Wow, I read that book. Very messed up that he embellished some details, why cant people just be honest about their contributions?

Because a story about a guy who travels to a country and then heads back to do some humanitarian/charity/development work doesn't make compelling reading. Thousands (or more) people do that all the time. People travel, fall in love with the place, and "give something back."

Stumbling into a village all punch-drunk and being taken care of by hospitable, exotic locals is apparently how you sell books. And then how you raise funds for an organization.

In writing "success stories" about village projects for HQ to use as fundraising tools here in the states, I have to say there is always a temptation to embellish, even there. And I had nothing to gain financially either.

haivanhuynh wrote:

T Sharp wrote:Sorry, but I am going to consider the source of the accusations made, and the character of the accused, and since when is that bad?
I have read the 60 minute transcript, Mr. Mortenson`s answers to the questions raised, and the CAI`s answers to the 60 minutes questions. All easily found on the 60 minutes web site.
I am going to consider the work ethic of the accused, his goals and the very nature of his life`s work, and weigh that against the sensational nature of John Krakauer, and his self serving finger pointing...reminds me of "The Donald"....cant stand on his own, he has to drag someone down to gain notoriety.

And the "lets find a scandal" type of journalism that 60 minutes has made a living on for decades that seems to have very thinly "sourced" some accusations that were easily rebutted by Mortenson and CAI. 60 minutes is trying to play middle of the road, we just report, there might be something wrong here type of story...what a crying damn shame, that such a worthy endeavor as the CAI could be ruined for no good reason, and without an actual cause. Boo CBS and 60 Minutes and Boo John Krakauer, a man I never trusted since reading Anatoli Boukreev`s The Climb.

Some types of "lets find a scandal" type of journalism is known as investigative journalism, or good ol' journalism.

PBS's Frontline (as founded by Fanning and the old vanguard of some 60 Minutes folks) that brought down big tobacco, for one.

The two more recent Pulitzer prize winners that exposed the corruption of the city of Bell, California, for another. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/bell/

It keeps people, or lots of people, honest, which is important when writing journalism, or other works of non-fiction.

Well I must say I am impressed that a new commenter has actually read the thread!

You forgot to mention Geraldo Rivera! Krakauer is gunning for his old job at FOX I hear!
As to your points concerning my comments about 60 minutes "journalism", I do not dispute that investigative journalism has a valuable place in our society, I view it as the 4th leg of the stool, so to speak. Woodward and Bernstein exposing Watergate is my favorite example of great investigative journalism. But then they were print, and could actually get the entire story out there, not limited to 15 minute segments. Perhaps there are valid reasons for all of the allegations regarding schools being unused, or any of the other allegations made against Mortenson and the CAI, {and they are in-separable}. I think the inability, or unwillingness of 60 minutes to delve into these possible explanations is what I object to in the piece, the jump went straight to malfeasance. That to me is "Yellow Journalism" which seeks to destroy reputation rather than expose truth. If it turns out that exculpatory evidence that tended to exonerate Mortenson or CAI was left out of the story, by 60 minutes or Krakauer, [as he did with Toli], then that will be the true scandal.

As I pointed out before, any mistakes made by the people alleging wrongdoing by Mortenson or CAI , will, in an ethical light be considered worse than the original alleged transgressions, for a persons reputation is at stake here.


And as for the Mountaineers resigning from the CAI board in 2002....man I looked back at what was going on in the region, yeah WAR, and Mortenson turns down a raise to 35,000 a year from 28,000 because the CAI`s finances are on shaky ground, and so I am thinking who is going give Mortenson a receipt for building materials or a meal, in war torn Central Asia anyways? And how many times can a person making 28,000 a year be expected to pay for his own flight to Pakistan? Maybe their expectations were impossible to meet, and a parting of ways was best for all.

Just Sayin..perspective is the entire story here. It is unfair to look at this with only a 2011 lens of hindsight.

T Sharp wrote: And as for the Mountaineers resigning from the CAI board in 2002....man I looked back at what was going on in the region,...

What you have written there implies that the reasons that Hornbein and Wiltsie gave for leaving are not genuine, that they are other than what they said to Krakauer. They made it clear they were resigning specifically because of Greg Mortenson's financial mismanagement of CAI, not the difficulties or costs of running CAI in Central Asia. You are saying otherwise. You are, in effect, saying they lied. You are impugning the characters of two highly-respected people. I suggest you take a step back, "T Sharp", and take a look at yourself before carrying on with this embarrassing tirade.

Just Sayin..perspective is the entire story here.

No. Facts are the story, however you try in vain to paint it otherwise. Krakauer stated names, dates and numbers based on research, run past legals before publication/broadcast. Refute those like-for-like then you may start to have a case. The rest is irrelevant, emotional waffle.

It is unfair to look at this with only a 2011 lens of hindsight.

Of course, but a lie told remains a lie forever. The circumstances may change, but the inherent nature of the act can not. Mortenson has already admitted some things in the book are not true.

Damien Gildea wrote:What you have written there implies that the reasons that Hornbein and Wiltsie gave for leaving are not genuine, that they are other than what they said to Krakauer. They made it clear they were resigning specifically because of Greg Mortenson's financial mismanagement of CAI, not the difficulties or costs of running CAI in Central Asia. You are saying otherwise. You are, in effect, saying they lied. You are impugning the characters of two highly-respected people.

Personally, when I read the exchanges between both of the above and GM, they struck me as definitely being the bullseye of the major financial improprieties that will come out in the investigation. I say those specific events are the ones that will convict and then send GM to prison for his financial misbehavior.

Damien Gildea wrote:

T Sharp wrote: And as for the Mountaineers resigning from the CAI board in 2002....man I looked back at what was going on in the region,...

What you have written there implies that the reasons that Hornbein and Wiltsie gave for leaving are not genuine, that they are other than what they said to Krakauer. They made it clear they were resigning specifically because of Greg Mortenson's financial mismanagement of CAI, not the difficulties or costs of running CAI in Central Asia. You are saying otherwise. You are, in effect, saying they lied. You are impugning the characters of two highly-respected people. I suggest you take a step back, "T Sharp", and take a look at yourself before carrying on with this embarrassing tirade.

Just Sayin..perspective is the entire story here.

No. Facts are the story, however you try in vain to paint it otherwise. Krakauer stated names, dates and numbers based on research, run past legals before publication/broadcast. Refute those like-for-like then you may start to have a case. The rest is irrelevant, emotional waffle.

It is unfair to look at this with only a 2011 lens of hindsight.

Of course, but a lie told remains a lie forever. The circumstances may change, but the inherent nature of the act can not. Mortenson has already admitted some things in the book are not true.

Now now "Damien", I did not accuse Hornbien or Wiltsie of lying, nor did I impugn their character, I simply looked at what was going on in the timeline circa 2002.
You don`t trust Mortenson or CAI, I don`t trust Krakauer simple as that.
No thanks to your other suggestions, I have been an honest contributor to this thread, I have counseled caution and have taken an innocent until proven guilty outlook, and you have attacked me on a personal basis twice. If you persist I will ask a forum moderator to step in.
I have not attacked you on a personal basis, and will not. If you do not like my posts, or opinion, I would encourage you to look past them.

T Sharp wrote:Now now "Damien", I did not accuse Hornbien or Wiltsie of lying, nor did I impugn their character ... I have counseled caution and have taken an innocent until proven guilty outlook .... If you persist I will ask a forum moderator to step in.

Thanks for that clarification, T. When you declared back at the beginning of the thread that "all the money accustations are bullshit," it may have sounded to some of us as though you were impugning those, such as Tom Hornbein, who had made the money accusations.

T Sharp wrote: You don`t trust Mortenson or CAI, I don`t trust Krakauer simple as that.

No. I would say that this is not an issue of opinions about personalities. This is about facts - names, dates, numbers, regulations and incidents. Not evaluations of characters we've never met.

Despite your previous derogation of the financial issues as "bullshit", there are serious issues here, well said at http://splitterville.blogspot.com/2011/ ... -down.html

you have attacked me on a personal basis twice .... I have not attacked you on a personal basis, and will not.

No one is getting 'attacked' here. Back on p.5: "So a series questions here Chief, Damien and Fletch; ..." were directed at me by name, by you. So I responded directly to you.

If you do not like my posts, or opinion, I would encourage you to look past them.

Ditto.

I started this thread. If you don't want my direct response to your opinions, don't ask me by name to respond. I'm sorry if you take my comments as 'attacks' on you personally, as I have no interest in doing that, but I will not apologise for 'attacking' the content of what you write. This is a forum, not a fan site. Heat, kitchen etc etc ...

Either way, I've had enough of this (see above re: quitters ). But please don't take my ensuing silence as acquiescence to whatever may follow.