Commenting.


COMMENTING
Due to the move of the blog to Wordpress posts from Jan 2012 onward will have commenting disabled (when I remember to do it)
Cheers - AE

Wednesday, 29 June 2011

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha... - UPDATED

... ahahahahahahahaha!
Johann Hari, a multiple award winning political journalist who writes for newspapers around the world, was exposed after a reader noticed that a quote in one of his stories had been cut and pasted from a book.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.
Such was the controversy that he was forced to respond in a personal blog, but his defence only further fuelled the intensity of the attacks against him.
Ahahahaha.
On Twitter, the micro-blogging website, users posted a series of jokes in which famous sayings in history were re-created as if Mr Hari had been told them in intimate interviews, while blogs from rival journalists accusing him of so-called "churnalism".
At one point his alleged plagiarism was the second most discussed topic on Twitter and even became the subject of a doctored clip from Downfall, a film about Adolf Hitler's final hours.
Ahahaha? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Hooooo.
The backlash began when a left wing website analysed an interview Mr Hari conducted with Antonio Negri, an Italian Marxist, in 2004. The blog found that Mr Hari used a quote in the interview which appeared to have been taken from Negri on Negri, a book published a year earlier.
[...]
The blog goes on reveal that a passage from pages 100 and 101 of the book is almost identical.
Brian Whelan, another blogger, subsequently found a further example in a 2010 interview by Mr Hari with the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy. He found a passage that appeared to be composed of sentences that had appeared in a column written by Levy the previous March.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaohfuckithurtsnow.
[Hari] claimed that he had only used the quotes to make his interviewee appear more articulate, and said he had not received a complaint in a 10 years.
He wrote: "So occasionally, at the point in the interview where the subject has expressed an idea, I’ve quoted the idea as they expressed it in writing, rather than how they expressed it in speech." However the response failed to dampen the backlash against him.
Ahahahahahaha. Ahaha. Aha. Okay, I'll be okay. Heheheh.
Last night the Media Standards Trust, which funds the Orwell prize, demanded an investigation to see whether he should be stripped of the award.
It said that the issue had "the potential to damage its reputation".
The organisers of the award said they were following a "process" normally carried out in "situation such as this".
And so the lesson is quote by all means - and I do it extensively myself - but be honest and open and fucking source it.* This seems to be pretty much par for the course in the blogosphere and I thought it was for the MSM too. Perhaps not so much anymore.

UPDATE - can open, worms everywhere.
He also falsely claimed that none of his subjects had ever complained following the publication of one of his interviews. In fact, Noam Chomsky complained bitterly.
It now appears that Mr Hari has made quite a habit of pinching quotes given to other interviewers, and claiming that they were given to him.
Admittedly I've not read a lot of his stuff and this may be miles off, but I've got the impression that if Hari caught a journo from the Wail or the Teletubbygraph or somewhere else in the non-lefty bit of the media he'd call them on it in a heartbeat.

UPDATE 2 - And he's now been Mashed.
The criticism came after Hari used a revolutionary new interview technique that involved pretending people had said things to him and then imagining what his reaction would have been if they had have said those things to him, which they did not and in fact said to somebody else years ago.
Gold.


* Though I realise I may not be the first person to say that.

Comments (7)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Yesterday was one of the days you'd have benefited from being on Twitter. The Twittertag 'interviewedbyHari' was truly inspired, and provided much entertainment... :)
1 reply · active 717 weeks ago
Probably would have enjoyed it, and perhaps there's something to be said for having an indirect link to the blogosphere when you're too busy too blog like I've been lately. Trouble is the same barriers remain - I tend to be either very time poor or time absolutely loaded, so if I'm at my computer and I haven't got time to blog then I probably haven't got time to tweet either, and if I have got time to tweet then I've invariably got time to blog as well. So it'd be for when I'm not at my computer, which means I need a smart phone of some sort, but every time I look at one I think of a vast number of other things I'd rather spend the money on, especially as my boggo Nokia works perfectly well for my main use - phone calls. When it doesn't work it's because of the mediocre cellphone coverage outside urban areas here in Oz, and of course that buggers up tweeting too. I'm sure I'd take to it like a duck to water, or possibly plum sauce, but it won't be until my phone needs replacing in a few years.
The twitter tag has provided comedy gold and one or two bursts of absolute genius. I really recommend you going back on it if you get the chance AE.

Splendid post, too. I liked it because when I first read that article I reacted exactly the same way as you did. Even the pauses for breath to rearrange my ribs were at the same time as yours.

They say that the best posts you read are the ones you were thinking yourself but weren't fast enough to write down. You hit it word for word :-)
2 replies · active 717 weeks ago
I am sort of on Twitter in that I've registered, and I've even got a few emails saying that people are now following me which I find slightly odd as I have yet to tweet anything. But it's like I said to Julia, if I have time to tweet I'll invariably have time to blog and since I can be a prolix bastard blogging is always the first choice. Tweeting would be something I'd do on a tram/train/bus trip and I'd need to drop several hundred dollars on a new phone for that.
PS Thanks for the comments about the post. I shall remember it when I'm King of Everything. :D
Fine if it's clear that's what you're doing, but Hari didn't bother. He just took someone else's words without attribution and wove them into his copy as if they were spoken directly to him, and it seems not just on one occasion either. Hari's excuse that his interview subjects had said to him something similar to but less articulate than what something they'd written or said to another journo in the past doesn't wash with me. Hari could have written something like:

'In his book last year, Antonio Negri wrote that [insert good quote]. Speaking to me now he adds [insert what he actually said to Hari].'

How hard is that? Sure, it adds a little length to the piece, but on the plus side it's transparent about the source of each statement and if given more than the twenty seconds' or so thought that I put into the line above could be made into an expansion on the earlier remark. Not quite sure how that'd work with the other examples where he's pulled quotes actually given to other journalists but perhaps variations along the lines of:

'Speaking [whenever, optionally to whom] he said that [insert good quote], an opinion he hasn't altered as he says to me [insert quote to Hari].'

Why Hari didn't do that and instead wrote articles that ended up looking as if those bits written elsewhere were in fact given personally to Hari I have no idea, but I'd call it lazy and sloppy writing at best, and at worst plagiarism in spirit even if it might not quite meet the dictionary definition.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Related Posts with Thumbnails