A Cupful of Controversy
Has mountain climber and best-selling Greg Mortenson of “Three Cups of Tea” fame been exposed as a fraud by CBS’s 60 Minutes? Or is the segment that ran this past Sunday “seriously deficient” and “lacking in basic elements of fairness, balance, perspective, insight and context,” as former Newsweek correspondent Daniel Glick argues?
Glick, who is an accomplished magazine writer (and a good friend of mine), offers a spirited defense that is less a deconstruction of 60 Minutes’ reporting and more a testimonial of Mortenson, based on a 1998 trip Glick made to Pakistan, where he met Mortenson “years before he hit national headlines.” Glick recounts the experience and some of his impressions:
Mortenson was one of the more interesting people I had met in a lifetime of traveling and writing about interesting people. He was humble, dressed in a dirty shalwar kameez, and seemed about as guileless as anybody I had ever met, with an almost monkish disregard for consumerism or popular culture. He was a bit naïve, it seemed to me, but was obviously pleased with the bridge over the Braldu River that he had helped build, as well as the school in Korphe. Haji Ali and the other Baltis treated him with great affection and respect. He returned the gestures in word and deed.
I spoke a lot with Mortenson about his new Central Asia Institute, and his idea to build more schools to provide opportunities for young girls to get an education. He told me the now-disputed story about his first visit to Korphe after his failed summit attempt on K2 ““ and his inspiration to build a school there. When we returned to the relative metropolis of Skardu, I sat in on meetings he held with local mullahs, and visited a vocational school for young women that Mortenson said he had helped to get off the ground.
I can’t weigh in since I haven’t watched the 60 Minutes episode yet, but for those who have been following the story, I thought I’d point out Glick’s post.
If I was going to critcise the 60 minutes team I would say they did a poor job of door-stopping Mortenson, they basically asked if he could talk, and then meekly walked away when he said he was signing books letting him slip away! I don’t imagine Michael Moore letting anyone get away that easily!
First I’ve heard of the fellow, and by all accounts his aims and some of what he has achieved is admirable, but after watching the 60 minutes report I think it would seem clear Mortenson has some questions to answer. For me one of the worst accusations is that he falsely claimed to have been kidnapped by people who actually helped him. If true this is a very nasty thing to do to people who have been your friends. If I was really concerned about defending him I would worry about accertaining the truth about that sort of specific point, yet the Glick defence glaringly omits talking about any of the specifics, and only tells us he’s a nice bloke who’s maybe a bit absent minded and doesn’t comb his hair too often. Describing that response as “Daniel Glick argues” is very generous. I personally wouldn’t be waiting with baited breath for anything Glick has to say in the future based on that.
Language Log has been discussing that story:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3095
Of course, they discuss Mortensen’s discussion of lack of words for “time” and his interpretation of what that means. They don’t think much of his theory about the Balinese’s views on time.
BBC news has attempted an on the scenes investigation, and presents what appears to be a balanced view, much more nuanced than that given by 60 Minutes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13125953
It’s clear to me from reports like Glick’s that Mortenson is not a “complete fraud”. That locals there know and respect him and many people have witnessed these interactions with the locals. I went trekking in that area some years ago and can testify to how remote it is. That some of the schools may not have been supported after the fact is hardly proof of anything.
The question is whether in the pursuit of his goals, he exaggerated stories or even made some up to further those goals. He wouldn’t be the first person who decided that the ends justify the means if that turns out to be the case. There are also issues of how his institute is run. And he wouldn’t be the first person who couldn’t run an organization.
There is plenty of space between complete fraud and total victim of 60 Minutes and it’s going to take some time to sort that out. The state of Montana is investigating the nonprofit, for example. I’m ready to wait that out and see how it turns out.
Dean, “complete fraud” appears twice on this page and you said it. What else have you heard about Mortenson that you aren’t linking to 😉
Stuart – I read the book some time back and somebody has been sending me a lot of links, and I have seen that claimed. I think the sense I’ve seen from some comments are that if he was lying about some things, he might be lying about everything, and I think there is plenty of evidence to show that isn’t true.
Dean, I understand. This guy and story is totally new to me, my first comment was about what I have seen in the material from the 60 minutes documentary and the Glick defence ( before I read both the links above from Lucia and Gaythia) and I have not investigated more off this page. However I admit I do have my prejudices about this archetype of a charismatic person who has a devoted following.
I think there may be essential lessons to be learnt in this story, maybe about how much gilding the lily we should allow is one. It seems a charismatic man representing an organisation can be permitted to be given much leeway, but a faceless corporation is hunted down to the end by the diligent likes of Michael Moore.
If General Motors started off helping out the small man to gain freedom by facilitating cheap travel but later became a capital exploiting, polluting behemoth, then it seems we can applaud that fact the likes of Moore will put them to the test, which is fair enough. However I think we see too often charismatic philanthropic individuals being projected as critically untouchable.
Looking again at the Glick “defence” it seems even worse to me now, it is an exercise in fencing off someone from real criticism. This is a worrying trend. If the attitude is that there can be no real harm because the intention is righteous, then does that have problems? I think it does. I think we seem to be seeing a situation that for an individual projected in a suitable “liberal” manner then accountability is pushed off the agenda for fear of hurting someones feelings on an individual level, this ignores any possible real harm they may have done – no matter how unintentionally. Yet on the other hand we often see calls to punish “faceless” organisations whilst ignoring any of their tangible positives.
Meanwhile, if the kids give their pennies away to essentially just fund book tours, then who cares so long as they feel they have achieved something?
It all seems an archetype for our new age in the west where we now emphasise feelings over tangibilities
The ‘but he’s a good guy!’ defence doesn’t cut it IMO. One can be a generally good guy and do some stupid or selfish things. And whether he combs his hair or not is irrelevant, he has become a millionaire through his book and charitable organization. Have any of 60 minutes claims been directly disputed? Glick seems to have a less than positive view of the aid industry in general, but seems to think that Mortensons organization is an exception; it appears as if hes part of the problem.
Three cups of tea was a popular book, its not surprising that if significant parts were made up that it would be news. And this ‘fog of war’ defense does not hold, you were either kidnapped or you were not. In his defense, I bet alot of aid organizations would look just as bad if 60 minutes took a microscope to their operations. That being said, I just can’t make myself feel sorry for this guy; the lesson is, don’t lie in your memoir.