Richard Ness : Blog : Perlez Blog Series-4: Jane Perlez and the New York Times Won’t Cry Peccavi

Perlez Blog Series-4: Jane Perlez and the New York Times Won’t Cry Peccavi - 16 May 2007
by Eric

It appears that the New York Times has a big blind spot when it comes to scrutinizing its own reporters. According to Associated Press, Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times said that:

"Over the past few years, the Times has devoted significant resources to covering the social, political, and environmental impact of large-scale mining by Newmont and other companies around the world. We think this is an important global story for our readers, and our coverage of Newmont has been accurate and fair. We plan to defend the suit vigorously." [link]

First I think it is imperative to clarify that this is not a law suit by Newmont, it is by my Dad. Any attempt to weave in the mining sector or the Newmont angle into my Dad’s case is wrong. And to be clear, my Dad’s law suit is about a human being - an individual’s fight against the unfairness and injustice perpetrated by a media giant, the New York Times and its reporter Jane Perlez.

In fact there is nothing global about my Dad’s case. This is a very specific issue of unfairly dragging my Dad into a court for almost 2 years, having to face allegations of pollution and killing a baby, for allowing 5 innocent people to sit in jail for 32 days for a crime that never happened, and the role Jane Perlez and The New York Times played in facilitating the case.

I would also never describe the Times coverage of this case as “accurate and fair”. It doesn’t seem “accurate” for a reporter to take at face value the verbal assertions of Dr. Jane Pangemanan and at the same time minimize the formal findings of reputable organizations like WHO, CSIRO and other scientific studies. It also doesn’t seem “fair” when the Times stopped covering the Buyat case when my Dad’s defense witnesses started to present their testimonies.

As I have mentioned in my earlier blogs, several experienced journalists have questioned the accuracy and fairness in Perlez’s stories about the Buyat case as well.

Welcome to Indonesia [Wall Street Journal]
Surprise, surprise [Jonathon Burns – Townhall.com]
The Newmont verdict [Rocky Mountain News]
A case that should never have been [The Straits Times]

Just a couple of days ago, a website devoted to journalism ethics from the School of Journalism at the University of British Columbia featured an article on Jane Perlez and the New York Times. The title of this article is “When Sorry seems to be the Hardest Word to Print”, and it is written by Kendyl Salcito, the winner of the prestigious Newspaper Guild's David S. Barr Award for social justice journalism. She writes:

“The story is credited with urging Indonesian authorities to arrest five Newmont employees, holding them for 32 days, uncharged, while reports came pouring in from international organizations, local universities, and government scientists indicating that the bay was clean and the villagers were suffering from very basic symptoms of poor nutrition, bad hygiene, and allergies. These reports were occasionally covered by the Times, but never on A-1. The trial’s verdict made page A-8 last month.

So, the Times never came clean on its initial faulty reports about the Newmont case….” [link]

My Dad’s law suit is about the reporting behavior of Jane Perlez and how she has harmed my family, and contributed to unfairness, injustice and human pain. I will keep you posted as my Dad’s fight for justice progresses forward.