Johann Hari and plagiarism: what implications for journalism?
This Orwell Prize winner is used to taking the heat. But will this "scandal" toast him for good?
When does journalism cross the line into plagiarism? The author William Ralph Inge, in a pleasingly-modern, under 140-character missive, once wrote: "Originality is undetected plagiarism".
When it comes to writing, who’s to say that an apparently-sparkling turn of phrase is not simply the cleverly-worded, and wholly acceptable, culmination of all other ideas to which we’ve been witness thus far?
Enter Johann Hari, Independent columnist, darling of the Left and Orwell Prize winner extraordinaire, whose views on everything from the IMF to why Republicanism is Britain’s only sensible option frequently light up the Twittersphere with their biting assessments.
This week, however, the micro-blogging phenomenon has once again proven that where Twitterers go, the news can only follow – and at the centre of the latest gathering storm, Hari himself, unwitting subject of the mighty hashtag, #interviewswithHari.
At lunchtime, it started trending. And then, as is Twitter trends’ wont, all hell broke loose.
Put simply, Hari stands accused of plagiarism. Irish journalist Brian Whelan "blew the whistle" when he noticed that a fair number of Hari’s interviewees’ responses bore a near-identical resemblance to quotations from said interviewees in already-published books and articles.
By not even attempting to clarify that the often-eloquent sentences were in fact carefully edited phrases lifted from already-published works, even if by the same speaker, Hari has faced a deluge of criticism, with The Telegraph taking great joy in pronouncing him "Busted!"
Although Hari yesterday replied to the accusation, purporting to see his interviews as more "intellectual portraits" than word-for-word transcriptions, with the lifted sentences there merely because "almost always, [the interviewee has already] said it more clearly in writing than in speech…", the implications of what one might have been tempted to term a storm in a Twittercup could be more far-reaching than one may initially have assumed.
Not a day goes by without alert Twitterers finding something to comment on, and usually the stories drop quietly off the trend list as quickly as they ascend.
But while the hashtag #interviewswithhari proved to be one of the most hilarious streams of gently-mocking content to flow from Twitter in a very long while, was it all as benign and harmless as it seemed?
Well-known users jumped on the bandwagon. Guardian Head of Digital Engagement Meg Pickard wrote: ‘"I think we're alone now," Tiffany sighed at me as we stood on the desert island, "there doesn't seem to be anyone around"’, while BBC Political Editor Robert Peston chimed in with "Blog now open for comments again. By all means cut and paste from Hari interview if you can't think of anything to say".
The list went on for several hours, in the manner of snickering schoolkids at the back of the class, propelled onwards by the knowledge that the teacher can hear them, and what’s more, is listening.
Several voices came to Hari’s defence, with writer of the moment Caitlin Moran commenting that "Johann Hari generally writes good, thoughtful, brave journalism", while several others remarked that there is "much worse" journalism out there.
But although Hari has the full support of his editor, the story has proven, if any more proof were needed, that in this day and age, one should ignore Twitter at one’s peril.
And what of the implications for journalism itself? The Media Standards Trust has already called for an inquiry into Hari’s behaviour, questioning whether the writer should be stripped of his Orwell Prize.
What Moran (who, despite her defence, said she was "crying with laughter") and many others were just hours previously calling hilarious now looks ever more serious.
Hari himself said "My test for journalism is always – would the readers mind you did this, or prefer it?" as a justification for his actions.
But if the ever present swirling waters of the Twittersphere are anything to go by – and, it seems, increasingly, they are – Hari, and those who ape him, may be sailing closer to the wind than previously thought.
Hannah J. Thompson is a freelance writer. She tweets @HannahsRhapsody
Print
'But although Hari has the full support of his editor,..'
Wee bit more on this might serve.
The guy in charge of a newspaper's editorial suggested that, in this case at least, it was all a bit movingonworthy because... 'no one had complained until this point'.
I will be viewing the paper's worldview in future in light of the prism applied.
Especially when aware that it will be highly selective.
'But although Hari has the full support of his editor,..'
Wee bit more on this might serve.
The guy in charge of a newspaper's editorial suggested that, in this case at least, it was all a bit movingonworthy because... 'no one had complained until this point'.
I will be viewing the paper's worldview in future in light of the prism applied.
Especially when aware that it will be highly selective.
"Hari and the implications for journalism"??
What an appropriately pompous title.
There ARE no implications for journalism nor journalists - well, properly trained ones that is. Hari's mea culpa is nothing more than an overwritten paen to himself and his fans, with nary a mention that what he did was utterly unconscionable.
Hari lied to the reader. He had no need to do so. Attributing the quotes would not have detracted from the text. Neither would it have been wrong for him, on listening to his tape and reading his notes, to approach the interviewee for clarification if a point was not made with sufficiently bons mots for Hari.
"My interviews are long intellectual profiles". The latter may well be true, but they're clearly not fucking "interviews".
I'll admit he can write, but the half-arsed, half-baked excuses he stuck on his website yesterday make it clear - he's no journalist.
As I commented in the Telegraph... I once interviewed Hari after he gave a talk on freedom of Speech. I asked him why he and his friend Robert Fisk, continued to write hate filled slanderous propaganda against Israel, splash it on the front page with gory pictures as with the Gaza beach 'bombing', and the Jenin 'massacre' ... then when the real truth was made evident after investigations, there was no apology.
He said -"I will ponder on it", and walked away.
New Statesman
Just before you accept Johann Hari's apology ....
... ask how many more interview quotes he has ripped off.
Posted by Guy Walters - 29 June 2011 11:25
[Extract]
"Yesterday....I decided not to accuse him [Hari] of plagiarism, because I felt that...he wasn't really trying to pass off someone's else work as his own....
However, today, thanks to some sleuthing carried out by my friend Jeremy Duns, I'm not so sure that I'm minded to accept Mr Hari's apology. 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. Just look at this:"
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/guy-walters/2011/06/chavez-hari-interview-goodbye
I couldn't care less about Hari. I know he's a doctrinaire socialist, and that's all I need to know to avoid him as best I can. Similarly to the mighty retail outfit John Lewis, I've "never knowingly" read him...
I am surprised anyone noticed his modus operandi - all the so called newspapers he writes for are utterly dreadful.
More naive opinion & snide reviews than "news".






""Ladies & Gentlemen I am delighted to announce that the winner of the 2011 Philip Glass Award is.......""
Only the tribal left would be okay with this - the ends always justify the means to them.
Hari is an utter fantasist if he believes that this is acceptable for a journalist.