The Johann Hari debate Is About Politics, Not Plagiarism

The Johann Hari debate of the past week has fascinated me, but I’m not particularly interested in whether or not he has misled his readers. I’m much more interested in the way that the debate has escalated into a symbolic war of principles between Right and Left

Although the debate is ostensibly about the conduct of a single journalist, it appears that no-one has arrived at their judgement on Hari via an open-minded process, objectively assessing evidence and subjecting it to rational analysis. People’s positions have generally been correlative to the political orientation of the publication they write for, so it seems that their judgement has instead been determined by their pre-existing political positions. Admittedly, the New Statesman has admirably bucked this trend, summed up by Stephen Baxter, who says ‘we can’t let Hari off the hook because he’s “one of us”’. However, in general, if you are on the Left, Hari has committed only a misdemeanour, and the outcry is cynical bullying, typical of the nasty Right. If you are on the Right, Hari is a plagiarist who has misrepresented the truth, his conduct epitomising the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Left

The recent storm began with a blog post on 17^th June by the far left Deterritorial Support Group which revealed how, in an article for The Independent in 2004, Hari had used quotes from books by Italian communist Toni Negri, and presented them as if Negri had actually used those words in an interview. This was followed by a blogger called Brian Whelan who discovered that Hari had used the same tactic in an interview with Israeli journalist Gideon Levy. Hari initially defended the practice on his blog, but this led to outcry on Twitter and the appearance of a hashtag of #interviewsbyhari in which people created spoof cut-and-paste interview quotes.

Although still denying that he had passed off other people’s words as his own or misrepresented anyone’s sentiments, he eventually admitted on 29th June that the practice was wrong and that he wouldn’t do it again. The matter is far from over, however, and Damien Thompson at the Telegraph has dug up some previous allegations about Hari’s conduct which has the potential to further damage him.

What is revealing about the response to all this in the Telegraph is not just the fact that they have attacked Hari’s conduct, but that they have used it to discredit the Left in general. Richard Alleyne’s article is typical in highlighting Hari’s political orientation with the heading 'left-wing commentator in plagiarism row’ (emphasis added). Alleyne accuses him of double standards, claiming to be in pursuit of truth while actually distorting it. Again, this is not just about personal conduct, but his political position. He writes: 'He has been a renowned critic of other organisations if he believed they strayed from the truth, especially those on the right'. Toby Young relished the fact that Hari had been ‘busted’, describing him as ‘a holier-than-thou, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth, supercilious Lefty’. spikedonline editor and resident troll Brendan O’Neill accused Hari of being patronising to readers by claiming that clearer quotes required than those given in actual interviews, assuming that they are ‘so in need of hearing some liberal’s “vital messages” that those messages can be spoonfed to him in a deceitful fashion'.

The clearest attempt to associate dishonesty and malpractice with the Left in general came from Damien Thompson, who wrote ‘For nearly a decade now, a Left-wing journalist called Johann Hari who writes for the Independent has produced a falsetto squeak of outrage every time anyone in public life does, says or thinks something conservative.’ The revelation that Hari had misrepresented the interviews he conducted ‘confirms suspicions that certain “progressive” writers have moved away from old-fashioned facts: they are happy to tell lies in order to communicate a “greater truth”.’

On the other side, Hari has been defended by the (now ex-) editor of the Independent Simon Kelner, who described the row as ‘politically motivated’ on Radio 4. Although wrong, Hari was motivated by ‘an honest ambition to give the clearest possible representation of what the interviewee was saying.’ The campaign against him arises not from the need to reveal malpractice, but is politically inspired [and] some of it is fabricated anger about what Johann has done." ‘Fabricated’ implies, like the accusation levelled at Hari by Damien Thompson, that there is an element of dishonesty in the conduct of other side. Peter Preston in the Guardian described the attacks as ‘ethically ludicrous’ and Polly Toynbee also defended Hari on Twitter, adding ‘Save your wrath for the abominartions and harassments [sic] by the Murdoch/Mail press.’

Two things trouble me about the nature of this debate. Firstly, as acknowledged by Stephen Baxter, the teams had been effectively selected long before the game had even been announced. Preordained group affiliations have taken priority over making rational judgements as individuals. Secondly, neither side can accept that the other could possibly be acting out of sincerity. Kelner sees the anti-Hari group as ‘fabricating’ their anger to discredit Hari and the Left in general; Damien Thompson sees the Left have ‘moved away from old-fashioned facts.’ This precludes any possibility of rational engagement with the other side. Why should I conduct a debate with someone whose views are held dishonestly? There is no point in telling someone that they are wrong to be angry if their anger is fabricated. There is an important debate to be had here about journalistic ethics, but it should be conducted rationally and on the issue at stake – it has nothing to do with being on the Right or Left.

The issues of group affiliation and suspicion of the motives of the opposition are symptomatic of a wider lack of trust between people who hold different perspectives on important issues. On the issue of climate change, to give just one example, the IPCC is often accused of corruption and incompetence – and there are clearly real issues with the way their reports are put together. And yet those who make such actions often appear to motivated by links to businesses which would be harmed by any attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Again the sides are almost exclusively defined by political positions (there are very view left-wing climate change sceptics). There seems little space in the public sphere for a rational, evidence-based debate, and this leads to division and confusion in the public mind.

In my particular area of interest – religion and atheism – I have found a similar pattern. I share Richard Dawkins’s view on the likelihood of God’s existence but profoundly disagree about what he says about the actual impacts of religion. There is nothing at all contradictory about this position, and yet I find myself getting shouted down by both fellow atheists, who see me as some kind of religious apologist, and by believers who see me as an ‘arrogant’ atheist. It is another debate in which ideological battle-lines have been drawn and teams have been chosen; it is difficult for an independent voice to be heard.

My position can be summarised by a single tweet from David Allen Green which appeared just I finished the last paragraph: “The Johann Hari plagarism mess separated out those who prioritised intellectual honesty/accuracy from those who prioritised mere ideology.” Well done to the New Statesman for standing up for intellectual honesty.