Richard Ness : Blog : Jane Vs. Jane

Jane Vs. Jane - 06 Nov 2005
by Eric

This article is about a serious policy failure on the part of two professionals, one Jane is a Medical Doctor and the other Jane a seasoned journalist. .

On 8 September 2004, Jane Perlez, a Jakarta based for the New York Times reported a sensational story that circulated the world that Dr. Jane Pangemanan of Manado said that the illnesses observed in Buyat Bay are caused by mercury and arsenic poisoning. On 7-October 2005, more than a year after this New York Times report, Dr. Jane Pangemanan under cross examination in Manado court denied that she ever told the NYT reporter Jane Perlez that the illnesses were caused by arsenic or mercury poisoning.

It is clear that at least one Jane is not telling the truth.

But it is not important to precisely know which Jane is not telling the truth, because in reality both the Janes have contributed to a public policy mess. The two Janes combined have damaged a lot, including impacting our family, the communities around Newmonts Mine in Sulawesi, the employees of Newmont —ignored policy, undermined public trust and inflicted personal pain.

Dr. Pangemanann has indeed retracted her statement about mercury and arsenic poisoning. This clearly indicates that Dr. Pangemanann is an unreliable source of information. So why did an experienced reporter publish Pangemanann’s statement without verifying its accuracy?

The Code of Ethics adopted by the Society of Professional Journalists, states that journalists should “Seek Truth and Report It”. The Code of Ethics further elaborates that a journalist should “Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” It is clear that Perlez did not rigorously scrutinize Dr. Pangemanann’s comments to assess its worthiness for publication. As the Buyat Bay case has progressed, it has become clear that Dr. Pangemanann misrepresented the illness of the villagers in Buyat Bay to the public, the press and the Government.

What explains this journalistic failure of a reputable New York Times reporter? Is it about competency, or bias or simply uncontrollable zeal? All the three factors--individually or collectively--would easily prevail over a rational process of journalistic inquiry.

Only Perlez and Pangemanann know the truth, but it is clear that both have betrayed the public trust. What motivated Dr. Pangemanann to misrepresent the illnesses among the villagers in Buyat Bay? Millions of dollars and human resources were spent by the Ministry of Health and others only to confirm that Dr. Pangemanann’s allegations were wrong.

At the same time Perlez’s reporting gave credence to an incorrect assessment about the health issues in Buyat Bay. This is a significant journalistic failure by a New York Times reporter.

Lately there is a steady erosion of public trust in the press.. We know now that newsroom managers and reporters are prone to lapses in their review process. This was indeed the core message by Lou Boccardi at the 2005 Gannett Newspaper Management Conference when he said that the failure of diligence and execution are the reasons for journalistic failures, and that the press needs to do its job better.

This lesson may be applicable to Perlez’s coverage of the Buyat Bay case . While it is up to the New York Times management to review the quality of reporting, the fact remains that the two Janes have caused considerable confusion. Public explanation of their behavior would be consistent with the need for accountability, but a moment of private reflection by both the Janes is also essential to ruminate over the personal pain their actions have caused to members of my family, colleagues and the communities at large..