Johann Hari resurfaces

And he’s getting some things right for goodness sake! More on this later elsewhere.

One thing though:

The author used to be the Independent’s star columnist, a prolific polemicist and darling of the left, until his career imploded in disgrace when it emerged in 2011 that many of his articles contained quotes apparently said to him but in fact lifted from his interviewees’ books, or from previous interviews by other journalists. Worse, he was exposed as a “sockpuppet”, or someone who anonymously furthers his own interests online.

I’m pretty sure that “Keith” here at Forbes is in fact Hari. And there’s one or two more on pieces of mine around I think.

20 comments on “Johann Hari resurfaces

  1. Hmmm,

    It appears that the Independent has finally poured some Co!lit Bang over the Hari archive, and it has gone.

    I think.

  2. It’s a shame when he was hounded out of journalism that he was then replaced effective in the role of unknowledgable but lound and annoying 6th form esque twerp Owen Jones who is just worse and I wouldn’t be surprised if he turned out to be a shill in a right wing conspiracy to discredit the left.

  3. In comparison with the libels of fellow journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdeley’s UVA hoax, I think Hari’s flaws are minor.

  4. ‘polemicist’. Heh, isn’t this what Moonbat claimed he was when people pointed out he was bullshitting for Gaia?

    Truly, facts are sacred.

  5. I think it was on here that one of the commenters linked to a piece which showed that even at the time, Hari issued only a weasle-worded half-apology and refused to accept fully that what he’d done was wrong. That twat should never be allowed near a publication again.

  6. Wrong link, my mistake, that’s from this year, but the same author did have a very thorough takedown of Hari’s apology at the time.

  7. “it emerged in 2011 that many of his articles contained quotes apparently said to him but in fact lifted from his interviewees’ books, or from previous interviews by other journalists. Worse, he was exposed as a “sockpuppet”, or someone who anonymously furthers his own interests online.”

    This doesn’t mention the strong suspicion many have that Hari was also fabricating material. His articles would often contain anonymous sources who would come out with suspiciously perfect quotes to back up whatever line Hari was pushing.

  8. Worse, he was exposed as a “sockpuppet”, or someone who anonymously furthers his own interests online.

    How is that worse? Sock puppetry hurts no one. Stealing their intellectual property without attribution does.

    (Although, for the record, I have to confess to being Johann Hari. Go on, admit it. You all suspected it really)

  9. I suspect Miss Hari is too bright to be Keith Hudson. Although Mr Hudson does have a sufficiently rhinoceros-like hide.

  10. ‘Sock puppetry hurts no one’.

    ‘David Rose’ was being used to make some despicable – and in some cases potentially actionable – allegations against Hari’s enemies (e.g. claiming Nick Cohen had an alcohol problem, that Christina Odone was a bigot etc).

  11. sackcloth and ashes – “‘David Rose’ was being used to make some despicable – and in some cases potentially actionable – allegations against Hari’s enemies (e.g. claiming Nick Cohen had an alcohol problem, that Christina Odone was a bigot etc).”

    But the harm is in the allegation, not the sock puppetry. If I say that Nick Cohen has an alcohol problem, (and I certainly hope he does within the limits of what the Fat Gay Boy would think was a problem) he is not harmed any less.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.