He's going to be eaten alive.

He's apologised for the stuff he thinks people know about, and hoped the rest will go away.

Amongst other things:

That made up Dubai interview, which the blogger has documented as partly forged?

A few people? 890 wikipedia edits ffs?

A 3 year old interview from the Indy reposted to the Huffington Post as 'Exclusive', and others similarly?

'Standing by' his Orwell Prize pieces? IIRC 3 out of 5 have been completely demolished so far.

The people who have stated that they complained and were ignored. I think I've seen half a dozen.

The routinely invented and manipulated 'facts' in a large chunk of opinion columns.

The 'unreported truths behind the news' podcast, most of which is Hari reading out columns - sometimes old columns - like Jackanory?

...and on and on.

Woops - Jayson Blair even. Rich of me to attack someone else for inaccuracy while sporting one of my own :*)

What a silly sausage. He's a bright boy and I wish him well in whatever he does, but he's finished as a journalist.

I'm actually quite shocked by Hari's statement - as self-serving and tricksy a contrite apology as I've ever read. Not just the minimised 'two' wrong things, but also the the 'returned prize' spin (much headlined in the news reports) - it would surely have been taken from him if the Independent hadn't bought time by pretending they were going to investigate properly and asking the Orwell Prize to hang fire so he could make further representations. He unrepentantly takes the opportunity of arguing his Orwell Prize case in his apology and states that he stands by his submitted articles, thus muddying the waters nicely whilst capitalising on a faux act of contrition.

He similarly is still slyly justifying himself when describing his stealing of the work of other journalists/authors by talking of his replacement of the 'garbled chunk' of his interviewees' words with the 'clear chunk' as if it were a rational, even helpful strategy rather than the theft of the work of others.

The extent to which he lied when puffing himself up and doing damage to others on Wikipedia, denying his true identity absolutely when challenged and creating an absurd tissue of lies, is similarly given the most sympathetic gloss.
I certainly didn't like the baying for blood over the past months - though this could have been avoided had Hari come clean immediately - and was hoping for a clear and sincere response from both Johann Hari and the Independent. But this certainly wasn't it and any respect I had for Johann Hari and the Independent is lost completely now as I fear he suffers from the Blair 'I'm a good guy' syndrome and is beyond help and the Independent has lost sight of what good and honest journalism should be.

Looking forward to Hari's autobiography. I think Jordan is writing it for him.

Paul Halsall writes, 'Very upsetting apology from Johann Hari. Still, we should all get a second chance. He remains a very good writer.'

The problem is, Pau, that because of the stunts Hari has pulled we can't be sure you're not Hari pulling another fast one.

"This decision has been made in accordance with Andreas' recommendation that, subject to certain conditions, Johann should be allowed to work again at the paper. The report on his conduct is a private one and will not be published, as would be the case with any member of our staff."

Well I suppose everyone's entitled to an opinion - but what a good job eh? Even when one's most gross/crass/miserable mistakes are exposed - hey we can fix it by throwing more money at it and sending this jerk to the USA to learn about ethics. (?)

I suppose eventually the bottom line will be how many people click on his name in future.

This failed and disgraced journalist needs to explain the homosexual underage incest pornographic story that was written by David Rose (whom we can now presume to be him - it's the same email). If Hari is responsible for writing the filth, which should be illegal if it's not, attributed to David Rose, then he should not only lose his job and neverf work again, but should face the full fury of the public (and possibly the full force of the law).

Here's a man who has hounded the Pope, practically accusing him of being a paedophile enabler, yet he himself is possibly (we can only assume) writing the most graphic and heinous stories about underage homosexual prostitution for a website that exists for the sexual gratification of perverts.

It's so rare for people in general, let alone in the public eye, to own up, take responsibility and apologise for wrong doing. Let's send the message that we want more people to act like this and leave him to learn his lessons and become a better person for them. If he does it again *then* the vitriol can come out and the calls for resignation.

@Flashbuck:

"Hari is typical of the filthy lying scum on the left, the fascist left, the loony left, and the middle class hoity-toity tickle my turnips champagne socialist left. Fact."

This from a guy with noting better to do than incessantly Troll left wing news site forums, serving up your bile and vitriol, hoping to spark a confrontation.

Oh and typing 'Fact' after your nonsense just makes you look like an even bigger moron.
^^

"This failed and disgraced journalist needs to explain the homosexual underage incest pornographic story that was written by David Rose (whom we can now presume to be him - it's the same email)."

Why? Of all Hari's various crimes, this one seems to be by far the least significant.

Unless you can prove that he wrote it (assuming he did write it) during working hours on Independent computers, it's no more relevant to the matter under discussion than the fact that, say, Allison Pearson combines journalism with writing bestselling books that get made into Hollywood films.

@ellieban - the problem is that his 'apology' (which reads more as a justification than anything else) only tackles what he already 'apologised' for, with the added 'I modified a few Wikipedia articles'.

The evidence that he:
- blatantly plagiarised other articles and interviews rather than 'massaged quotes'
- completely made things up
- made approx. 900 wikipedia entries defaming his 'enemies'
- used 'David Rose' to comment on articles by his 'enemies' and then use these comments as the basis for his own pieces attacking said articles

is all out there. The problem is that people like that he thinks 'the right thing' and so have no interest in hearing anything that contradicts their liking for him. The Independent knows this which is why their strategy all along has been to wait and hope that people's bias towards him means it goes away.

I'm heartened to see that there are many, on both left and right, who aren't prepared to sacrifice their principles for the sake of 'I like what he says'. If and when he returns, he will be crucified.

I've been reading anecdotes in Hari's articles for years that always seemed too perfect to be true, his trips abroad where he always meets friendly people, fluent in English willing (even in dictatorships) to share their views on politics that dovetail nicely with his own. I'm not the only reader who has expressed doubts about these so what were the Independents editors doing? His articles are riddled with errors too that go against his style of being a self declared instant expert on any topic from Haiti to state education. In the former, he pontificated about Haiti's history and economy but let the visage slip be referring to Haiti as an island. In the latter, he talked about his own schooling but forgot to mention the years that he spent at public school. Overall, I've come to the conclusion that its too time consuming to spot the errors and fabrications so its not worth taking his word on anything. Its an utter mystery why the Independent employed a bluffer as an expert on so many different subjects. I'd be amazed if they actually allow him back, this looks like crisis management, they'd rather let the story die quietly than suffer the indignation of having to sack him. Instead they'll pack him away and probably drop him quietly in the next few months.

Yonmei,

Very said, I couldn't agree more. I do think that he made a contribution to some debates, but he wrote with ridiculous hyperbole and was often thin on facts. As you say, who knows where the truth lay? Where is his credibility? I couldn't honestly believe a word he wrote now. It is astonishing that the newspaper is to take him back. Perhaps they have done some polling and realise that he is needed for their dwindling readership numbers? Thing is, I feel that many people of integrity will not be fooled again. He is an unpleasant and deceitful screech of a man who is not fit for purpose. The cynicism of this decision by the Independent is going to disappoint many.

What sort of "personal act of contrition" involves handing back a prize before you can be stripped of it, and taking a nice long holiday?

I look forward to the return of Hari. He's done some stupid things, admitted them and apologised. He used material written by interviewees. I can certainly live with that.What I do not want to see is a committed liberal left writer silenced. We need more of them. Some of his pieces have ,in my opinion approached greatness.His piece on Dubai for instance was a classic He has exposed evildoings and right wing hypocracy and I want that to continue and soon. The perpertrators of foul deeds must not rest easy in their beds. They need to be exposed and Hari has had the courage to do just that. I believe the management at the Indie have recognised a potential gem and will take him back. The paper is much reduced without him.

No surprised that hari has the backing of the disgraced journalist Piers Morgan, but disappointed with Monbiot.
Hari needs that course in ethics not journalism, and its good that he's returned The Orwell Prize.
Why anyone should write disparaging comments about Yasmin or Polly I can't imagine. But journalists should take criticism in the same way they dish it out.
DAG is to be commended for his role in exposing Hari.

Two wrongs don't make a right Johann.

Of course, no reputable paper will ever employ him again. That's so, isn't it?

stevem: "He's done some stupid things, admitted them and apologised."

More accurately, he's written some seriously misleading articles, been found out, and ONLY admitted publicly to what had already become public knowledge. His apologies (he's done several) have all been of the "Sorry, but" format.

"He used material written by interviewees. I can certainly live with that."

He also used material written by other interviewers, and on occasion seems simply to have made stuff up.

"What I do not want to see is a committed liberal left writer silenced. "

Nor do I. Unfortunately, it appears that neither Johann Hari nor the Independent are interested in allowing us to continue to reference Johann Hari's past work.

We simply can't unless Hari was willing to come clean about how much of his past work was actually based on facts, and how much is fictionalised or plagiarised. He isn't willing to do so, and the Independent aren't willing to make him do so, and until this happens, we cannot cite a single article that Johann Hari ever wrote on any subject whatsoever.

And I am furious about that.

Johann Hari has written some great articles on some very important subjects. I have cited them before. I can't cite them now, because I do not honestly know what part, if any, of those articles are true.

I didn't want to see a committed liberal left writer silenced. But Johann Hari has chosen that course rather than come clean about exactly how much of his work was lies.

He has silenced *himself* by his own arrogant stupidity.

Personally, I hope he will be back at his desk soon, having learned his lesson. What he did was wrong and stupid, but the consequences should be proportional. Unlike Andy Coulson, I believe he does deserve a second chance.

'Johann has acknowledged and admits the central accusations made against him, that of embellishment of quotations/plagiarism, and that it was he who used the pseudonym David Rose to attack his critics.'

So you reckon the consequences should be proportional do you Phil? Proportional to me means never working for a reputable media outlet again. We shouldn't have different rules for people whose politics we agree with.

"He didn't 'massage quotes'. There were countless examples of him blatantly plagiarising and making things up."

Not to mention posting open-and-shut libel on Wikipedia. It will be very interesting to see how Nick Cohen, Christina Odone et al respond to his confession that he was indeed David Rose.