Richard Ness : Blog : Perlez Blog Series-3: Today Dad filed a Civil Action Suit against Jane Perlez and the New York Times.

Perlez Blog Series-3: Today Dad filed a Civil Action Suit against Jane Perlez and the New York Times. - 15 May 2007
by Eric

Today, May 15, at 11:00 am in the District Court of Central Jakarta, Dad’s Legal Counsels filed a civil claim against Jane Perlez and the New York Times Company. While talking to my Dad yesterday, I asked what prompted him to take this legal action. His response was simple:

“I have watched people in the Buyat community have their livelihoods destroyed. I have seen my friends and colleagues humiliated, questioned and detained by the police, while their wives and children were scared and embarrassed. I have seen my wife and family impacted by all the negative publicity. When I was summoned by the police who intended to arrest me, I had to reassure my wife and tell her, “Honey you have to trust me, I will be back home at some point and rest assured that we have done nothing wrong, we need to face the problem, be strong and we will get through this because truth is on our side”.

I have been accused of harming and causing the death of children, of polluting a bay by my inaction and of causing the devastation of an entire community. While in reality, I and my people had not done any wrong, the waters of Buyat bay were not polluted – in fact the criminal case brought out the facts that the Buyat waters are pristine, the fish in the bay are excellent and abundant, and the people of the region were not harmed by our operations. Yes, it did take 33 months to get the first court ruling in our favor but it’s not over yet. Over the past two and a half years we were reacting and responding to the unfair accusations leveled against us but it may now be our turn to take some action”

Dad went on to say:

“While the local and the national media may not have totally understood the technical issues, they all tried to report as best as they could. At first all the negative news surfaced due to the nature of the allegations but as positive news became available, that news was also published fairly. No media groups, other than the New York Times, dropped coverage of the story before the defense arguments were made and left their readers hanging with earlier perceptions lingering. Even small local publications with limited budgets never stopped coverage of both sides of the trial.”

“On the other hand, the New York Times had the experience, budget and resources to do adequate research and conduct investigative reporting. Yet, Jane Perlez took at face value a quasi- medical practitioner, Dr. Jane Pangemanan’s public pronouncement that people were suffering from Minamata like symptoms due to the mine’s activity even though she had not conducted a single laboratory test, or consulted with other medical experts and practitioners.

Dad was very disappointed that the Times did not seem to accept what Newmont’s people were trying to convey. He said:

“We probably spent more time, providing supplementary information and made my technical staff available to the New York Times more than any other publication. We had nothing to hide, we had done nothing wrong. We wanted to be sure that the New York Times had all the information on Buyat and PTNMR’s operations.”

I also asked my Dad the specific reasons for pressing forward with this law suit and he explained that:

“There are three specific actions associated with the New York Times that have harmed the Ness family. First, the 8-Sep-04 front-page story convicted me in the court of public opinion even though credible scientific studies had proven that there was no pollution or illness in Buyat. Second the New York Times stopped the coverage of the case when my defense started to present our case in 2006. And finally, when the prosecutor included the New York Times story as the basis for the charges to sentence me to jail for three years, Jane Perlez’s stories turned into a legal liability for me. It became clear to me and my family that Jane Perlez and the New York Times had crossed the threshold of tolerance.”

He added that:

“The Times proclaimed that they “forced the Government to take action”. But the Judges stated in their ruling that this case should not even have been brought to court. I agree – yet the Times is proud and takes credit for forcing the Indonesian government to take action against me and the company for a non-existent environmental hell, resulting in my spending nearly three years of my life in this unfair battle in court.”

My Dad finally concluded by saying:

“I believe that Jane Perlez’s use of phrases like “environmental hell”, “the fish began to disappear”, “the villagers had tumor-like growths” and other such expressions, is not only inaccurate but was clearly excessive. Her use of such extreme language in the 8-Sep-04 story clearly established a sort of a reference level that made it extremely difficult for scientific facts to exert themselves properly in public discourse. What actions caused or motivated this total journalistic failure may be unveiled in Central Jakarta District Court in the weeks to come.

These stories were deceiving and misleading, as was confirmed by the recent verdict of the District Court of Manado. I anticipate and hope that the court in Jakarta will eventually find that Jane Perlez and the New Your Times Company are liable for their acts, and I think it is only fitting that I afford the Times the same experience of sitting before a panel of judges defending their actions and decisions.”