Dear Chris Blackhurst,
You will have seen the Open Letter to Andreas Whittam Smith published today by my fellow New Statesman blogger Guy Walters.
This is just a follow-on from that, written from a slightly different perspective, by someone who shares the concerns about your employee's journalism but does not want to see your employee either humiliated or unfairly treated by the present (and past) management of the Independent. It is in the nature of managers - and those with power generally - to protect their own positions; and so my worry is that there is face-saving operation being conducted under the cloak of an "investigation".
Whoever is "David Rose" (and there is conclusive evidence as to who it was on at least one occassion, should your investigation really care to find it) there is no doubt that an Independent IP address was used to amend Wikipedia entries of those opposed to your employee in various public debates. The Wikipedia user has now been barred for violation of Wikipedia policies. As (at least some of) the editing was from an Independent IP address, there perhaps should be an apology by the Independent to those who were smeared and defamed by this "David Rose". The use of the IP address is surely enough to trigger this apology; there is no need to also unmask the person in question before that apology is given.
In respect of your employee's previous journalism, the issue is not that he be "punished". Unlike other journalists and reporters, there is no suggestion of any crime.
Instead, your readers need to be alerted to the possibility of information not being soundly based in his previous articles. The standard of your employee's writing is very high, and his pieces are informative and often moving; there is no need for them to be taken down from your website or deleted, as it were, from your back catalogue. All that is required is a simple "health warning" to be posted on each article, saying - as neutrally as possible - that there may be quotes and and factual assertions which have not been properly sourced and that the reader should take that into account.
And as for your employee, who must be under considerable stress and worry, please consider sensible options such as sending him on a journalism course and assigning him to an experienced sub-editor. There is no need for him to carry all the burden of what, as is implied by Guy Walters, seem like far wider managerial and editorial failures. You have a moral, as well as legalistic, duty of care to him. All that his fans of his polemical writing (of which, in general, I am one) want is the confidence that they can rely on any factual assertions in his future writing. That will not be difficult to put right.
Best wishes
David
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
I agree. It depresses me that many seem to be unable to adopt a position more finely graded than "shut up, Hari's done nothing wrong" or "BURN HIM!".
We have to have a situation where people can make mistakes without their careers being destroyed. Otherwise we'll push people into denial and cover up.
I think it likely that most of the denial in face of clear wrong-doing was motivated by a feeling that if they admitted that Johann had done something wrong he would be cruxified.
And response ususally is out of proportion to the error. (EG Ed Miliband's allegation of a "Catastrophic error of judgement". Applied to something with no known bad, let alone "catastrophic", consequences (appointing Coulson) it is pure hyperbole. Judging a dossier to be good evidence for launching a war that resulted in many tens of thousands of deaths is a catastrophic error of judgement.)
Perhaps Chris Blackhurst can break the mold and do something proportionate.
David
I'm going to side with your detractors in this insistence. There's no doubt that Hari must go, as his journalistic crimes are too great to be dealt with by a mere re-education. Hari has committed gross professional misconduct, not made the odd error born out of naiveté. Any pieces that are shown to be plagiarised and fabricated should simply be canned.
best
Guy
A humane response is needed.
Responsibility should be shared and the point about subs and editors is a good one.
However for a newspaper to keep articles in its archive that it knows were produced under a very dark cloud is questionable. What has been lost in all this is that curiously, in many important ways , the substance of Hari's writing is largely intact but...he's veered well into fiction, consequently I can't see how a newspaper can not disown the writing. The health warnings idea doesn't fly.
Maybe JH should just host them at his own site. I'm sure there would be readers.
Now we know the techniques (I nearly wrote 'deception' - and that may be more accurate) is the writing any different than "In Cold Blood" say?
Whatever the next step I'm glad we seem to have moved on from vilification. It's a sad situation.
I confess I'm struggling with the "share the blame" proposition. JH may be relatively young and relatively inexperienced, and he may need coaching but: surely he knows when what he's writing is not true; surely he knows when he's using a false identity to attack his critics; and surely he knows, working for a newspaper like the Indy, the significance of what he's doing.
His management is responsible for its own (in-)action, but not for his actions. He's not a child, he's an adult, and should be treated as one.
I agree entirely that he should be treated fairly, and that proper investigation of the allegations is a pre-requisite of that. I'm not suggesting that he should be burned at the stake, figuratively or literally. I am, however, saying that he is accountable for his actions, not his bosses or colleagues.
Defamation and misrepresentation are not "victimless crimes", and if it can be shown that JH had committed them, I don't think a warning and reeducation do enough to show that the Indie takes the issue seriously.
Any tainted pieces should be removed from the record. Let JH receive every accolade for truthful journalism and every brickbat for invention and untruth.
"In respect of your employee's previous journalism, the issue is not that he be "punished". Unlike other journalists and reporters, there is no suggestion of any crime."
Good heavens - this may not be a crime, but in other occupations employees who had been guilty of comparable misdemeanours will have been subject to disciplinary action and, very probably, dismissal. I'd also add that major misconduct in many professions would also result in discipline by the relevant regulatory body.
I also don't understand how people can possibly describe this as a "mistake". I, like many people, have made many mistakes in my career, but they haven't come from wilful misbehaviour.
We can have personal sympathy for Hari, and somebody should find out what's behind this behaviour. However, for some it does appear they are willing to give much more lattitude to journalists than the standards to which more ordinary folk are held to in their careers.
@Stuart Crow
"Let JH receive every accolade for truthful journalism and every brickbat for invention and untruth."
Exactly
I agree with this, and I think it's very sensible.
"You have a moral, as well as legalistic, duty of care to him. All that his fans of his polemical writing (of which, in general, I am one) want is the confidence that they can rely on any factual assertions in his future writing. "
This.
Though I'd ALSO like to know what factual assertions I am able to rely on in his past writing. I'm seeing too many links to people on the hateful right who are taking glee in a gay, left-wing, "anti-Catholic" journalist taking a fall. Which, yes, is well-deserved, but shouldn't be allowed to colour the very important issues that Hari wrote about.
I'm not sure that retraining is adequate or realistic and can't really see how Hari can continue to practice as a purportedly fact-based journalist. That doesn't mean that he can't continue to write (possibly even for the Independent) pure opinion pieces. I disagree with a large proportion of his views but his writing style outside of the interview format is something it would a shame to lose.
However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the Independent simply deleting all his previous articles or the ones which are proven to be based on plagiarism. A health warning and removing internal links to the articles so they have to be intentionally searched for would be better. Deletion smacks too much of getting Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth to unpublish the writings of the denounced.
I think this letter is a sensible approach to this issue, mainly, because it is not calling -- as some are -- for the tarring and feathering of Hari.
Hari is clearly not cut from the same cloth as formally trained journalists, and he has much to learn. So lets let him learn.
Because if there was ever a moment when Hari would be perhaps be willing to do so -- this it it.
I'm puzzled that there should be any question that Hari's journalism needs to be preserved in some special way now that it has been exposed as the product of dishonest practice and fabrication. He has had opportunities denied to many competent, hard-working journalists of all political persuasions and he has abused those opportunities through his dishonesty: his writing is not so sparkling that that can be ignored. Future generations wanting to read his output will doubtless be able to find it at Colindale, if they can be bothered.
The fact is that Hari has demonstrated that he is not a 'fit and proper person' to be in journalism. I hope no personal harm comes to him, but he needs to look for some other form of employment.
For once I largely disagree with your comments. I agree that the world is nuanced, and we are dealing with shades of grey - rather than black and white. But in this case - on the basis of the information available in the public domain - Johann is well over to the dark side. He isn't a young and inexperienced journalist (although he has behaved like one), and he needs to take responsibility for his actions. His actions have damaged not only his own credibility (pretty much fundamental to a journalist, and also to lawyers) but also that of the Indi. If the various allegations turn out to be true, he has no future writing factual pieces outside the redtops (but then they don't write factual pieces anyway).
Typo:
"... this is it."
David, I think I detect here and there in this post some subtle ironies, but perhaps as a result I'm not entirely sure where you're being wholly serious. I won't address the sockpuppet allegations, but the plagiarism is, by now, proven. It is also clear it was not just occasional, but runs throughout Hari's career, and some articles are almost completely plagiarised. If you take away the 42 plagiarised passages in his Malalai Joya 'interview', all you're left with, pretty much, is Hari summarising parts of her memoir in a slightly more disguised manner and his descriptions between each plagiarised passage of her leaning forward, touching her hair, and so on. This raises a much more troubling question: what really happened in his interviews? I think the extent of the plagiarism suggests Hari fabricated many of the events around his 'interviews'.
You write:
'In respect of your employee's previous journalism, the issue is not that he be "punished". Unlike other journalists and reporters, there is no suggestion of any crime.'
I'm not sure if this is meant seriously. As far as I know, nobody has suggested it is a crime, or that he should be jailed or flogged or 'punished' as though it were. The suggestion - which is an obvious one - is that a proven plagiarist be sacked. Do you really not believe that plagiarism is a sackable offence? If not, I'd be interested to hear why. Most journalists I know would regard it as beyond dispute. If you plagiarise, you get the sack: there's no excuses for it, and no 'representations' can change it.
Had Mr Hari limited himself to his own factual inaccuracies and not sought to destroy the reputations of other excellent journalists with lies and malice I might have agreed. However, his conduct goes far beyond inaccuracy into wilful destruction of others' careers. That surely disqualifies from the privilege of writing under the banner of a national title?
In addition to what's already been said, I think it's very relevant that Hari has used his position to quite vehemently attack his critics. Whether this be writing an article or posting on Twitter, he has frequently been aggressive and condescending in the face of criticisms which we now know to have often been true. He must have known this at the time. I find it extremely hard to feel sympathy for him as a result of this.
I think Deborah has hit the nail on the head with her comments. I also think that the Indy owe Hari a duty of care; they were very quick to snap up a very talented writer, albeit one who clearly did not understand the basic rules of journalism.
He should have been working closely with an editor who questioned his copy from early in his career, instead of being allowed, it seems, to operate as a lone wolf without being corrected. Also, there's a great difference between polemic and comment writing, and interviewing, where you have a duty to represent your subject correctly. But with the lack of journalistic training these days, it's something that we're going to see again and again.
All that is required is a simple "health warning" to be posted on each article, saying - as neutrally as possible - that there may be quotes and and factual assertions which have not been properly sourced and that the reader should take that into account.
Something like:
"You can't believe a word of this" ?
Can we have a reality check here? JH is not a young and innocent journalist. He started out as a staff reporter at the Staggers in 2001 (ten years ago), he has written for many newspapers, magazines and journals. He has written books and a play. He needs to stand up and take his medicine.
David
I confess that I do not find your posited solution to the problems now faced by Johann Hari and the Independent to have much prospect of being effective. As I understand it, your advice revolves around two key points. The first of these is that Hari should not be sacked and that his articles should not be removed. Instead, his articles should be flagged with
“a simple "health warning" ... posted on each article, saying - as neutrally as possible - that there may be quotes and and factual assertions which have not been properly sourced and that the reader should take that into account.”
I think this proposal is actually much worse and far more cruel than simply removing the offending articles. It seems perfectly obvious to me that flagging his articles would be a cruel and unusual punishment that far exceeds the one-off humiliation of having his articles deleted from the Independent website. Please do not misunderstand me: I am not suggesting that this is your intention. Think about it, though: any health warning of the type you suggest would certainly have a detrimental effect on both Hari’s career and his mental health, since it would be a constant reminder (not just to him but to *everyone* who visits his page at the Independent) of his past misdemeanors. The Independent may as well write “this man’s work is fiction”.
If I was in Hari’s position, your proposal would be impossible to accept. In effect, if not intent, it would represent a form of repeated mockery (stretching out into the future!), and I think it would be absurd if such an action was implemented. Even from the Independent’s perspective the logic is ridiculous, since they would be admitting to their readers that they are posting material which might well be a load of old cobblers. How could that possibly work? It is self-evidently unfeasible for all concerned.
Your second argument, as I understand it, is that the Independent should “consider sensible options such as sending him on a journalism course and assigning him to an experienced sub-editor”. Without doubt, this would also have the effect of forcing Hari into further humiliation. I agree with you that the Independent has “a moral, as well as legalistic, duty of care to him”, but I simply do not see how your suggestion would represent moral care, even if it satisfied legalistic duty.
All of this begs the question of what *I* would do, then, if not take the concrete steps you suggest. I confess, at this point, that I am at a loss as to know how Hari could possibly proceed from his present situation. At a push, I would suggest he take a few months’ break and then reasess the situation with a clear head. Right now, though, his head will obviously be swimming with terrible thoughts, and I do not imagine the prospect of having his wrongdoings flagged up in perpetuity, or forcing him to submit to a lengthy period of hand-holding, would do much more than send the poor man into an ever-deepening spiral of despair.
Others, I suspect, will may disagree with me!
A lot of talk here about helping Hari return to work, very little in the way of concrete ideas. I therefore propose the following seven-point Cultural Reintegration Process:
1. Confession A. Hari enters converted phone box and rings in full confession to sins against Journalism, Catholicism, Islamism, Municipal Polo, Dashes, Kings College kitchen staff, Prince Philip, Melanie Phillips, a Philips Ladyshave, Staccato Paragraph-Final Clause Fragments, Joseph Goebbels. Confessor: Rev. Damian Thompson.
2. Hari undertakes intensive course in proper citation of source material. Supervisor: Prof. N. Chomsky (MIT). For additional punishment, must read entire paper on Fused-Head Determiners in Noun Phrase Structure.
3. Hari sent on anti-globalisation demo with no money for cab fare, handcuffed to Greek anarchist (henceforth ‘Niko’, with a ‘k’). Niko shot to bits, Hari instructed to mop up blood with unsold copies of Independent, funnel into empty Tizer bottle(s), measure quantity, record accurately on Excel spreadsheet. Supervisor: Mr. Simon Singh, MBE.
4. Hari sent on consecutive investigative assignments: (1) Gaza border – observes molten tarmac poured from Zionist Lorry onto Palestinian children to make it easier for tanks to cross them; (2) Utah chicken factory – witnesses Mormon live feather-plucking ritual [NOTE: Hari not permitted to wash/change clothes between assignments].
5. Simon Kelner and Chris Blackhurst attend course on “Legalistic Duty of Care" [?] Supervisor: Mr. D. A. Green (Westminster, Skeptic, also with a ‘k’).
6. Confession B. Hari, now fully Redeemed in unstudied white pullover and unstudded white dog-collar, receives confession from bloggers of all stripes, who admit to a) masturbating while composing screeds on sanctity of journalistic integrity; b) intense feelings of guilt and remorse; c) posting apologies; d) doing it again.
7. Establish whether any of CAR/sockpuppetry allegations are in fact true.
[Full disclosure: I am David Rose’s younger brother, and as such an authority on humiliating and punitive interventions.]
Deborah Ffrench said...
"Hari is clearly not cut from the same cloth as formally trained journalists, and he has much to learn."
This sort of comment baffles me. I'm not a journalist, I've never been a journalist, and I have no journalism training, formal or otherwise.
I still understand that publishing a newspaper piece in which you claim that certain things happened in a particular manner, when in fact they did not, is lying.
It beggars belief to suggest that it takes special training or more than thirty-two years of life experience to know that telling porkies is naughty.
I agree with you, Deborah. The call for Hari to take more training to "be like the pros" seems to be little more than a liberal-bourgeois defence of historically-ingrained privileges (although, of course, in Hari's case we're speaking of a man who went to oxbridge, at any rate). You don't need to go to attend a university course in journalism to know what is a lie and what is not. I'm not saying that there is no skill involved in journalism - only that the argument that one needs to go to a professional school to learn how to differentiate truth from untruth is plainly a bit silly. The motivation behind such claims is both transparent and, because of that, amusing.
@guy
"Any pieces that are shown to be plagiarised and fabricated should simply be canned"
No. Pieces which are shown to be plagiarised and fabricated should be kept on the record as plagiarised and fabricated.
2 reasons
1 - JH has been reproduced in too many places and referenced as authoritative for those references to be left unchallenged.
2 - That is just another variety of falsification of events.
This is why @Ewan I have suggested
Hari be given a chance to learn the difference between fact and fiction/exaggeration.
Hari has already been humiliated online and his career lies in ruin.
What exactly are you now suggesting take place -- hanging?
Which is why, Ewan, I think a period of time away for Hari, followed by a process -- voluntary, of course -where he undertakes formal training as a journalist (yes,it does exist) should happen.
No-one died and as we can all see, the world has far bigger problems to deal with than Hari.
You seem to be implying a position of endless social exile and punishment for Hari, with no belief or hope he can be rehabilitated.
You might want to rethink that.
@Ewan
It seems pretty clear-cut to me too.
Hari's apologists, by contrast, seem pretty much to share his 'liberal-progressive' Weltanschauung which is a bit like being happy to have someone on your team who systematically fouls the opposition, preferably when the ref isn't looking.
"Hari's apologists, by contrast, seem pretty much to share his 'liberal-progressive' Weltanschauung"
Do people still say things like 'liberal-progressive' Weltanschauung with a straight face?
Apparantly so.
Anyway, do you know what apologist means? Because it doesn't mean "someone who thinks someone is wrong, but disagrees on the best way to put things right".
There is another view: Hari's, er, enhancements of the truth merely emphasize what a dreadful writer he is. If he were any good he wouldn't have needed them.
Do people still say things like 'liberal-progressive' Weltanschauung with a straight face?
If it's possible simultaneously to hold your nose and keep a straight face, then yes.
Apparently ×3
I also think things have got out of hand on the issue, and thank David for attempting to rein things in.
JH has made mistakes. We know this. He is also a person who may well be trying, even now, to take stock of what has happened and give good account of himself when he can.
There's an awful lof of guff, bluster and subtle bullying going on at the moment in the blogoshpere over this issue.
I think people should remember over 70 people lost their lives in Norway last week. That atrocity was met with grace and astonishing beauty.
Can we not do the same over what is, after all, a much less grave matter and employ a measure of perspective -- if not kindness?
That Hari has much explaining to do is not debatable.
That he is probably very upset about this turn of events is also highly likely.
That those who once championed this young man are having to dig deep to speak on his behalf -- again, no argument.
But if we're being honest, lets be completely honest.
That the ante has been raised on this matter beyond the merit of its substance, is self-evident.
One only has to regard the clenched vitriol of Thompson, Walters and others, to understand that some are out for blood, and they are doing their level best to 'whipp' up support while they do it.
[Note: Thompson's frantic lobbying of the lovely Deborah Orr today]
When all this blows over, and it will, I hope we can all remember Hari as one of the most outstanding journalists of his generation. Yes, he has cut corners and acted inappropriately.
But to witness the shocking sight of a hunt in progress by educated, supposedly balanced peers has been horrendous.
Let the truth be told by all means, but let's not lose our humaneness while we do it.
Post a Comment