Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gene
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 04:57pm PT
|
The real case worth watching the Montana AG's inquiry. That forum is where the truth of Mortenson's and Krakauer's respective positions will likely receive their proper showing.
Maybe. The AG inquiry will answer if there is a probable reason that a crime has taken place. The AG will not answer whether what GM may or may not have done is appropriate, disingenuous, totally righteous, or whatever.
An IRS ruling on excess benefits to an individual involved in a nonprofit would be more informative.
There seems to be a JK v GM undercurrent here. That’s as relevant as picking sides in Giants v Patriots.
Seems clear to me that CAI paid big $$$ for GM to travel to promote his mission and book. If the net benefit of these costs - funded through gifts donors thought were going toward building schools and empowering women in SW Asia - is disproportionally in GM’s favor from pocketing speaking fees and book royalties, then Bozeman, we have a problem.
Folks can do a lot of bad without breaking the law. This whole situation is sad.
Even sadder than GM was when he visited Mother Teresa two years after she died.
g
EDIT: Check this out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-pinter/why-greg-mortensons-math-_b_850522.html
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 05:03pm PT
|
huh huh! Funny typo/Freudian slip there Ron Best thing to do would be to make a clean breast,
:)
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 06:04pm PT
|
Maybe. The AG inquiry will answer if there is a probable reason that a crime has taken place. The AG will not answer whether what GM may or may not have done is appropriate, disingenuous, totally righteous, or whatever.
An IRS ruling on excess benefits to an individual involved in a nonprofit would be more informative. I agree. My main point, however, was that the related civil case would likely shed little information on some of the alleged improprieties since that case appeared to be more about restitution than reporting, etc.
I don't have a Mortenson vs. Krakauer gripe, although from the Outside reports he seems to have taken a personal interest in where the case is going even though, as a journalist, the inquiry has really shifted out of his hands. Assuming, perhaps incorrectly, he has book deal lined up or shopping, about CAI downfall. If so, his current interest in the case seems tainted.
|
|
Dolomite
climber
Anchorage
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 06:41pm PT
|
Krakauer hate abounds. A sixth sense that he lied about summitting Devil's Thumb? What the heck, Studly, are you always clairvoyant or just about this?
There's no reason to think JK is writing a book about GM and CAI; he's already written a a long article about it, published as a book, profits donated to charity (one that he presumably vetted well, in advance).
Sure GM had a great cause and everyone hoped for the best, but the scenario is a huge mess. Killing the messenger is ridiculous.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 08:50pm PT
|
No Krakauer hate here.
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 10:06pm PT
|
The good news is that this thread may generate a new ST catchphrase, like "yer gonna die," or like the widely used internet acronyms such as "lol" or "roflmao".
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you FYYFFF, an acronym representing one of the lines in Ms. O'hehir's poem. This deserves wide usage on ST, and will be especially helpful in the political threads and in other situations where one wishes to hurl a thunderbolt of an insult.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 11:43pm PT
|
Ho man! A RICO prosecution now?
This just gets messier and messier.
I dunno about going after the book publisher just because it turns out the author is full of BS.
Books always have editors that are closely involved in the production of a book....on a word-by-word basis. Part of their duty is fact checking.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 11:51pm PT
|
When I climbed with Krakauer 10 or more years ago at the Boulder Climbing Club, he seemed like an upstanding guy to me.
|
|
onyourleft
climber
Smog Angeles
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 12:43am PT
|
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you FYYFFF, an acronym representing one of the lines in Ms. O'hehir's poem. This deserves wide usage on ST, and will be especially helpful in the political threads and in other situations where one wishes to hurl a thunderbolt of an insult.
Genius.
And I think "Flying Ass Monkeys" is a great name for somebody's new route...
|
|
nutjob
Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 04:56am PT
|
KenM - I wrote a technical book for which fact-checking from the editor would have been highly desirable. They did the best they could bringing in technical editors, but mostly those folks were learning from my material rather than catching my mistakes. I could have written a lot of B.S. and gotten away with it.
In a case like this, with anecdotal reporting of events years after the fact in far away countries, I really doubt the editors did any substantial fact checking. They just don't allocate the resources to do it with the presumption of honesty/integrity in the author's accounting of "facts."
Then again, maybe this aspect of editing varies a lot between companies and book types, and perhaps I'm overgeneralizing from a very limited experience.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 08:48am PT
|
A discussion of the publisher's position is in the Outside piece. See: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/greg-mortenson/The-Trials-of-Greg-Mortenson.html?page=all
Here is a (long) snippet:
It is black-letter law in the United States that … publishers are protected from liability for non-defamatory false statements in books that they publish … by the First Amendment,” Penguin’s latest brief states. “A publisher owes no duty to verify the accuracy of non-defamatory statements in a nonfiction book it publishes.”
Penguin maintains that it didn’t even attempt to fact-check the contents of Three Cups of Tea or Stones Into Schools. Doing so, it says, would have made the books prohibitively expensive to produce, and in the case of Three Cups of Tea that chore contractually fell to Mortenson and Relin. “Given the remote and dangerous locales of Mortenson’s experiences,” the brief says, “such checking likely would have been impossible, and the [book] consequently would have been unpublishable.”
At the heart of Penguin’s argument is case law indicating that publishers often enjoy First Amendment protection when they sell falsehoods packaged as truth so long as libel isn’t involved. One famous precedent is Winter v. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 in favor of Putnam’s, the publisher.
In that case, there was no doubt that cognizable injury had occurred. The plaintiffs, Wilhelm Winter and Cynthia Zheng, were two mushroom enthusiasts from California who claimed that inaccurate information in a book called The Encyclopedia of Mushrooms led them to consume a poisonous species known as the death cap. Both became seriously ill and required liver transplants, racking up some $400,000 in medical bills.
There was an argument to be made that Winter himself was at fault, but the suit was thrown out on First Amendment grounds, with the Ninth Circuit affirming a lower-court ruling in favor of Putnam’s. Using Winter and other cases, Penguin’s lawyers are hoping to slough off any claims against them. “None of [these plaintiffs] suffered only what Plaintiffs allegedly suffered here,” they write. “Namely, non-cognizable dissatisfaction upon learning that stories they thought to be true may actually be false.”
Relin, who is represented by a different set of lawyers, is making similar arguments, but his most recent brief also points a finger in Mortenson’s direction: “Relin, who was not a participant in the events he wrote about, simply wrote what he was told by those he interviewed.”
Penguin’s motion doesn’t mention the case that most closely resembles Pfau v. Mortenson, which was settled before going to trial: the 2006 lawsuit against James Frey and Random House over Frey’s fabrications in A Million Little Pieces, his infamous 2003 book about addiction that began as a novel, was retrofitted as “nonfiction” at the urging of its publisher, became an Oprah-endorsed bestseller, and was blown to smithereens by fact-checkers from the Smoking Gun website in January 2006.
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 10:43am PT
|
Back to a discussion of some of the points made above.
As is set out in “Three Cups of Deceit,” Krakauer’s motivation could not be more clear. He wrote that he believed he was bilked out of $75,000 he contributed, and that he was alarmed when CAI insiders warned him that his generous donation might not actually be used to build schools. Through these insiders, he learned that donations were being misused, contrary to law and any charity’s fiduciary responsibility to be careful in spending charitable contributions.
Mortenson appears to have a cavalier attitude with respect to spending other peoples’ money (the money contributed to CAI). If the allegations prove to be true, there would be a clear violation of law and IRS regulations. I don’t understand how Mortenson can sleep at night after his CFO stated that the financial statements of CAI were fraudulent, while at the same time Mortenson continued blithely spending contributors’ money to fly on private jets. Defenders of Mortenson seem to be very tolerant of a charity’s apparent misuse of other people’s money, since CAI, to my knowledge, has never directly responded to the CFO’s allegation of fraud.
Do all of you defenders of Mortenson really approve of a charity soliciting donations and spending it on private jet travel for an employee of the charity? The IRS rules clearly do not allow this and CAI’s own law firm stated that he might have obtained seven million dollars in “excessive benefits” from CAI.
This would seem to indicate that he received seven million dollars without paying income taxes on that sum (reimbursement of travel expenses from CAI would not be taxable income). Are you offended by this at all? Mitt Romney’s controversial 15% tax rate on his Bain Capital investment income pales in comparison! Mortenson presumably paid a 0% tax rate on that seven million dollars. Why are the defenders of Mortenson willing to look the other way on this issue rather than viewing the situation from a CAI contributor’s standpoint and demanding answers from CAI?
The argument that 75k is not a big loss to Krakauer so he shouldn’t ask questions about how his contribution was spent is ridiculous. Krakauer should be applauded for revealing the facts about Mortenson, and putting the spotlight on a systematic and knowing abuse of a charity. Many institutional and well -funded supporters of CAI, like President Obama, took Mortenson at his word and failed to investigate whether the money contributed to CAI was really being spent appropriately. It took one individual (albeit one who “buys ink by the barrel” as the saying goes) to shine a spotlight on CAI and Mortenson. One would think that climbers would appreciate the courage it took for Jon to publish his expose, taking on an immensely popular and politically well-connected public figure.
Jennie- I know you still resent Krakauer’s book, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” but get over it. Like Snowleopard’s, your arguments consist only of name calling and innuendo and they do not persuade.
I am dumbfounded that anyone would, based on a feeling, question Krakauer’s climbing record, specifically his landmark Devil’s Thumb climb. Anyone who has climbed with Jon will tell you how talented and strong he is. Ask Conrad or Jello. No one has questioned that climb or any of his impressive list of first ascents because there is no doubt that he did them exactly as he reported. He was one of the best and boldest climbers of my generation and his record of cutting–edge first ascents (several done in the purest possible style: onsight and free solo; for example, the Ice Hose on the South Howser Tower in the Bugaboos) speaks for itself.
It is an interesting measure of the credibility of the two protagonists to contrast Krakauer’s well-documented and world-class climbing record with Mortenson’s apparent puffery (this according to an authoritative source, the AAC) about his Himalayan climbing record.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:26am PT
|
I wrote a technical book for which fact-checking from the editor would have been highly desirable. They did the best they could bringing in technical editors, but mostly those folks were learning from my material rather than catching my mistakes. I could have written a lot of B.S. and gotten away with it.
In a case like this, with anecdotal reporting of events years after the fact in far away countries, I really doubt the editors did any substantial fact checking. They just don't allocate the resources to do it with the presumption of honesty/integrity in the author's accounting of "facts."
Then again, maybe this aspect of editing varies a lot between companies and book types, and perhaps I'm overgeneralizing from a very limited experience.
nutjob, your experience is pretty representative of the publishing i see, with the exception of peer-reviewed scholarly work where the material goes through scrutiny by other scholars in the field (scholars at other universities or similar institutions, not folks inside the publishing house).
indeed, even the sort of editing traditionally done in-house-- copy and line editing --has been pared down in recent years in order to keep labor costs down.
the publisher's liability with book's like mortenson's is a bit of a grey area and varies widely from place to place. one of the best accounts of legal battles over authorial claims/publisher liability, comes from a famous case in england where the legal landscape is a bit different: richard evans, lying about hitler.
|
|
Gregory Crouch
Social climber
Walnut Creek, California
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 12:14pm PT
|
Rick A -- a wonderful post.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 02:20pm PT
|
“who do you believe? the little guy making a difference, or big money.”
Who is the little guy? And big money?
In one sense, I do not care what the big names achieve – The Sir Geldorfs, Sir Bonos, Sir McCartneys, His Lord Denis O’Brien, or any other numerous well off people that "contribute" (great PR, good tax relief, and hey, did I mention, it was for my image – altruism, no, “ulterior motives are good” – apologies to Gordon Geeko, I meant Gekko, for that last one, I paraphrased) and even the lesser wealthy (Mortensen and Krakauer) people.
Albeit, the glamorous names do bring a certain sheen to a charity/charitable cause, and hence a heightened profile for the cause that will hopefully lead people to think.
However, I contend that it is the grassroots people, the regular donors, even if their pocketbooks are a bit thin, those that volunteer, and so on, those are the real people behind charities and charitable actions.
Met Krakauer once in Petersburg (AK), I was getting off the floatplane from Kake (having suffered a serious ankle injury – halibut slime on the deck can be hazardous), he was just getting on the floatplane to head for the Devil’s Thumb (Summer of 1977). I’ve never met Mortensen. And to be honest, I couldn’t care about either one.
I do CARE about good journalism (yes, Virginia, there is such a thing), and I have always tried my best to practice it. It is still out there, usually by “mavericks”. Blogs I do not trust one iota, why waste my time on what could be some schmuck spouting their agenda without proper editing. Give me a good editor to look over my work; I’ll never blog.
As for storytelling, novels and books, in many instances, it is just a case of “poetic licence”. But IMHO, a line is crossed when reputations are brought into dispute without proper investigation, or when an author “borrows heavily” from other writers.
Did Mortensen embellish, does Krakauer have a bone to pick? Did JK really come up with most of her characters and story lines. (Heck, most writers have borrowed from the Greek Tragedies/Comedies, Chinese stories, Shakespeare and Co, Wilde, Twain and such.)
But it is to what extent is such “borrowing” permissible? In recent times, a lot it appears. Where is the original thought? That’s a tough one. I had an A&P professor, Lee Armstrong, who told the class that he would die happy if he knew he had ONE original thought.
Not trying to be cynical, but it really doesn’t matter. These sort of writers have made their money, and any PR, good or bad, is a boost to them.
Just as an aside and to blow the horn on Jen’s and my trumpets, here are our contributions to charities:
 Barnados - €21/month
Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children - €30/month
Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - €20/month
Concern - - €40/month
Dublin & Wicklow Mountain Rescue - €15/month
Bothar – every Christmas (for a number of years) a goat, sheep water buffalo, or cow, and feed, and trees
Royal National Lifeboats Ireland - €30/month
Carers Association (€250/year, being a full-time carer myself)
CARI - €100/year
The Alzheimer Society of Ireland - €100 year (in memory of both our mothers, Alzheimer victims).
Goal - €250/year
Trocaire - €15/month
Plus the odd euro to people outside of shops and other one-offs, looking for contributions (registered “collectors”): Simon Community (homeless); GORTA; Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind; Red Cross; Oxfam; Unicef.
No wonder we are broke, (sort of.)
Do my contributions make a difference? I sure hope so. Along with many others.
And one more pet peeve, when multi-millionaires and billionaires are lauded for giving/helping charities, big deal, they can afford it. Many of them are chancers at best and ‘gangsters’ at worse. Heck Al Capone gave a lot to the neighborhoods he operated in, but he was still a murdering gangster.
If I had a billion, darn right (altruism) I'd help others not as fortunate.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 03:10pm PT
|
Do all of you defenders of Mortenson really approve of a charity soliciting donations and spending it on private jet travel for an employee of the charity? The IRS rules clearly do not allow this and CAI’s own law firm stated that he might have obtained seven million dollars in “excessive benefits” from CAI. Generally, my hope is that any charity that I contribute to is going to use the funds primarily for the stated purpose of the charity. Whether use of a private jet is consistent with that goal in this instance I can't say 100%. Clearly the guy was going to some out of the way places, all the while maintaining what I imagine was a pretty busy speaking schedule in the West. So, generally, while I hope a charity wouldn't use a private jet when public transport is available, here the franchise really is GM and the use of a jet could have prompted more donations than less. Again, hard to say either way.
Use of a private jet is also not against IRS regs, though the receipt of $7 m. of unreported assets clearly is. That may spell big trouble for him. Someone mentioned Al Capone, which is an interesting comparison given that he was ultimately nailed for tax evasion, not his underlying crimes.
I don't think GM is a martyr. I don't think Krakauer is a jerk (or an objective journalist either). My main gripe about this thread when it first posted was that some many seemed so willing to condemn GM so quickly without a full airing of the facts. He may have done some really hinky stuff with CAI funds, but the man also built a lot of schools and brought a lot of positive attention to an area that would be ignored and neglected were it not for him. I simply believe that more people should consider both of those things when rendering any judgment about him.
|
|
johngenx
climber
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 10:26pm PT
|
Krakauer acknowledges that a lot of good has come from it, but his problem is that some of the money may have been drained off to support an individual's lifestyle.
Jon lived a pretty spartan lifestyle as a struggling writer/climber until success came, and I doubt he thinks $75K is chump change. However, I don't think it's the dollar amount that is the issue.
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
For those who defend the use of private jets by CAI, let's look at an example.
Krakauer reports in Three Cups of Deceit that Mortenson flew by Learjet with his entourage to a speaking engagement at the Telluride Mountain Film Festival in May, 2010, at a cost of $15,000 for the jet alone. The $15,000 was billed to CAI, according to Krakauer's research.
Here is a recent article from Canada about local school children raising money for CAI under the "Pennies for Peace" program:
http://www.emcalmontecarletonplace.ca/20120216/news/Arklan%27s+Pennies+for+Peace+campaign+a+big+success
You're fine with the $685 raised by the school children being used to pay for the Learjet?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
A forensic audit should tell the tale, but takes time. And perhaps much of CAI's activities in Asia were on a cash basis, and so not easily audited. (It would not necessarily be damning if some bribery were involved, that being a way of life there.) It seems to me that what's then needed is a new, professional board of directors, and replacement of Mortenson by a professional manager.
Whether Mortenson should have any role in the CAI once the dust settles is another matter; it may depend on what if anything he's charged with, and the result. A court could well order that he have no further involvement. But he did found and build the thing, however flawed the result, and could still have a carefully-controlled role in promoting it.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
For the most part, the truth will gradually emerge and take shape. As for Mortensen, he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion and, in effect, his career is over.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!