Yes, Mr. Jared Diamond, "Vengeance is Ours" : A Case Study of a Public Intellectual

As far as public intellectuals go, Dr. Jared Diamond conforms to the typical prototype quite nicely. First, any aspiring academic would salivate over his educational record which includes a B.A from Harvard and a Ph.D from the University of Cambridge, England. Second, he is a distinguished faculty member in the UCLA Department of Geography conducting research in geography and human society; biogeography. Third, his publications have altered the way we think about past societies and their relationships with their environment, spawning debate and further research in multiple fields from linguistics to ecology. The most famous of his books include: "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" in which he attempts to explain Eurasian dominance throughout history (it also won him the Pulitzer Prize) and "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail and Succeed" in which he examined multiple ancient societies and the choices they made (such as land use practices), relating these choices to their periods of stress or ultimate demise.

As a member of several national/academic societies, a board member of the World Wildlife Fund and a self declared environmentalist, Diamond appears to not only have the complete package, but the time, place and audience to deliver something profound to the global community through his words and actions. In the words of USC faculty member Dr. Stephen Mack,

"...If Public Intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy - and they do - it's simply to keep the pot boiling. the measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they're hearing something worth talking about."

Most would say that Diamond, as demonstrated above, has succeeded in "keeping the pot boiling." However, his most recent contribution has succeeded in earning him a $10 million lawsuit. In my opinion not only has he kept the pot boiling, but he has caused it to boil over and it may very well burn down the entire kitchen. It is these ongoing events, first ignited 2 years ago, that will be the subject of my following examination. Let us begin.

On April 21, 2008 an issue of The New Yorker was published containing a piece titled "Vengeance is Ours" written by Diamond under Annals of Anthropology. The piece was intended to explore the question "What can tribal societies tell us about our need to get even?" Within the article Diamond elaborates on a series of brutal feuds, murder and revenge between two tribes in the Papua New Guinea highlands. The focus of the narrative, and the only source Diamond quotes, is Handa clan member Daniel Wemp. Wemp, according to Diamond, was 22 years old when his uncle was killed in 1992 by the Ombal clan. The bloody quest for vengeance that ensued claimed 29-47 lives and the theft of 300 pigs until Wemp, and his hired assassin crew, extracted revenge. The article also specifically mentions another man, Henep Isum, a leader of the Ombal clan who, in the midst of this violence, was shot in the back with an arrow and paralyzed.

After a long hunt, I was able to locate the full text of the article, however an abstract is still available for viewing online. After reading the article even I had a distinct inkling that there was something wrong. Curiously enough, Rhonda Shearer, director of New York's Art Science Research Lab must have had the same feeling, the only difference is she had the resources at her disposal to follow her hunch. As part of a media ethics experiment, she created the online site StinkyJournalism.org which proceeded to fact check Jared Diamond by going directly to the source. They tracked down the both Wemp and Isum in New Guinea and discovered the truth.

The full extent of the findings can be found at the site. However, the findings can be summed up in one word - fraud. Shearer's researchers met up with Wemp who was appalled that the bits of true stories that he had told Diamond while he was his driver in 2001-2002 had been mixed up, elaborated upon and strung together to create a narrative that was entirely untrue. Isum, allegedly paralyzed and in a wheelchair according to Diamond, was found to be walking upright with no apparent spinal injury. He and Wemp had never even met each other before the StinkyJournalism investigation. In fact, Isum's full name is actually Henep Isum Mandingo and he isn't even a member of the Ombal tribe. Naturally, both men as well as the people of New Guinea were outraged. The two men filed a lawsuit against Diamond, as the UCLA Daily Bruin had to unfortunately report about it's own faculty member.

After following all the controversy and the fallout (the court date has yet to be set) a few questions arose in my head. I will address them one by one. To start off, how could the public intellectual, who's aforementioned credentials defy reason, possibly spew out such a shameless article? Some have claimed that perhaps Diamond was fooled by Wemp's stories and followed misguided information. I beg your pardon, but I'm sure a Pulitzer Prize winning author knows better than to use one man's fragmented stories as the only source for an entire article. Moreover, Wemp, at the time the interview took place, was currently being employed by the WWF (yet another fact Diamond got wrong) and could have easily been contacted by Diamond, who is on the board for WWF, for further details and fact checking.

Speaking of spotty journalism practices, shouldn't a public intellectual of Diamond's status know how to construct a reasonable case study that is worth hearing about? Diamond's interview was little more than a causal conversation while Wemp was driving him around. Wemp was not told what his words were going to be used for. Moreover, the New Yorker admits that the only notes Diamond actually took of their conversations were back dated. That is, four years after the drives in the car with Daniel Wemp, Diamond re-contacted his "source." No recording devices were used. Diamond's quotations were dated to 2001 but were actually just reconstructions of memories to create quotes that Wemp denies saying. In fact, as I was reading the article, I found it hard to believe that the language used in the quotes was that of a man whose first language was a pidgin dialect. A specialized linguist was called to analyze the quotes and determined that the language of the quotes was closer to that of something being written than to something being spoken. Personally, I think it outrageous that Diamond would throw together a body of work by making up quotes. Furthermore, The New Yorker could have raised reasonable questions about a document citing only one source. My fifth grade teacher required more sources for my state report on Texas. Despite being an established institution, and one that boasts it's fact checking obsession, they should also take responsibility for their mistake.

Some might be wondering what the implications of this controversy may be. It's just one article, right? Why not just apologize and move on? Here is the thing, neither Diamond nor the New Yorker have yet issued an apology to either men. Wemp and Isum have been subjected to ridicule, scorn and tremendous stress, having been accused of rape and murder. This is not a trivial matter and a 10 million dollar lawsuit is not to be taken lightly. Sure Diamond may have the money to pay this large sum or some sort of settlement; however, no amount of money is going to erase the damage done to the already blundering journalism industry or the academics that reside in the fields of study Diamond has tainted with his article.

Now more than ever people are questioning journalism practices and the validity of the news and scientific studies they are hearing about. With media watchdogs on the prowl, the slightest malpractices are thrown loudly into the public arena, where they are picked up and further intensified by other rival media outlets. Sure, everyone wants a good story and that's exactly what Jared Diamond's article was - a good story. With all his might and his prestige, Diamond has found a way to take his status as a distinguished public intellectual and throw it out the window. As stated before, we should be concerned with whether we are "hearing something worth talking about." Diamond was so focused on giving us an account on the subject of vengeance, that he twisted a tale of two men to fit this agenda.

Yes, public intellectuals are supposed to be informing the public with ideas worth hearing, keeping the pot ever boiling. But it should go without saying that these ideas need to be founded on truth and fact. Fairy tales and fictional novels may be interesting, worth hearing about and might also have a relevant take-away moral, but they are not anthropological accounts of real events nor are they advertised as such. Now more than ever people should be careful about taking the words of wisdom coming from public intellectuals without question. Most may be playing their democratic role, but for those who are caught cheating, vengeance will be ours.