In 2011, bloggers at Deterritorial Support Group and editor of Yahoo! Ireland editor Brian Whelan asserted that Hari had plagiarised material published in other interviews and writings by his interview subjects. For example, a 2009 interview with Afghan women's rights activist Malalai Joya included quotations from her book Raising my Voice in a manner that made them appear as if spoken directly to Hari. Hari initially denied wrongdoing, stating that the unattributed quotes were for clarification and did not present someone else's thoughts as his own. However, he later said that his behaviour was "completely wrong" and that "when I interviewed people I often presented things that had been said to other journalists or had been written in books as if they had been said to me, which was not truthful." Hari was suspended for two months from The Independent, and he resigned shortly afterwards.
The Media Standards Trust instructed the Council of the Orwell Prize, who had given their 2008 prize to Hari, to examine the allegations. Hari returned the prize, though he did not initially return the prize money of £2000. He later offered to repay the sum, but Political Quarterly, which had paid the prize money, instead invited him to make a donation to English PEN, of which George Orwell had been a member. Hari arranged with English PEN to make a donation equal to the value of the prize, to be paid in installments once he returned to work at The Independent. However, he did not return to work there.
In September 2011, Hari admitted that he had edited articles on Wikipedia about himself and journalists with whom he had had disputes. Posing as a journalist named "David Rose", he added false and defamatory claims to articles about journalists including Nick Cohen, Cristina Odene, Francis Wheen, Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson and Oliver Kamm, and edited the article about himself "to make him seem one of the essential writers of our times".
In July 2011, Cohen wrote about the suspicious Wikipedia editing in The Spectator, prompting New Statesman journalist David Allen Green to publish a blog post collecting evidence. This led to a community investigation and "David Rose" was blocked from Wikipedia. Haris published an apology in The Independent, admitting that he had been "David Rose" and writing: "I edited the entries of people I had clashed with in ways that were juvenile or malicious: I called one of them anti-Semitic and homophobic, and the other a drunk. I am mortified to have done this, because it breaches the most basic ethical rule: don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you. I apologise to the latter group unreservedly and totally." ' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari
Didn't know the wiki stuff. Interesting that 'David Rose' gets exposed, apologises and gets fired while 'Phillip Cross' faces no such consequences and is still spreading 'his' bile about figures on the left. Also odd/ironic that Hari targeted one Oliver Kamm, most likely connected in some way to the Cross edits as Craig Murray has pointed out - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/ Anybody else been forced to apologise or lose their job lately for false allegations of antisemitism? Hmmmm...
Found this critique of Hari's depression book. Don't know enough about the subject matter to weigh in but there's enough in there to cast serious doubt on his 'expertise' in the matter IMO: https://thequietus.com/articles/23858-johann-hari-plagiarism-mental-health-bad-science Excerpt:
'But it's too late isn't it? It doesn't matter now, because the awful, toxic – BUT HIGHLY CLICKABLE – message that he's selling is out there. And he's put it out there by sheer force of celebrity. You'd almost have to admire his hustle if it wasn't so rotten. A combination of aggro – he once threatened to use the legal department of The Independent against a blogger friend of mine, purely for suggesting it might be a bad idea for him to get a reputation for making things up – and smarm has, over the years, left him insulated from critics and with an increasingly ‘impressive’ set of influential patrons. His former colleague Suzanne Moore recalls that she'd tried to help him when he hit rock bottom after the extent of his plagiarism and machinations: she invited him to stay with her family, and offered advice and counsel, including to give up journalism and take up teaching or something similar. "But then," she says "all those rich people like Elton John came and rescued him... and now this [his new fame]!" With the likes of Elton John and Russell Brand on board to waft his words in front of millions of eyes on clouds of expensively perfumed hot air, his ability to bullshit to the masses was guaranteed. He cultivated his anti-establishment credentials, too, of course: if "RustyRockets" wasn't rebellious enough, he inveigled his way into the affections of Noam Chomsky, someone he'd previously theatrically "feuded" with, getting on board. One can't help wondering if this book review, one of the most obsequious pieces of writing of all time, helped butter up the old prof. Lo and behold, gushing quotes from Chomsky, Naomi Klein and Glenn Greenwald, as well as Sir Elton, appeared on Chasing The Scream, his comeback book about addiction.'
ML articles mentioning him: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=johann+hari+site%3Amedialens.org%2F&atb=v1-1&ia=web
On Pinter's nobel speech:
'In the Independent, Johann Hari wrote an article titled: ‘Pinter does not deserve the Nobel Prize – The only response to his Nobel rant (and does anyone doubt it will be a rant?) will be a long, long pause.’ (Hari, The Independent,
December 6, 2005)
It is significant that Hari described Pinter’s speech as a “rant” before it had even been delivered – the label exists independently of the work, indeed of the author, in question. To subject power to serious, rational challenge is by definition to “rant”. Hari commented:
“Ever since Pinter was a teenager, he has been relentlessly contrarian, kicking out violently against anything that might trigger his rage that day.”
This is the standard, Soviet-style assertion that critics of power are afflicted by psychological disorder, with the concocted ‘sins’ of power randomly selected as a focus for neurotic ire.' - https://www.medialens.org/2005/brilliant-fools/
Responding to an ML alert calling him out for this abomination:
'"We do not need Bush’s dangerous arguments about ‘pre-emptive action’ to justify this war. Nor do we need to have the smoking gun of WMD. All we need are the humanitarian arguments we used during the Kosovo conflict to remove the monstrous Slobodan Milosevic." (Hari, ‘Forget the UN: Saddam Hussein is the best possible reason for liberating Iraq’, The Independent, January 10, 2003)' - https://www.medialens.org/2003/friendly-bombs-part-1/
with further suggestions that Iraqis welcomed the 2003 invasion and taking seriously George W Bush's 'apology' for 'decades of failed US policy in the Middle East' and how he (Bush) thought that 'we should not tolerate oppression for the sake of stability.' - https://www.medialens.org/2003/johann-hari-responds-part-1/
'Left' journalism in the UK corporate press:
Sell blatant war propaganda: fine, no problem, 1,000,000+ dead, who cares?
Put a few fake quotes in your articles: boo, hiss, you're fired.