I've been terribly disappointed by the whole Johann Hari thing. When I first encountered him he seemed like a breath of fresh air, but then I started encountering critiques of his facts, and more and more things seemed dodgy, or underresearched. And then when it came to this I just threw my hands in the air entirely.
Because, yes, passing off things as being part of an interview when they weren't is just plain wrong.
I seem to be way less bothered by what he did (morally at least, if not ethically) than most, but I never thought his particularly brand of journalism really fitted with the Independent anyway. He always struck me as more of a Guardian man.
Moderate defence of Hari. I completely agree that sloppy research is bad and he should do better. Some of his writing is knee-jerk socialism and not thought through. But as an Independent reader I like to get Guardian-style opinions. And I really don't get the fuss about the interviews - nobody's suggesting he's lying or misleading the public about what these people said - just when and where they said it. He's a journalist, not an academic - I think it's acceptable.
I'm not sure whether he was deliberately misleading, or just assuming people wouldn't mind or care. I don't think he should have done it, but I have seen claims that seem too extreme to me. For instance, a year or two ago there was a big fuss about "misleading" BBC television interviews, and one of the offences was that when they showed the interviewer nodding in agreement, they were actually filmed nodding after the interview was over! I mean, they nodding at the time as well, but that was a different nod.
They only did it because these were shoestring interviews with only one camera available. Presumably if the BBC hadn't been doing that, then the same people would have told them off for wasting money on two cameras.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Because, yes, passing off things as being part of an interview when they weren't is just plain wrong.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Sorry, it's just something I find unacceptable in general.
no subject
They only did it because these were shoestring interviews with only one camera available. Presumably if the BBC hadn't been doing that, then the same people would have told them off for wasting money on two cameras.
no subject
Which he's done, so I'm fairly happy.