Johann Hari - Hypocrite or Victim?

[StraferJack]

Toby Young accusing someone else of "galloping careerism"?? To quote yet another journo, "you couldn't make it up"

I agree with those that say there is a general tone of mealy mouthedness, but i still think him pressing the reset button in the way he has is not a bad path to take

Re-reading quids's review of him, it's actually pretty spot on. I don't think Hari will come back a great journalist, but as someone who has been caught doing wrong, I'm still impressed with the hands up (albeit with the reservations expressed by people on here)

[taper]

I think we deserve never to see Hari again in public life.

See here for another more personal take.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100105146/johann-hari-hounded-me-for-years-all-he-gets-is-four-months-unpaid-holiday-from-the-independent-but-the-truth-will-come-out/

The David Rose element of this is what's truly disturbing.

[Moos]

Was discussing this with a friend today. We concluded that an exhaustive list of the people whose Wikipedia bios he'd changed, with individual apologies, would have been appropriate. I felt that the anonymous Wiki-changing bit was rather brief, and it was such an appalling thing to do.

[StraferJack]

I like that idea moos

On balance I think I have been too willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I think I've just been wrong

[indiepanda]

I wasn't really aware of this case until I read his "apology" in the i today, but I have to admit I was pretty underwhelmed with what he had to say.

How can you need to go to journalist school to learn that it's wrong to change people's wiki entries to include defamatory lies about them or adjust quotes to improve a story?

Ok, he's apologised, but I rather got the impression that he did this not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was the best thing for his career. If he toes the line in the future, I will be inclined to assume that it will be because people will be looking very closely at what he has to say for "mistakes" - i.e. for fear of losing his job not because he would find it repulsive to do anything else.

I've generally thought there's only one group of supposed professionals I trust less than politicians and it's journalists... this case doesn't do anything to change my view. (obviously I don't think all are bad.... but there is a sizable minority that give a bad impression)

[ianr]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Was discussing this with a friend today. We concluded that an exhaustive list of the people

> whose Wikipedia bios he'd changed, with individual apologies, would have been appropriate. I felt

> that the anonymous Wiki-changing bit was rather brief, and it was such an appalling thing to do.

The list of changes (done under any known user name of his) is actually available. Go to the User:David r from meth productions Wikipedia page, and click on 'contributions'. For any of them, click on the 'diff' link to see the changes he made. The random one I looked at added purported details of a person's criminal record.

[taper]

And if there's any vestigial sympathy for the four eyed t0sser, here's another nail

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/09/unethical-journalism

[StraferJack]

oh and without even following the link, my sympathy swings back because now he has people calling him "four-eyed" because... and get this, you will never believe it... HE WEARS GLASSES!

come on taper - you are better than that

[maxxi]

I don't believe his apology any more than the excuses he came out with at the time.

He wants us all to believe he was one who journo'd "not wisely but too well"; that it was all a MISTAKE occasioned by his desire to give the reader as much information as possible and that he had been STUPID rather than malicious and devious.

As for handing back an award that was going to be taken from him anyway and suggesting that, as this was a penance that in his mind outweighed the offence, he was being deliberately overly damning of himself- I think that was a PR quick-fix that no one is going to fall for.

He will play the self-appointed martyr for a while but I think normal service will soon be resumed - he will just be better at disguising it.

[taper]

Is "bespectacled prig" any more tolerable?

[StraferJack]

call him what you like, his behaviour warrants it. But not sure what needing glasses has to do with it

you could call him a "Jewish, queer, bespectacled prig" and you would be on factual grounds - but you don't for a reason I suspect

[mockney piers]

strictly speaking that would be a jewish, homosexual, bespectacled prig you homophobe you!!

[taper]

I take it back. I see he's taken to wearing contact lenses.

[ianr]

I suspect going through Wikipedia meta-records, for all their admirability on some counts, is a reserved occupation for the inhabitants of some of the outer circles of hell. But here's one telling snippet, his own words, from his Wikipedia 'User talk' page:

"I'll tell you something else that's generally frowned on in wikipedia: inserting lies into entries, blatantly trying to impose your POV on entries of people you hate, imposing your own political bias, insulting real people as sockpuppets... I could go on, and you probably did know not to do it. The way you are disregarding the wiki rules and authorities is appalling." --- David r from meth productions 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There seem to me, incidentally, to have been some remarkable efforts by some of the Wikipedia editors/commentators to be fair-minded in the previous absence of absolutely compelling evidence. Even now there also seems to be split opinion as to which his more serious fault was, the plagiarism or the Wikipedia manipulations, and a willingness not to automatically downrate assessments of some of his journalism.