This makes me so very happy. It’s nice to see the smug, arrogant twit brought down a peg or two.
Surely an unnecessary and mean-spirited comment?
Mean-spirited yes, but I despise him. I’d take similar joy in Richard Littlejohn being suspended. Both of them are odious toads.
I can’t say it’d ever occurred to me that Littlejohn and Hari would have much in common!
Sounds like you’re the twit Whatwhat, comparing Hari to Littlejohn. Hari is the media’s biggest voice against homophobia. It’s sad that you compare him to one of our most vocal enemies and take delight in his downfall. He’s done more for gay rights than you I imagine.
Just because he supports gay rights I MUST like him? I compared him to Littlejohn as they’re both smug, pretentious toads, like I said above.
I’m sure the gay rights movement won’t collapse in Hari’s absence. His suspension is a victory for journalism. And it is barely relevant to the gay rights movement.
This is a good decision. I generally like Hari as a writer, but what he has been doing is unethical and unprofessional, and he does not seem to realise the implications of it.
It also contrasts the ethical standards of the Independent against those of other media organisations very well
Are the allegations linked to him being gay in any way? If not, at least it is not claimed in the article, is it fair to throw this fact into the argument?
We frequently report on the activities of LGBT MPs, writers and other public figures. Johann Hari is gay and has written extensively on LGBT issues.
So it’s wrong for Johann Hari to use quotes actually made by subjects previously… but the likes of Jan Moir and Peter Hitchens and Richard Littlejohn can make up their opinion pieces and never cite any references for their horrible conclusions, and that’s okay. You can tell the Tories are in office.
Don’t be silly. He has been suspended by his employees at the Independent, who are obviously trying to protect their journalistic reputation. It has nothing to do with his opinions, and certainly nothing to do with the Tory government.
Hari’s “defence” that his interviewees were so inarticulate when speaking to him that he had to pad out his interviews with quotations from earlier interviews by the same subjects is laughable. He is effectively saying that he is such a bad interviewer that he was unable to extract anything of interest from his subjects himself. And it still doesn’t change the fact that he passed off other people’s work as his own. (The extent to which he did this is still emerging.)
Disappointing — he’s a good writer. Maybe he should stop interviewing people (or rather, pretending to interview people).
I’m no fan of the Tories but it’s a pretty massive stretch to blame them for this. The only thing it proves is that the Independent gives a sh*t about journalistic standards and the Mail doesn’t. And I can’t imagine that comes as a surprise to anyone here.
Johann Hari is in a class way above many other journalists and he has written extensively and with deep and thorough analysis on many, many topics. Given what is happening elsewhere in the journalism world I hope that he is back soon.
>Are the allegations linked to him being gay in any way?
Not really. Just a couple of aspects – a few people have rolled out a knee-jerk ‘thsi must be homophobia – leave my friend/hero alone’ defence, and there’s a peripheral ‘he may have written gay porn – ugh !’ claim.
The alleged problems are so basic that that won’t have any impact if they are true (nods to PN legal department).
This sucks. Hari is one of the best journalists in the UK. Of course, he should not have “plagiarised” (although it’s not plagiarism if the quotes you are using are actually attributed to their proper source) but I hope the Indy brings him back asap!
No he is not. As a journalist he is pretty lousy. He may be a good commentator though
World’s smallest violin …
Long may Johann continue writing his excellent column for Attitude!
Johan Hari is a wonderful journalist but it must be right that he is treated just as any other journalist would be by a paper with a history of quite high ethical standards like the Independent.
Johann Hari is a fake a sometime entertaining one. He wrote a nasty article claiming to link alleged increasing homophobic attacks to the number of muslims in east london/ When confronted with Met Police stats showing no such increase in areas with high concentration of muslims he made up a story that all the gays had left east London. LOL. Johann is not someone who would let the facts get in the way of a good story and would therefore be better suited to News International tabloid than the Independent.
He even wrote up a story for the Indie about having sex with a muslim extremist called Mohammed (I kid you not!) from Finsbury Park mosque…I wonder if that was his (sexual) fantasy or fact too?
That he fails to get good quotes out of his interview subjects and passes others work off as his own without creditting or attributing his sources is totally unethical and a fraud.
I’m no fan of Hari, but East London was declared a Gay Free Zone by muslims who live there. The 75% decline in gay bars in East London over a 20 year period substantiates the claim (linked maps show it has been de-gayed – and don’t blame me if officials have ignored the de-gaying). By contrast, the number of gay bars & clubs in Soho and Vauxhall have increased in those 20 years. When I moved to East London in 1991, it was the gayest place outside of Soho (20% of the people on my street were gay). Now, when I travel through East London, I almost never see anyone (or anything) that would indicate the presence of gay people there. I don’t know any gay people who would move there, and almost all the gay people I know who live there want to leave. The only remaining gay bars are on the fringes of the muslim ghetto (Shoreditch, Limehouse, Mile End). The de-gaying will be total within a few years. We will never see a Gay Pride event there. Thanks to IMAAN.
Get your facts right. East London was not declared a Gay Free Zone by ‘muslims’. This relates to anti-gay stickers put up by extremists who were condemned by other muslims and community groups in East London. Not to mention the never-ending stream of condemnation from the media. If there has been a decline in the LGBT population why is that down to ‘muslims’? Earls Court was one of the gayest places in London. There are now no more gay bars in the area. This is due to natural decline over the past 30 years or so and the growth of LGBT areas in other parts of London – mostly Vauxhall, Soho and King’s Cross. Also it isn’t just LGBT people who leave a poor, downtrodden part of London. Anyone would want to do that and if they have the means to do it they will.
You are wrong about IMAAN. This is a LGBT group for muslims and has consistently backed and participted in Gay Pride events.
There are a number of LGBT groups in the East End. Join them to build the best Pride event ever.
Also according to ‘Out in the City’ there are 13 gay bars and 3 gay saunas in the East End and a couple of gay clubs.
I live in the East End of Glasgow – it has no gay bars. It also has practically no Muslims and is one of the whitest place in Britain.
“East End is now a Gay Free Zone” is just a nasty little racist trying to sow divisions in the Gay movement.
Your post is preposterous. You’ll be suggesting that there are no homosexual Muslims next. Or that as a group they love gay people.
My comment above is at terrorist defender Patrick Lilley
Ian Townson says: Get your facts right. East London was not declared a Gay Free Zone by ‘muslims’. This relates to anti-gay stickers put up by extremists who were condemned by other muslims and community groups in East London. Not to mention the never-ending stream of condemnation from the media.
I challenge you to provide any evidence of condemnation of the gay-free stickers by other Muslims. And why do you put that word in speech marks?
I like Johann Hari and enjoy his articles, will miss him but a break for a couple months will probably do him good.
“He has apologised, but said he was trying to ensure that the reader “understands their point as clearly as possible”. ”
That is quite insulting towards his readers.
I think he is a good journalist but clearly what he was doing was unethical and unprofessonal.
I think the point was not trying to suggest his readers are thick, but sometimes, when people make a point in an interview, they can stumble and not explain as clearly as they could do and indeed have done elsewhere, which is fair enough. While he should have sourced the comments and not passed them off as part of the interview, I can understand where he was coming from in his approach.