figuring that if a person is a BSer, they don’t just do it with one person, but will do it with many and even might have a reputation for telling stories.
I asked another scientist who was driven by Wemp for several months if Wemp told tall tales about warfare. He said no and that he was the best assistant he ever had and gave no indication for reason to doubt anything Wemp said in response to my further questioning if he thought Wemp had exaggerated anything at all–not just on warfare in his opinion.
I asked co-workers at World Wild Fund the same questions and they all said no. So in the end, with this evidence and other facts, I came to the conclusion that I believe Wemp. I believe his denials–despite New Yorker spin doctoring –and his denial have been consistent.
May 22, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
I have no evidence of anything at all related to Mr. Wemp. Never claimed to. But, it’s not “guessing.” What I said was…based on your website’s articles, that’s how it appears.
May 22, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
No sense mincing words. But what I meant was your impression was from what other people said about their opinions, guesses and assumptions (they don’t know either, they were not there and have not done the work we have).
My method included talking to others who knew him and comparing what he said to the actual text.
For example, Wemp denies saying his people are like “light elephants.” I believe Wemp when he says he does not even know what that means as they don’t have elephants there and the cultural reference of elephants having long memories is ours not their.
And so on… I went fact by fact and line by line to reach my conclusion that I believe that Daniel did not tell Diamond these things– that serve only Diamond’s goal in a making an exciting story-there is nothing in it for Wemp and no evidence that Wemp ever told tall tales to others that I could find.
(Apparently, it is not a custom to tip drivers, as Wemp said Diamond never tipped him and Wemp says he was only tipped by one person in his driving career at WWF).
So even if the culture does tell tall tales in general–this does not mean Daniel told them to Diamond. Just because here people in the USA commonly tell war stories, fish stories and false love conquest tales to male friends at a bar–does not mean I or you do it.
Since Wemp denied saying the words attributed to him by Diamond, my other method was to have a forensic analysis done by an linguistic expert to determine if the quoted text could possibly be spoken by Wemp and the answer was close to nil chance.
May 22, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
All of which makes it seem like Wemp’s got a pretty tough case to prove, in terms of libel. On the one hand, you’ve got a culture that has a tradition of storytelling, and the contentions of Diamond that the article he published was re-created from his actual notes (even if those notes were written later). On the other hand, you have Wemp saying, after the fact, that he didn’t say those things, and character witnesses to say that he’s not in the habit of telling tales. Since the legal standard (generally speaking) is that the person making the alleged libelous statements either knew the statements were false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, it’s not enough, in terms of libel, to prove that Diamond was wrong, got the facts wrong, or mixed up the names, if he in fact thought that those were the things that Wemp said to him.
May 22, 2009 at 9:08 pm |
You have the legal standard somewhat off. That is the standard for a public figure.
For a private figure, it is a negligence standard.
Under that standard, Wemp has a little better chance. Or, he would have a better chance if the stories didn’t spew from his own lips — as Ms. Shearer’s website suggests.
May 22, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
Thanks for the correction :)
Out of curiosity, then, is that a “duty of care” standard? It would have to be ordinary care, wouldn’t it?
May 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
Is anyone going to believe that Diamond did not act in reckless disregard for the truth? An UCLA undergrad would not get away with writing an unpublished history of crimes , using one source with a 10th grade education who is not a historian without using independent verification.
Diamond was over-the-top reckless in publishing that Isum–a man he never meet, or verified was a criminal–led a campaign of murders as an Ombal leader, when he isn’t even an Ombal!
May 22, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
Well, I’m not sure I think Diamond was reckless to a legal standard of liability (as opposed to a professional, moral or ethical standard – which isn’t necessarily the same) with respect to Wemp. On the other hand, I think there may be a better case for Mr. Isum, since there seems to no question that Diamond never spoke to Isum.
May 22, 2009 at 9:14 pm |
Rhonda, you just don’t get it, do you?
In your zeal to have 12.5 minutes of fame, (you got 2.5 with the stupid “wild pig story,” you’re simply falling off the tracks.
Diamond was under no obligation to independently verify Daniel Wemp’s statements about *Daniel Wemp*. On the other hand, the other guy, *maybe*.
Misidentifying someone as an Ombal, or Yoruba, or Ubangi, or Irish isn’t defamatory. You really do need to take a valium, chill out, learn something about defamation law, or shut the fuck up.
You’ve made your point. You don’t know a thing about defamation law, and your ranting on stinkyjournalism.org does nothing to actually help your “client” in his ill advised case.
The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging. Mr. Wemp is going to be sorry that he ever met you when this case blows up in his face. Do you wonder why you couldn’t get a single lawyer to take this case seriously? Have you seen the crap cases that I report on? With a legal profession full of money grubbing unethical shitbags, this case couldn’t find a single willing lawyer.
Think that over. Then go get yourself a cat. You need something to occupy your time.
May 24, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
You are way, way out-of line, addressing me in such a disrespectful manner. You deleted my comment about how this surly must violate rules for faculty at your university. A responsible person who carries the reputation of the institution, does not set the correct ethical example for students by bullying and telling another to “shut the fuck up” as you did to me. At the very least, you owe me an apology.
May 24, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
No, he doesn’t.
Sometimes, when people go on, ranting, largely incoherently, the only appropriate response is “shut the fuck up.” Besides, he suggested an alternative to shutting up: that you learn something about defamation law before you start advising others or take up a cause.
You confuse ethics with your personal notion of civility. Ethics concerns morality – right from wrong in a societal context. For example, ethics might concern getting Mr. Wemp all wound up to tackle a lawsuit which no practicing lawyer will take on, because it’s legally not sound.
But, there’s nothing immoral (unethical) about telling someone to shut the fuck up when what you think they should do is just that. Similarly, just because someone hurts your feelings doesn’t mean they’re “bullying” you. Bullying is coercion through fear.
Finally, respect is not a given. If you feel that Professor Randazza is treating your views with disrespect, then consider that as a result of this discussion, it’s because he doesn’t actually think your position is worthy of respect.
June 19, 2009 at 10:10 am |
Very well, I apologize for telling you to “shut the fuck up.”
And, as you recall, I did offer you the privilege of having a guest post, where you could completely state your case. I have gotten no response to that offer/overture. If you decide that you wish to take me up on it, let me know. In the event that you didn’t get the email, it is reproduced below:
I trust that this apology, plus my offer of free space on my blog, should satisfy you.
May 24, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
Rhonda – Enough. I took your last comment down. Will do so again if you keep trying to repost things that have already been taken down.
June 11, 2009 at 7:07 pm |
RE jesschristensen, who wrote: “Finally, respect is not a given. If you feel that Professor Randazza is treating your views with disrespect, then consider that as a result of this discussion, it’s because he doesn’t actually think your position is worthy of respect.”
Randazza’s treatment of Shearer’s views are disrespectful in this discussion. Yes, there is his lack of civility. Though clearly some of the statements made here degenerate into personal attacks and caricatures. In short, they are not just a lack of civility but are disrespectful of her person.
I understand there are levels of respect, and higher levels that can be earned or bestowed. Still there are basic levels of respect that are a given. These levels are “characterized by dignity and equality, compassion and respect for self and others.” These levels are part of our humanity. We all suffer if they are not “fostered” toward all life.
By not replying himself, it seems Randazza is allowing you to reply on his behalf. This may not be the case. It is left unclear if he agrees with you about the nature of respect. It is equally unclear if either of you deem Shearer and her team’s position actually not worthy of respect.
The disrespectful comments, especially about her person, were one way to derail from thoughtful discussion. You should have apologized, Randazza. Not all defamation lawsuits are frivilous and I think this one deserves more thoughtful, respectful discussion, as does Shearer as a person (and her team ) for great, meaningful investigative work.
Please clarify.