Johann Hari

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

Johann Hari (born 1979) he is a former columnist at The Independent. (In December 2002, he was appointed by The Independent editor, Simon Kelner, to replace David Aaronovitch). In July 2011, Johann Hari was suspended from The Independent by Chris Blackhurst, the editor, due to evidence of plagiarism.[1] Hari's fabrications were tolerated while he favoured the war against Iraq, when the fabrications dealt with issues critical of the current wars in the Middle East, he was asked to take a leave of abscence. On 20 January 2012, Hari wrote that he would remain in New York, and not return to writing for the Independent.[2]

He also wrote for Attitude, a gay magazine in the UK, [3] where Hari was positioned as a left wing gay columnist.

Some his reporting and positions, such as initially in support of the War in Iraq, have been criticised. In 2003 Hari chastised the "left" for not supporting the US invasion of Iraq.

He counted among his friends the late Christopher Hitchens, and other neocons. He was a signatory to the Euston Manifesto, a British neocon political program. For some time Hari appeared on the "Advisory Board" of Democratiya the journal connected to the Euston Manifesto and its affiliated neocons. Hari is a former contributor to Harry's Place, a neocon blog.[4]

Challenges to his credibility, and Hari's responses

Ever since Johann Hari was forced out of The Independent an increasing number of articles revealed Hari's penchant to:

  1. Embelish quotations, and
  2. Fabricate stories

However, his dishonest/unethical proclivities were already apparent to anyone reading the exposés found below. The Independent, and Simon Kelner, were alerted to Hari's creative/dishonest journalism in 2003, but that was simply shrugged off.[5] Private Eye, Carol Lipton, and Media Lens provided sufficient research in 2003 to cast significant doubts on Hari's professional integrity. It took about 10 years, and a new Independent editor, to finally question Hari. Once Hari was put on a four month leave, several more stories appeared of fabrication in Hari's articles. (NB: so far Hari has been censored about plagiarism --mostly embellishing quotations and attributing them as arising out of interviews with him --, but he has yet to be held to account for several cases of fabrication.)

Private Eye

In its 23 March-3 April 2003 edition, the satirical British magazine Private Eye questioned the credibility of some of Hari's reporting. The Hackwatch column made three allegations about Hari’s journalistic practices:[6]

  1. In a July 2001 column in the New Statesman Hari mentioned that he had used ecstasy after finishing his final university exams. Other media outlets subsequently ran articles by Hari including one in which he wrote "I'll try to explain why so many of us use the drug weekly". Hackwatch column stated that "In fact, the young rascal had never taken Ecstasy: before writing his lyrical account he had to phone a friend and ask what it felt like".
  2. In an article on the death of Carlo Giuliani at the G8 summit in Genoa, Hari wrote that "when I saw the scene, I couldn't beleive so much blood had poured from just one body." Private Eye disputed that he was on the scene. "As several witnesses can attest, Hari wasn't there, having hailed a taxi to escape the scene some time before Giuliani was killed," the Hackwatch column stated.
  3. In a January 10 2003 column Hari backed the need for the invasion of Iraq. "Who, you may be asking incredulously, would want their country to be bombed? What would make people want to risk their children being blown to pieces? I thought this too until, last October, I spent a month as a journalist seeing the reality of life under Saddam Hussein," he wrote. "... If Britain were governed by such a man, I would welcome friendly bombs - a concept I once thought absurd. I might be prepared to risk my own life to bring my country's living death to an end. Most of the Iraqi people I encountered clearly felt the same. The moment they established that I was British, people would hug me and offer coded support (they would be even more effusive towards the Americans I travelled with). They would explain how much they "admire Britain - British democracy, yes? You understand?", Hari continued.

In a 15 February 2003 column, the day of the mass anti-war rally in London, Hari wrote "You don't even have to go to Iraq, as I did last year, and see the desperate look on people's faces as they tell you - in the barest of euphemisms - that they 'love British and American democracy', and ask you, 'When will you come to free us? When will we be able to live again?'".

Private Eye noted that an article by Hari in the Guardian the preceding December omitted the plea he wrote of in his February column: "Since these pleas from Iraqis yearning for the bombers to arrive must surely have struck him as newsworthy, why didn't he mention them in his original Guardian feature?".

Private Eye also claimed that Hari was in Iraq for two weeks rather than a month he had written in the Guardian. [7]

Private Eye claimed:

"Actually, Hari spent two weeks in Iraq as a holidaymaker, on a package tour visiting ancient archaeological sites. He wrote about the trip in the Guardian on 3 December last year. In that article, however, he complained that it was “very difficult to get Iraqis to express their feelings... I blundered about asking fairly direct political questions, which caused people to recoil in horror…"

In a 14 September 2003 column, Richard Ingrams, a former editor of Private Eye, cited the Hackwatch article and described Hari as "not best known for accuracy". In response, Hari wrote a brief letter to the editor in which he protested that "even the slightest factual analysis of Private Eye's retaliatory accusations causes them to immediately crumble into dust." However, his letter did not address the specific accusations made in the original Private Eye article. [8]

Hari and the 'Kenneth Joseph' story

In 2003, Hari favored the US invasion of Iraq and went so far as to wag his finger at the "left" for not backing the "Iraqi opposition" or not respecting "opinion polls" finding that the majority of the Iraqis welcomed the US war against Iraq. In particular, the article stated[9]:

"Those who still deny all this evidence will know soon enough, once the war is over, what the Iraqi people thought all along. When it emerges – as I strongly believe, based on my experience of the Iraqi exile community and the International Crisis Group's survey of opinion within Iraq – that they wanted this war, will the anti-war movement recant? Will they apologise for appropriating the voice of the Iraqi people and using it for their own ends?

Shortly afterwards, Hari took at face value a story originating from UPI on Kenneth Joseph, who was purportedly an American anti-war "pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East" who went to Iraq as a 'human shield' but recanted.

Writing in Counterpunch in April 2003, Carol Lipton exposed the flaws in the neatly packaged Kenneth Joseph story. [10] The original source of a story was UPI and the Washington Times, both of which are owned by the Unification Church. The fact that the original UPI story was written by Arnaud de Borchgrave should also have raised some questions. [11] In particular, she writes:

He wrote that "Joseph was explaining that his trip had shocked him back to reality". Yet Hari never states to whom Joseph did the "explaining", or where. He recounts Joseph's story as if it were his own, clamining that Iraqis were "willing to see their own homes demolished" in order to end Hussein's tyranny, and proceeds to issue a trenchant indictment of the antiwar movement, accusing its members of being "the real imperialists", for ignoring the "true wishes" of the Iraqi people.
Hari had already written an essay on March 26 for the Independent, a progressive British newspaper, entitled "Sometimes, the only way to spread peace is at the barrel of a gun", where he describes Joseph as an "ardent antiwar activist," whose beliefs were "as fervent as any menber of the Stop the War Coalition".[10]

Private Eye reported that after questions began to be asked in the international media about the Joseph story, Hari said in response to a critic who called him 'a fraud' that he would investigate while protesting "it's cheap and dishonest to try to skip my arguments because you think, on the basis of obviously ridiculous reports [in the Eye], that I'm 'a fraud'." [12]

In response to emails querying him about this story, Hari wrote (6 May 2003):

If it's a malicious hoax, I'll add a rider to the original article on the Indie website explaining exactly that.
I'm still not able to get in touch with him to ask him about it.
However, have you seen the Indian newspaper poll - by an anti-war paper - of Iraqis which found that 51% of them backed the US invasion, and only 36% opposed? This adds credence to his story. Or have you read the ICG Report?
Thanks,
Johann

The above email was followed by this email exchange.[13]

On 25 September 2003, after being informed of the querying of Joseph's veracity, Hari appended a correction to his original column on his own website. "It transpires that Kenneth Joseph was probably a bullshitter, and that his claims were false. I should have checked his story out more rigorously before I used it. The full details of the Joseph affair can be found at the excellent Counterpunch website," he wrote. [14] However, there has been no comment on this issue in the Independent, nor has the rider appeared in the version of the article on the Independent website and archive. (verified 9 February 2005).

More fabrications

Damian Thompson writes:

In 2007, a charity took Johann Hari, the Independent's star columnist and plagiarist, to the Central African Republic. His highly coloured report – one of the articles for which he won the Orwell prize – horrified the charity so much that it complained to Simon Kelner, the editor of the Independent. Nothing happened, because Hari was the darling of liberal England and, hey, what are a few dodgy quotes between friends?[15]

In particular,

Here are the [Private Eye] allegations. Hari's heart-rending account of life in Birao, in the CAR, "appalled" the charity staff when it appeared in 2007. You can read it here. According to the Eye:
Hari did not hire a translator, instead browbeating a charity worker into translating for him. He promised to give her his notes when they returned so she could file her own report on the war, and then broke his word. He continued to hold on to the notes even after she complained to Simon Kelner, the Independent's editor. "The reason for this became clear when his article came out, as most of the content differed from what interviewees told us," the aid worker told us. Hari "completely exaggerated the extent of destruction in Birao". He "completely invented quotes, in particular those of the French soldiers". In one gruesome vignette, Hari had French soldiers telling a piteous story of how "children would bring us the severed heads of their parents and scream for help, but our orders were not to help them". "They did not say this. I know because I was there and I did the translating for them."
There are many other allegations against Hari in the magazine, and others all over the internet. It's becoming clearer by the day that this man was not guilty of cutting a few naughty corners, as Simon Kelner, Peter Preston, Polly Toynbee etc have pathetically claimed, but bears more than a passing resemblance to the New York Times's Jayson Blair.[15]

A fabrication too far: Hot pants in Dubai

Even with the history of fabrications exposed by Private Eye and Carol Lipton, Johann Hari was not challenged by the Independent editors. In fact, he was given more latitude and allowed to interview and report issues on which he had no expertise. What set off a number of protests was Hari's article about Dubai, with an obviously fabricated interview. Guy Walters summarizes the reaction in an open letter to the editor of the Independent:

For the past few weeks, you have been spending these days of nascent summer investigating the claims that Johann Hari is a plagiarist, a distorter, a fabricator, and a sockpuppet who vandalises Wikipedia entries.
Perhaps you're not looking at all of these claims, but no matter, I am confident that with your experience and judgement, you will be able to see what many others have seen - the 42 quotes in his 'interview' with Malalai Joya that Hari lifted from her ghosted autobiography; the 545 words plagiarised from the Daily Mail that Hari inserted into the mouth of his interviewee Ann Leslie; the lies about his Sky appearance with Richard Littlejohn; his fabrications and distortions of quotes in his prize-winning piece on Dubai; the startling familiarity of quotes in his interview with George Michael; his copy-pasting in his interview with Antonio Negri; his outrageously fabricated quotes for his piece on the Central African Republic; his quotes pinched from the New Yorker for his interview with Hugo Chavez; his alleged posting of unpleasant and defamatory comments online under the name of David Rose; his invention of names for interviewees whose quotes he had taken from Der Spiegel... I could go on, but I am sure you have already sucked these eggs dry.[16]

Hari on Hitchens

Comments by Johann Hari about Christopher Hitchens:

  • 8 September 2002: "And Amis does not shy away, either, from showing that the evils of Stalin stem directly from Lenin. The dictator - still lauded by Christopher Hitchens, a fact that depresses me beyond measure because I greatly admire the Hitch - 'bequeathed to his successors a fully functioning police state'." [17]
  • 23rd September 2004: "As I luxuriate in the warm bath of his charisma, I want to almost physically drag him all the way back to us. He might be dead to the likes of Tariq Ali but there is still a large constituency of people on the left who understand how abhorrent Islamic fundamentalism is. Why leave us behind? ... Back in the mid-1980s, Hitch lambasted a small US magazine called the Partsian [sic] Review for its "decline into neoconservatism". I don't think Hitch is lost to the left quite yet. He will never stop campaigning for the serial murderer Henry Kissinger to be brought to justice, and his hatred of Islamic fundamentalism is based on good left-wing principles. But it does feel at the end of our three-hour lunch like I have been watching him slump into neoconservatism. Come home, Hitch - we need you." [18]
  • 28 September 2004: "On every single one of these issues – with the (very partial) exception of ending tyranny – the current US administration is on the wrong side. For most of his career, the Hitch would have acknowledged that – and I guess I wanted to hear him acknowledge it still. It's because Hitch is so great that I wish he was still engaged with these fights." [19]
  • 8 November 2004: "Am I saying we must destroy Fallujah in order to save Fallujah? Is that the liberal-hawk position now? Have we sunk so far, so fast? Tony Blair, Christopher Hitchens and most other liberal hawks have a firm answer to this anxiety... I can feel the force of this argument - and then I try to tell it to Abdul [a person who contacted Hari with relatives in Fallujah]." [20]
  • 21 January 2005: "After 11 September, some of the political thinkers I most respect started unexpectedly reading from this script about US foreign policy. Christopher Hitchens is a good example. For decades, he had exposed the monstrous anti-democratic policies of the US, from the Nixon-Kissinger years to Reagan's dirty wars in South America. But after the attacks on the Twin Towers, Hitchens argued that the vicious American foreign policy he opposed had died with Bin Laden's victims." [21]

Support for the war in Iraq, and subsequent retraction

A year after the war in Iarq was launched, The Independent reviewed the views of initially pro-war commentators. [22] In relation to Hari they wrote

  • What he said then: "Those who still deny all this evidence will know soon enough, once the war is over, what the Iraqi people thought all along. When it emerges… that they wanted this war, will the anti-war movement recant? 26 March 2003
  • What he said recently: "The only time British newspaper readers hear about Iraq or Afghanistan is when there is a suicide-bomb… Most experts believe that Iraqi elections will happen this year, and the grotesque, racist idea that Iraqis cannot be democrats because they are primitive tribal people has already been proved wrong." 20 February 2004
  • What he says now: "Before the war I rejected all the WMD arguments. I said that they were rubbish. They were. But I also said that the best evidence we had was that the majority of Iraqis could see no other way to overthrow Saddam and therefore wanted war to proceed. All the opinion polls have shown a clear majority of Iraqis wanted the invasion to proceed." April 9, 2004.

Retreat on Iraq

In a debate with Robert Fisk in October 2004, the Independent’s Hari said of his support for the invasion of Iraq: "So what was I supposed to do, as a progressive person who believes the job of the left is to side with oppressed people? How could I march with people like George Galloway and say, 'Give peace a chance', when I knew most Iraqis preferred this war to the alternative, never-ending war waged on them by Saddam? Wouldn't that have been a lie? Wouldn't that have been a betrayal of an oppressed people?... But I would add a very important caveat to what I just said. If you go into a war saying you want to side with the Iraqi people then you damn well have to carry on supporting the Iraqi people afterwards." [23]

The web-based pressure group Media Lens analysis argued: "At the heart of Hari's argument is the assertion that he is above all concerned for the welfare and wishes of the Iraqi people - he wants to relieve their oppression and suffering, and so supported an invasion to topple Saddam's murderous tyranny... Notice that Hari's concern is fundamentally moral - his problem was not with Saddam Hussein as such; it was with Saddam Hussein as a cause of suffering to the Iraqi people. And as Hari himself suggests, "If you go into a war saying you want to side with the Iraqi people, then you damn well have to carry on" working to relieve their suffering afterwards. [24]... We conducted a Lexis-Nexis search of all the articles you have written this year mentioning the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi'. This was by no means a scientific study, but it surely did provide strong clues to the focus and tone of your reporting. We found the following numbers of mentions for these words in your commentary on Iraq:

Cancer - 0 mentions Child/infant mortality - 0 Civilian/s - 1 (sanctions effect in 'weakening', 25.8)
Depleted Uranium - 0 Disease - 0 Education - 0
Electricity - 0 Hospitals - 0 Iraqi civilian/s - 1 (killed by insurgents, 21.1)
Landmines - 0 Malnutrition - 0 Poverty - 0
Schools - 0 Unexploded bombs/ordnance - 0 Unicef - 0
Water - 0

In April 2004, with Falluja facing massive destruction, Media Lens issued a Media Alert discussing how journalists were covering the episode[25]. They reported: "The Independent's Johann Hari had nothing to say himself on the atrocity, choosing instead to quote a young Iraqi living in London who described US actions as 'wildly provocative and wrong'. Suddenly, all those accumulated doubts hit me. Was I wrong about the war in Iraq?[26] Hari again quotes polls, this time suggesting "56 per cent of Iraqis say their lives are better than before the war". Still, no one has thought to ask Iraqis if their lives are better now than before the West began demolishing their country with sanctions in 1990 and war in 1991. Referring to the 1980s, a December 1999 report by the International Committee of the Red Cross noted:

"Iraq boasted one of the most modern infrastructures and highest standards of living in the Middle East", with a "modern, complex health care system" and "sophisticated water-treatment and pumping facilities." (ICRC, 'Iraq: A Decade of Sanctions', December 1999) According to an Economist Intelligence Unit Country Report, prior to the imposition of sanctions the Iraqi welfare state was "among the most comprehensive and generous in the Arab world". ('Iraq: Country Report 1995-96')
Unbeknownst to pollsters, it seems, this was all changed by the 88,500 tons of bombs of Desert Storm, and more than a decade of vicious sanctions."

Hari responded by saying The Independent has covered almost all of these issues on its front page and "I'm not allowed to simply repeat the front pages in my column. If they had not been on the front page, I would have dedicated every column to them", and said his fierce criticism of the role of the IMF and World Bank role in Iraq was in effect a criticism of the crimes listed by Medialens since many of them stemmed from their "forced privatisations". He has also supported a withdrawal of US and UK troops since late 2004, on ethg rounds that the opinion polls then began to indicate a mjaority of Iraqis preferring this option. [27]

In March 2006, Hari wrote that his initial response to the invasion of Iraq had been a "terrible mistake", writing, "The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it's just the Bush administration screwed it up. But as one anti-war friend snapped at me when I mooted this argument, "Yeah, who would ever have thought that supporting George Bush in the illegal invasion of an Arab country would go wrong?" She's right: the truth is that there was no pure Platonic ideal of The Perfect Invasion to support, no abstract idea we lent our names to. There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way... The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster." [28]

Returning the Orwell Prize

Johann Hari was awarded the 2008 Orwell Prize, but once it was proven that Hari plagiarized/fabricated stories, he was asked to return the plaque and the £2,000 prize money. The Orwell Prize for that year was "vacated".[29] In his open letter to the editor of the Independent, Guy Walter seeks to obtain a confirmation that the lawyers of The Independent were attempting a face-saving (for the Independent) solution of the Orwell Prize complaint..[16] As of December 2012, Hari hasn't repaid the prize money.[29]

All in the name of journalism

In an article entitled "Sleeping with the Enemy", the subtitle reads "Most gay men either confront homophobic neo-Nazis and Islamists, or avoid them. But not Johann Hari – he seduced them instead". He described this as a "victory for gay rights." [30] By Hari's own admission he played sexual games to obtain a "story". Hari ends this article:

Now, I doubt that many of these blokes were shagging each other, not least because, for religious reasons, none of them drink, so it was hard to lower their inhibitions. But after a long smoke and a lot of flattery, Mo was fairly easily coaxed. Of course, he seemed a bit hung-up about it afterwards. Since I was nearing the end of my undercover gig, I tried to persuade him that perhaps gay people weren't evil, especially in light of the fact that he had just been having wild gay sex.
Slam-cut to LA and Russ. He was a harder nut to crack, but at least he could (and did) drink an awful lot of vodka. I'll spare you the details: suffice it to say that Germany did successfully invade Poland. So what's the moral of this tale? Part of me wants to trumpet it as a victory for gay rights. Even in the most intense centres of homophobia and gay-bashing, you can still find the odd bit of sodomy. We are, quite literally, everywhere, including (literally) inside homophobes. Part of me is a bit ashamed - in the cold light of day, both Russ and Mo have some pretty repulsive views. But there's something uniquely rewarding about bagging a homophobe. In fact, I reckon that this should be the new path for the gay rights movement. Every gay reader of the Guardian should henceforth dedicate himself to seducing every gay-basher they can find. Our response to hatred shouldn't be to hate back; it should be to give them a jolly good seeing-to.[30]

Hari using pseudonym to alter and manipulate online content

There have been many entries in Wikipedia, Sourcewatch, and in the blog section of The Spectator, and other publications that were edited in a very self-serving manner by someone with an IP address at The Independent; David Green shows that it was Hari himself writing under several pseudonyms.[31][32] In the case of Wikipedia, Johann Hari's entries dealt with entering self-serving information in his profile, and to disparaging other writers or commentators that attacked his record. In particular, Hari engaged in less-than-ethical editing of Cristina Odone's entries on various sites on the internet.[33] [34]


In the case of SourceWatch one can easily verify all the entries he changed, and the materials he entered. There was even an discussion with "David R" about what he was changing -- only to find vehement denials that it was Hari himself. Who else would have engaged in the implemented edits, and have a IP address at The Independent? In the Discussion section of this article "David R" offered to discuss this article over the phone, and provided a number; the number proved to be bogus. Once he was exposed as having used a IP address at the Independent, he briefly switched to another pseudonym (Felix) and another IP address.

Judging by the changes implemented in SourceWatch, Wikipedia, etc., Hari spent prodigious amount of time deleting entries questioning his stories, or incidents he had been involved in. He deleted entries critical of him, e.g., the Private Eye exposé, and added his own rebuttal of the same stories.

Hari's constant erasing of critical content about himself led to the blocking of edits on this SourceWatch article. He would constantly edit out references to:

  1. The Private Eye articles that exposed Hari's propensity to fabricate stories.
  2. Hari's record in the lead-up to the Iraq war
  3. Media Lens's articles/criticism of Hari's coverage of the Iraq war issues
  4. The fact that he admitted to have "seduced" a muslim activist and a fascist at their respective conferences

In January 2007, one of the contributors to SW wrote in the Discussion page of this article:

Reasons why DavidR's changes have been rolled back
DavidR's changes are curious in the following way: 1. they help add comments that are mostly self-serving to Hari, e.g., among the first paragraphs: while before it was stated that it is curious that Hari would name himself a Leftist -- the added column lists his critics with the rejoinder "feel i am doing something right"... This simply transforms the section from a critical assessment to something that could come straight out of Hari's website.
2. the critical sections coming directly from Private Eye have been:
-- links to the original articles cut out; DavidR even changed the links to non-functional ones (the server changed)
-- the direct quotes from Private Eye reduced and juxtaposed with Hari's response to them -- most of the article has become a listing of Hari's objections to the Private Eye critique. This is useless.
-- the emails regarding Hari's stance about Joseph K have been axed -- this is unethical to do, it amounts to censorship
3. About his support for the war... well this section was rewritten by DavidR to simply provide Hari's explanation of the change in his position. SourceWatch is not about letting journos explain the reasons for their punditocracy, it aims to present a critique -- and where relevant Hari's response. It is curious that DavidR axed the list of statements made by Hari since 2002... these are more revealing than Hari's current apologia.
4. DavidR adds a section on Hari's reporting around the world... as if this were relevant. So what if Hari reported from Venezuela.
5. DavidR adds a section "debate with Robert Fisk" -- but notice that this simply ERASES a significant portion of the section with Media Lens's analysis or Hari's reports on Iraq. So, yet again, DavidR seems to want to tone down and reduce the critical sections of the article.
6. the external resources section was neatly separated between Hari's own article and those of others. This is common practice and one can find numerous examples of this in SW. However, DavidR does the following: (1) mixes up the external articles and Hari's (2) puts many of Hari's articles towards the top and (3) deletes some of the articles critical of Hari, e.g., all the Private Eye articles are gone.
To summarize DavidR's input:
1. it has reduced the critical element of the article
2. it has incorporated many of JohannHari's own self-serving comments or replies (why anyone other than Hari would want to do this is a mystery).
3. cut out sections that were pertinent (e.g., the email exchange with Hari, Media Lens's extensive critique, the actual statements that Hari made in the lead up to the war, etc., there are more).
DavidR's (but in reality these must be JohannHari's own) changes are not constructive in any way -- they simply reduce the ability of obtaining a critical overview of Johann Hari, what he has said, why he has said it, and what is the opinion of others about him. There are many questions about Hari, and certainly the ability to understand this little pundit have been diminished by the current DavidR changes.

Affiliations

Personal website

External resources

Biographical Notes

General Articles

Articles By Hari

Interviews With Hari

References

  1. Jason Deans and Jemima Kiss, Johann Hari suspended from the Independent following plagiarism row, The Guardian, 12 July 2011.
  2. Johann Hari, Update, JohannHari.com, 20 January 2012.
  3. Who Is This Guy?", JohannHari.com, accessed July 2007.
  4. Gene, British ex-Islamists Speak Out, Harry's Place, 16 November 2009
  5. A few letters were sent to Simon Kelner in April 2003, About Hari's fabrications: 14 April 2003
  6. Hackwatch, Hari’s Game, Private Eye, 23 March - 3 April 2003, Number 1076; p. 5.
  7. Johann Hari, The mother of all package tours, Guardian (UK), 3 December 2002. This is Hari's rebutal. NB: this footnote was added by Hari himself (under a pseudonym).
  8. Johann Hari, "Eye rebuttal", The Observer, 28 September 2003. (The unedited version of this article is here on Hari's website. (This section was entered into SW by Hari himself.
  9. Johann Hari, Sometimes, the only way to spread peace is at the barrel of a gun, The Independent, 26 March 2003.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Carol Lipton, Wag the Kennel?: The Kenneth Joseph Story, Counterpunch, 12 April 2003.
  11. Arnaud de Borchgrave, Lucky Break for Jordan, UPI, 21 March 2003.
  12. Secret of Shame, Private Eye, 3-16 October 2003, Number 1090, p. 4.
  13. NB: Johann Hari himself under the "David Rose" pseudonym has attempted to edit this email exchange. Hari also ahs removed this very line with a link to the email exchange.
  14. Johann Hari, Sometimes the only way to spread peace is at the barrel of a gun, 25 September 2003
  15. 15.0 15.1 Damian Thompson, Johann Hari 'invented quotes' in report from Central African Republic, says charity that took him there, The Telegraph, 20 July 2011.
  16. 16.0 16.1 Guy WaltersAn Open Letter to Andreas Whittam Smith, Re: Johann Hari, New Statesman, 26 July 2011.
  17. Johann Hari, 'Koba the Dread' by Martin Amis, The Independent, 8 September 2002.
  18. Johann Hari, In enemy territory? An interview with Christopher Hitchens: Islamofascism and the Left, The Independent, 23 September 2004.
  19. Johann Hari, Late thoughts on the Hitchens interview: Where I differ from the Hitch, Harry's Place, 28 September 2004.
  20. Johann Hari, Abdul's grandparents are trapped in Fallujah. What do I say to him?: Uncertainty, The Independent, 8 November 2004.
  21. Johann Hari, Bush's talk of spreading freedom is a sugar-coated lie: I wanted it to be true so badly. But we have to face reality In the article, he argues this perspective was clearly wrong, The Independent, January 21, 2005.
  22. "The pro-war commentators: what do they say now?", The Independent, April 9, 2004.
  23. Johann vs Fisk... A debate transcript, The Independent, 26 October 2004.
  24. Johann Hari And The Aftermath Of Invasion: Rapid Response Media Alert: Siding With Iraq - Part 1, MediaLens, 29 October 2004.
  25. [1]
  26. Was I wrong about Iraq?: Doubts and dreams, The Independent, 4 April 2004.
  27. Johann Hari, Response to Medialens: On Harold Pinter, JohannHari.com, 19 December 2005.
  28. Johann Hari, After three years, after 150,000 dead, why I was wrong about Iraq: A melancholic mea culpa", The Independent, 18 March 2006.
  29. 29.0 29.1 Orwell Prize: Press Release: The Orwell Prize and Johann Hari, 29 September 2011.
  30. 30.0 30.1 Johann Hari, Sleeping with the enemy, Guardian, 13 December 2002.
  31. David Allen Green, The tale of Mr Hari and Dr Rose, The New Statesman, 15 September 2011.
  32. Helen Lewis-Hasteley, Johann Hari: "I did two wrong and stupid things", New Statesman, 14 September 2011.
  33. Cristina Odone, I fell out with Johann Hari – then 'David Rose' started tampering viciously with my Wikipedia entry, The Telegraph, 11 July 2011.
  34. Cristina Odone, Johann Hari hounded me for years: all he gets is four months' unpaid holiday from the Independent. But the truth will come out, The Telegraph, 15 September 2011.
  35. Gene, British ex-Islamists Speak Out, Harry's Place, 16 November 2009
  36. Accessed: 8 April 2012; previous link was dead.