David Remnick: This is The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick, and this is Patrick Radden Keefe.

Patrick Radden Keefe: Occasionally, I'll be on the subway and I'll see people reading The New Yorker. There was a week when I had an article in the magazine and I saw somebody pull the magazine out of their bag and turn the pages and turn to my article. What I was thinking internally was, "Should I say something?" I started inching my way over and then just as I reached out to tap her on the shoulder, I saw her get to the end of the first paragraph and flip to the next article. [laughter] That mortifying moment is always in my mind anytime I sit down to write because the truth is writing [crosstalk]--

David Remnick: At The New Yorker, we've got the privilege of publishing many of the best writers out there. Patrick Radden Keefe is certainly one of them. Not long ago, three of our writers got together to talk shop at The New Yorker Festival. Shop in this case is the craft of investigative journalism, digging detective-like for information and then creating a truthful narrative that sometimes has the tension and release of a genuine thriller.

The writers were Jane Mayer, best known for her book, Dark Money, about the billionaires Charles and David Koch, David Grann who wrote Killers of the Flower Moon and The Wager, both huge bestsellers, and Patrick, who's known for his reporting on the Sackler family’s opioid dynasty and his book, Say Nothing, which is about a murder during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. They were joined by their editor, the magazine's gifted features editor, Daniel Zalewski. Here's Patrick.

Patrick Radden Keefe: When I was working on my book, Say Nothing, David and I used to actually have offices next door to each other in the old New Yorker offices, which was incredible for me to have the opportunity to have David next door and just be able to chat with him about various issues. There was a moment at the end of the research process for that book four years into the process when I one day stumbled on-- it's about this murder that happened in 1972. Almost by accident, I stumbled on the identity of the murderer, who is somebody who was still alive and had never been identified.

It was this huge revelation but then something I needed to think really carefully about, like, what's the responsible way of doing this to point the finger at somebody and accuse them of murder in a book? Then also from a storytelling perspective, how would you handle that? As I was wrestling with this, I thought, "I think I'll ask David Grann." [laughter] I called him up. It was a little bit I was joking. It's like, I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here. [laughter]

Similarly, my book about the Sacklers, one of my touchstones going into that was Jane's work on the Kochs, was how do you look at a systemic problem through the lens of the history of one family? The issue is that nobody is obliged to read any of this stuff. We're playing for keeps. We spend months and months and months working on these stories but the truth is that a magazine article, unless it's really good, is a pretty disposable thing.

Jane Mayer: I think that part of what is important is, at least in the way I look at these big boring issues often, like economic inequality or corruption in politics, which includes having to write about campaign finance, there's nothing duller in the world. What I think is really important is, at least to me when I'm doing these things is to put a face on it, to explain that there's urgency in this. There's a person behind this who's made a moral or ethical choice that has resulted in peoples being damaged or a system being damaged the way it is.

That's why if you take a subject like campaign finance, Citizens United's, the decision, and how it's corrupted politics, if you can find somebody like the Kochs and explain there actually was a billionaire behind so much of this, and he has a story, and he has a family, and there are always screwed-up fathers and sons involved in these families. Bringing that alive, it means that you're able to explain the ethical choices people make.

I think you and I have spent a lot of time thinking about this and trying to take those piles of facts and all of those numbers and the investigative reporting and bringing it alive by showing that this is actually a story about a person.

Daniel Zalewski: I think a related aspect of that is I think all three of you guys have a real respect for the competence of the villains in your story, meaning all three of you have a kind of connoisseurs. That's the reason why Patrick's book, a collection of magazine pieces, is called Rogues because there's a certain appreciation you have to have for the grifter, for the scam artist, for the unethical stock trader. If you don't look at them with that rigor and care, you may not quite see what is wrong here, but not just what's wrong, but what's the threat because the opposition to what you believe in is so formidable.

Jane Mayer: One of the great things about The New Yorker is that it gives you the space to really develop a character and have nuance. I was thinking that Patrick, your portrait of the Sacklers is one that-- what makes it so interesting is they begin, in the very beginning is idealists who go awry. It's not like people they're born conniving and twisting their mustache and saying, "I'm going to take this down." You see the corrupt of them get corrupted. It's a long arc of a story in a person's life. You can see what we have the space to do is tell it.

David Grann: I think fundamentally what you're trying to do is you're really asking yourself a question about why and how. When you ask those questions, it inevitably leads you to deconstruct how something happened and to understand even the villains, even when they are evil, you are trying to understand them, to decode them, to figure them out, and then to show them. I think also, it requires more than anything else a trust in you all.

When I write a story, I have an enormous sense of trust in the reader that I don't need to begin a story telling you this person was wrongly executed or this person, quick, he's evil, blaring lights, this is the villain, he is awful. If I show you that we are in all these stories, not just readers, but we are discerners, we are jurors, we are adjudicating, they-- I think that is what can have the real power of literature to let us figure out the answers as well.

Daniel Zalewski: Patrick and David, there must be moments when you've had an idea in your head. This would be a great story. I have this all the time where I think this would be great if I could know this. Sometimes you realize this is going to remain a secret for decades to come or may never get known. What is the story where you thought, "I don't think I can do this," but then you got to feel, "Yes, I can"? David, do you have an answer to that?

David Grann: I remember the challenge. One of the stories we did early on was on the Aryan Brotherhood of how. I was always scouring for story ideas. In the old days, the best place I always found to find story ideas was in little briefs in metropolitan newspapers around the country, which sadly now, there are not as many of these newspapers. They used to be an inch long. Just a little summary. I remember reading in a California paper a little summary and it said something to the effect of, members of the Aryan Brotherhood, this murderous prison gang, were arrested while in prison. [laughter] Arrested while in prison.

That was basically it. I thought, "How the hell do you get arrested in prison?" Then I did a little more research and I learned that the leaders of the gang that were arrested were actually in solitary confinement in the most draconian prisons in the country. I learned that there was a member of the gang who had been number two in the gang who had defected from the gang at a certain point under mysterious circumstances.

I learned, which I did not know, that there was the equivalent of a witness protection program in prison, which is you're still in prison but they don't list you in the prison. It's not public. I couldn't find the person. I spent weeks and weeks trying to find this ghost prisoner. Then eventually, I got somebody in the government to tell me where he was. I called the prison and I said, "I'd like to meet with--" I think his name was Thompson. "I'd like to meet with him. I'm going to write him a letter. Can you give me just the basic information?" They said, "We have no prisoner here by that name."

Then several hours went by and the official who had been helping me locate the person called me up and they said they were getting ready to move them out of the prison. "They think you're a sleeper agent trying to come in to kill him." [laughter] Now, I'm not much of a sleeper agent when you take one look at me, sadly. This official said, "No, no. He really is a reporter for The New Yorker. Come on down." I was eventually able to meet this person.

He had these mesmerizing blue eyes like I've never seen before, Charles Manson-like eyes. He began to tell me the story about why he had left the gang, how the gang operated, the methods they used. This man had murdered many people. He also had some element of a conscience because he had left the gang when he believed that they were starting to kill what he considered innocents, the father of somebody who had snitched. He thought that was outside our rules, and that's why he left the gang.

I have faith in you as a reader to be able to hear from him, how he got sucked into the gang, recognize the crimes he has committed, and see some of the gray as well to form your own judgments. My job is to show who he is and what the gang is and have that confidence. I think that is how you do it. You are honest about it, and you confront the evil by showing it.

Patrick Radden Keefe: I think there's a moral vanity in reading about a certain kind of evil person and saying, "Well, they are just completely different from me. I would never have anything in common with them. We are two different species." I wrote a big piece a number of years ago about a woman named Judy Clarke, who's a death penalty lawyer. She represents, famously, the worst of the worst. She takes only people who've done truly the most horrific things; terrorists who've planted bombs in public places, mass murderers, child rapists.

Her objection to the death penalty is so intense that she believes even in those cases, those lives should be spared. What she's trying to do is humanize her clients, these awful people, and say, "Yes, they're these awful people. They've done these awful things, but nobody's born evil." Her perspective is that things happen to people, they change over time. I don't know that philosophically I'm all the way there with Judy Clarke.

I think evil exists, but I think that the job of the journalist is not to platform it in the sense that you're giving a kind of uncritical megaphone to this person, but to get close enough to them and try and ask yourself how they got there. Where did they diverge? What was the off-ramp that they took from the road that the rest of us are on? You're trying to see them in enough, vivid, intimate detail that you really create an encounter between the reader and that person.

Jane Mayer: As you know, I've often had problems getting face time with some of the people who are really powerful, who have layer after layer of public relations, people keeping people like me at a great distance. Because of that, what I think is really important to do is to find other people, other sources on them who will be able to give you a three-dimensional picture. Among the people that turned out to be great sources was I rented a summer house once from a man who was a very high-end jeweler, and who knew, but he turned out to be the jeweler for the Koch family. [laughter]

He became the most incredible source because Mrs. Koch would come in and complain about Mr. Koch and how cheap he was and of what she wanted to buy. Then they became such good friends that the jeweler became her gym buddy. He would work out with her and then call me. [laughter] I'm just trying to make sure not to give too much away, but there was someone in a household of a billionaire, I wrote about a different billionaire, who really was an employee who disliked the family so much that this person wound up, when the family was out, photographing what was in their briefcases and sending it. You do what you can, but really, I--

[laughter]

David Grann: Apparently.

Jane Mayer: I have to say, though, that some of the best sources are mothers. It made me realize why the word mother lode because I was thinking of Mike Pence's mom, who I sat down with. She was incredible. His brother came too, and we all sat down for coffee.

Patrick Radden Keefe: I've always found that ex-wives are [unintelligible 00:15:04].

[laughter]

Daniel Zalewski: [unintelligible 00:15:10] Go ahead.

David Grann: As a reporter, you are terrified that you're getting something wrong constantly. You live with that fear. I remember when I was working on Killers of the Flower Moon, I had thought that was a story about this singular evil figure who had committed these crimes against members of the Osage Nation, systematically killing them for their oil money, who had committed these crimes with a few henchmen, because that was the theory laid out by the FBI at the time.

Over time, I kept meeting with members of the Osage Nation, and a lot of the Osage elders kept telling me about other suspicious deaths in their family that weren't ever investigated and weren't part of the FBI case and that had no links to this killer. Then, at one point, I remember going to the archives in Fort Worth, Texas, and I found this old booklet, and it was listing members of the Osage Nation whose fortunes were being managed by these white guardians under this very racist system.

I noticed under one of the names of the guardians they had about five Osages whose fortune they had managed, and it kept saying-- after the first name, somebody had written the word dead, and after the next name dead, and after the third name dead, fourth, fifth. All five listed as dead in a span of just a couple of years. I said, "That's so weird." I started going through this booklet.

I noticed another guardian who had like 15 Osages whose fortune they had managed, and it had about a 50% mortality rate. It defied any natural death rate. It was easier to think of these crimes as being perpetrated by a singular evil figure, a psychopath who is different than us. Instead, this turned out to be about a culture of killing and a culture of complicity and about a lot of ordinary people who are committing these crimes because of greed and prejudice.

Daniel Zalewski: I think a lot of what you guys end up publishing you're witness to a culture in which say, on Wall Street, everyone thinks that what they're doing is just fine. Jane, you were talking about the enormous institutions that exist to block people like you. I can remember a time when I got a call, myself as the editor, that was basically saying, "We're going to run a story saying that Jane Mayer is a serial plagiarist. Do you have any comment?" I was stunned by this and, it turned out-- Well, you tell them. What was going on there?

Jane Mayer: It was a nightmare. That was the Kochs again. They had hired the former commissioner of police in New York City. I had heard a little bit about it that there was some detective doing something about me and I thought, "Boy, they're going to be really bored." [laughter] What they came up with was they were going to frame me as a plagiarist. They'd run 11 years' worth of work, including a couple of books, through those plagiarism algorithm detection things and found four sentences that looked like other sentences.

They'd given a huge binder of opposition research on this to Tucker Carlson. He called for comment, and he said, "We're going with this tomorrow morning." I said, "Tucker, you know I'm not a plagiarist. Nobody's ever accused me of that." He said, "I know no such thing." I called the authors of the four sentences, one of which appeared in a Washington Post piece that turned out to have been edited by my husband. [laughs] When I called the reporter, he said, "Not only did you not plagiarize, but you credit me by name in the next paragraph, and in The New Yorker, it's a link to my work."

Overnight, I was able to take it apart. I sent this to Tucker Carlson and said, "If you go ahead with this, this is a textbook example of libel and I'm going to sue." I took the dog for a walk, came back, and he said, "We're not going with it." [laughter] I did wonder then The New York Post had been sort of following this whole thing, and so then, to their credit, they ran a story that said, "Smear disappears. We wonder who was behind it."

Daniel Zalewski: It was such a brilliant act of reporting jiujitsu, where it's like, they're doing this thing against her, and then she just uses all of her reporting [unintelligible 00:19:34] on deadline to save herself and shame them for what they did.

Jane Mayer: Thank you for not believing it.

Daniel Zalewski: Yes. Well, the thing is, it's important to recognize, it's just important to understand what the people on this stage sometimes go through.

David Grann: I do remember once where, it was actually after the Aryan Brotherhood story where I got a letter from an associate of the gang, came to my home, which was a little unsettling, and it said, "Your name is now in the hat." That meant, in the Aryan Brotherhood, if your name was in the hat, it was meant you were marked for death. I was very nervous.

I called a prosecutor who had been investigating them, and very anxiously, I said, "I hear my name is in the hat." The prosecutor said, "Well, David, look at it. It's a really big hat. My name's in the hat. My wife's name is in the hat. Joey, who's selling hot dogs down there, he's in the hat. I think you'll be at the very bottom. You're fine."

[applause]

David Remnick: David Grann, along with Patrick Radden Keefe, and Jane Mayer. You can read work by all of them at newyorker.com. A pretty good summer afternoon, I'd say. I'm David Remnick, and that's the program for today. See you next time.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.