Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
to the Indy in March, but not doing interviews.
So excited. Genuinely a great man.
He's a complete and utter bell end.
Admittedly I was never quite sure how he was taken seriously even before this happened but nonetheless surely his credibility is shot...
was that he told the *right kind of lies*. I think their may be something in that.
I was always baffled at his dismissal anyway. I've asked this before, but where is the Indy's duty of care to their employees? It's completely non existent. This is a man who suffers/has suffered from severe depression/addiction and openly writes about it. It was absolutely inevitable that something was going to happen sooner or later. I just don't get it at all.
for a number of years?
plagiarism =/= 'quoting interviewees' books because English isn't their first language and they're unclear'.
How many times do people need to be told the same thing?
Quoting uncredited and passing it off as what they said in the interview is plagarism. It's also all the hallmarks of being a cunt
As is, say, ignoring your translator in the Central African Republic and completely making up quotes, then winning the orwell prize for it.
oh come on! that wasn't what he did, what he was accused of doing or what he was suspended for. can't be arsed to write it out anew because talking about this subject is more like knocking yr head into a brick tall than talking about most things on DiS but to c+p from the first thread on the subject...
"the suggestion is that not only does he quote from other writers on [Negri] passing it off as his own interview, he also decontextualises and changes the implications of these quotations to paint Negri in a particularly partisan light and invents/exagerrates elements of the interview process itself to achieve the same."
i'd be quite happy for someone to engage w/ this but his supporters (not just you, across the board) just ignore the actual accusations...to then formulate it as tho we're being dim-witted or w/ our heads in the sand is absurd!
sorry this was a bit angry. love you really, whoever you are. idk.
secondly, I have a lot of sympathy for people who suffer from depression and other kinds of mental illness, their suffering is generally misunderstood but it does not absolve one from following proper journalistic standards.
I do feel that (at the risk of this sounding very stupid and conspiratorial) there's been an editorial shift at the Indy recently and this is all awfully convenient. I haven't seen a leftwing headline in there for ages (not that I regard that as a problem as I think the Indy should be neutral), and it's very interesting that Jody McIntyre was got rid of at the same time, for another totally predictable, avoidable offence.
I think what he did was wrong, and certainly punishment is appropriate. Standards should indeed be upheld. But it's all so very avoidable and that annoys me. Anyone could have seen that something was going to go on sooner or later- do the editors not read what he sends in to them? Someone could/should have acted as this is preventable. Actions of a sad lonely lazy careerist maybe. Actions of a terrible journalist? Don't think so.
which firstly is *where the fuck were the sub editors for the past 5 years* and *why was this man, as talented as he is, parachuted into large pieces with zero training* - these are good points. But to call him a *great man* as you have is simply incorrect; he falsefied quotes and lied about it; he edited the wikipedia pages of his enemies under a assumed name and lied about it; when he was caught he lied about it.
The above is not the actions of a great man, or even a good man. He had the chance to regain some credibility-he could have fessed up, resigned and aimed for another career - plenty of NGOs he cold have worked for. But he has chosen to cling on.
2. Maybe, it's probably me fanboying and being silly. I don't want to make presumptions but I can imagine most people wanting to come back, especially if it's all you've done since leaving uni and don't know how to do anything else.
When it comes to the interview thing and the writing around what was actually said, I've yet to meet a journalist at a top paper who hasn't done that at some point in the past though.
But like I've tried to say upthread (not that you'll read this, because it's written by me) this is a man with complex mental health issues. I can perfectly easily envisage someone feeling depressed and pissed off at another colleague's response to their work and therefore trashing them publicly. It's not right but nor is it surprising.
Is that it plays into some of the worst and most inaccurate stereotypes of mental illness in general – that it makes people unreliable, that if unsupervised they’ll do really silly/stupid/dangerous things. I have no doubt that *some* elements of his actions did come from dark place within his illness, but equally to shift the blame entirely on to it attacks the very foundations of what disability campaigners have been trying to argue for the last 20 years.
Yes he is ill, yes that knowledge should inform our discussion and his treatment, no it neither absolves or explains his actions.
1) I have Asperger's and ADHD and maybe I'm being naive, but I really hope I'm not playing into stereotypes (not a dig at you, I just don't realise what I'm saying sometimes)
2) I don't want to shift the blame really, I just think that, DiS aside, the causal link just hasn't been considered at all when it's certainly there.
3) maybe I'm just annoyed at twitter. It seems as though people are too willing to make headlines and too unwilling to probe deeper and it's resulted in someone who is actually good at what they do being hounded.
...sorry, that doesn't really answer your point, which is a very good one, it's just a laundry list of confusions about the whole sorry business really.
He's consistently proved that he is not, in that he cannot be trusted in even the most basic facets of the job, which is reporting the truth.
not that lying is OK, because it isn't. But bias and distortion is par for the course and I don't think you could name any opinion columnist on a national level who wasn't guilty of this.
Also, another facet of the role is the ability to induce emotion or righteous ire in the reader, encouraging them to take the columnist's point of view. This might not be the case for everyone, but I certainly agree with a lot of what he writes and feel strongly about it, so he's doing a good job in persuading me round to his viewpoint.
Finally, I think too many columnists are frightened to engage with the big issues. Hari never was, and that's why he's won an Orwell Prize. Fucking fantastic journalist, wrongdoings aside.
Sorry that's very poorly written, I'm tired and typing this on a crap mobile device.
jfc that's a basic requirement.
I remember you mentioning your Aspergers in the past; it is a fine line between understanding someones illness or syndrome and making it your only view of the person-I'm sure you hate this in your own life-we've got to see Harri on his terms not in terms of his illness. Though this is easier said than done, and I know I get stuff like this wrong more than I get it right.
I agree with you that people have enjoyed just calling him a cunt without thinking of the wider picutre, however; keep in mind he may *still* be a cunt.
IGNORE TWITTER, unless of course you just follow people who post interesting links and/or silly jokes - anything else will just make you angry.
I'm going out now but thanks for properly engaging, it's been really nice :-)
that alone causes me more sympathy for him than I thought possible.
I think it is the degree to which he did it - he c&p'd huge chunks of people's work and claimed it had been said to him.
Please, please just stop replying in this thread and digging yourself even deeper into a hole.
how were the editors of the independent supposed to avoid that?
this is all highly speculative, but I can see it going something like this :
1. editor of the Indy realises 'oh shit, nobody's buying, I'm making a loss, maybe time to move with the times and shift a bit to the right'.
2. two columnists do and say silly things
3. great excuse to suspend/be rid of them and launch new agenda
like I say, it's been a while since I saw something even broadly leftwing in what used to be a very reliable lefty paper, for all its claims to independence.
I'm unfamiliar with the McIntyre case, but any paper would have dropped Hari, most with more speed and force than the Indy did.
The Indy is fucked mostly whatever it does, it's been losing readers for years and has lost all sense of what it wants to be.
Basically MacIntyre said during the riots 'everyone go down and bust up a Fed' (I think those were his words). Again silly, and again understandable, as this is a young man who has been 'bust up' by them himself.
Journalists aren't robots. Maybe public figures just shouldn't be on the internet, then their personal problems/opinions/prejudices wouldn't come into it
they essentially defended him against mounting evidence of wrongdoing, public opinion, their own supposed fair ideals and common sense. I haven't read the paper in ages, I'd say I've been boycotting it over their handling of the case.
I always think twice about what I say on Twitter because I use my real name there, and it can be easily linked to my byline on my paper. Even if I used the whole 'views are my own' line, if I posted a load of personal anti-Tory tweets then went and wrote a political piece in my paper, could people trust it as unbiased? Isn't the role of journalism to be in some ways above the fray?
That said, it's natural to have opinions and some of the best journalism has had an agenda behind it.
But if you mixing reportage and commentary you can't complain when people find fault with it on an ideological basis.
Imagine being depressed and writing about AND trousering a fat load of cash for doing so. It's amazing no-one else has thought of it really.
A load of stuff about fighting on the beaches and never surrendering.
Lucky no one reads the Indy so they can give their pal a job again because no one else would touch him with yours
of "hey look everybody johan hari isn't as good as us!"
I find it weird how writers like this come to prominence mostly by being really mediocre and annoying.
This makes it really easy.
of Knowing me, Knowing you radio show that had 'Simon Fisher, child prodigy' on it? The one who starts crying after having his grammar correct by Alan.
Whenever I read anything by Johann Hari, I always imagine this kid.
Some of it is great, but a lot of it is amazingly clunky and badly done. Something to think about.
(Get the pipers back on!)
in a historical sense - Labour politician suave and articulate without being fake, Tory just a spoddy nerk full of suppressed bile.
After reading the title *Hari slices and dices Littlejohn* I was expecting some proper pwnage.
Instead, Hari sits there like a hysterical sixth former butchering the open goal of slating Littlejohn, who just sits there a cock going LOL fuck off.
I would quite happily never hear another word from either particpant for the rest of my life
that before I knew about what he had done, I wanted to at least believe he was on the side of good. Then I saw him in a debate on 10 O'Clock Live last year, and he utterly embarrassed himself. He hectored, shouted... and completely failed to get any kind of point across.