Changes

Johann Hari got so involved with the imaginary David Rose that he even mentioned Rose in his own blog. Tom Chivers writes in ''The Telegraph'': [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100105678/we-lefties-shouldnt-be-so-quick-to-forgive-johann-hari/ "At one stage Johann Hari quotes David Rose in his blog, giving him biographical details like "a starred first from a degree specialising in environmental science at Cambridge, and extensive work in Antarctica observing the effects of global warming", to support a point Hari himself is making. Green counts "at least fifteen biographical facts (from a lawyer girlfriend in Walthamstow and subbing jobs at the Independent and Spectator, to a principled and noisy opposition to the invasion of Iraq)" about David Rose, none of which were true, because there is no David Rose. "(It) was a fluent stream of lies contrived just so that the systemic smear campaign and dishonest self-promotional exercise could carry on and never be exposed", he says.Snowdon mentions an example in which two apparent Hari sockpuppets, David Rose and "Jessica", talk amongst themselves and pretend to get in touch with Hari himself over the choice of picture on his Wikipedia entry, and another in which he spent some time "emphasising his own importance as a major cultural figure"."].

Johann Hari got so involved with the imaginary David Rose that he even mentioned Rose in his own blog. Tom Chivers writes in ''The Telegraph'': [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100105678/we-lefties-shouldnt-be-so-quick-to-forgive-johann-hari/ "At one stage Johann Hari quotes David Rose in his blog, giving him biographical details like "a starred first from a degree specialising in environmental science at Cambridge, and extensive work in Antarctica observing the effects of global warming", to support a point Hari himself is making. Green counts "at least fifteen biographical facts (from a lawyer girlfriend in Walthamstow and subbing jobs at the Independent and Spectator, to a principled and noisy opposition to the invasion of Iraq)" about David Rose, none of which were true, because there is no David Rose. "(It) was a fluent stream of lies contrived just so that the systemic smear campaign and dishonest self-promotional exercise could carry on and never be exposed", he says.Snowdon mentions an example in which two apparent Hari sockpuppets, David Rose and "Jessica", talk amongst themselves and pretend to get in touch with Hari himself over the choice of picture on his Wikipedia entry, and another in which he spent some time "emphasising his own importance as a major cultural figure"."].

Piers Morgan hurried to Hari's defense. Morgan used his tweeter account to write this: [http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/84556,people,news,johann-hari-sorry-journos-round-on-sanctimonious-prig "Got to laugh at all the British journalists moralising about Johann Hari.Such paragons of ethically perfect virtue, one and all. Not. Even a flawed Johann Hari is considerably more principled and valuable as a journalist than most of his hypocritical critics.], but here's the problem: Morgan himself was  laid off the ''Mirror'' after authorizing the newspaper's publication of fake photographs allegedly showing [[Iraq]]i prisoners being abused by [[British Army]] soldiers from the [[Queen's Lancashire Regiment]].<ref>{{Cite news|url = http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/13/iraq.abuse.statement/index.html|title = Daily Mirror statement in full|publisher=CNN| date = 13 May 2004|archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20041125053916/www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/13/iraq.abuse.statement/index.html|archivedate = 13 May 2004 | accessdate=22 May 2010}}</ref>

Piers Morgan hurried to Hari's defense. Morgan used his twitter account to write this: [http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/84556,people,news,johann-hari-sorry-journos-round-on-sanctimonious-prig "Got to laugh at all the British journalists moralising about Johann Hari.Such paragons of ethically perfect virtue, one and all. Not. Even a flawed Johann Hari is considerably more principled and valuable as a journalist than most of his hypocritical critics.], but here's the problem: Morgan himself was  laid off the ''Mirror'' after authorizing the newspaper's publication of fake photographs allegedly showing [[Iraq]]i prisoners being abused by [[British Army]] soldiers from the [[Queen's Lancashire Regiment]].<ref>{{Cite news|url = http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/13/iraq.abuse.statement/index.html|title = Daily Mirror statement in full|publisher=CNN| date = 13 May 2004|archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20041125053916/www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/13/iraq.abuse.statement/index.html|archivedate = 13 May 2004 | accessdate=22 May 2010}}</ref>

Hari admitted "he did two wrong and stupid things" and has chosen a punishment for himself:he's going to return Orwell Prize (not such big of a deal because it was going to be taken away anyway with or without Hari's agreement to return it), take four months of unpaid vacation and to undertake a programme of journalism training.<ref name=Hari11>{{cite web |url=http://www.quietmountainessays.org/Gormglaith.html |title=Johann Hari: A personal apology |author= Johann Hari|authorlink= |coauthors= |date= 2011|format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-personal-apology-2354679.html|quote= So first, even though I stand by the articles which won the George Orwell Prize, I am returning it as an act of contrition for the errors I made elsewhere, in my interviews. But this isn’t much, since it has been reported that they are minded to take it away anyway. (I apologise to them for the time they’ve had to spend on this.) So second, I am going to take an unpaid leave of absence from The Independent until 2012, and at my own expense I will be undertaking a programme of journalism training.|accessdate=2011-09-18}}</ref> The real question is how "a programme of journalism training" could help Hari to become an honest and a decent, no, not even a journalist, but an honest and a decent person.  

Hari admitted "he did two wrong and stupid things" and has chosen a punishment for himself:he's going to return Orwell Prize (not such big of a deal because it was going to be taken away anyway with or without Hari's agreement to return it), take four months of unpaid vacation and to undertake a programme of journalism training.<ref name=Hari11>{{cite web |url=http://www.quietmountainessays.org/Gormglaith.html |title=Johann Hari: A personal apology |author= Johann Hari|authorlink= |coauthors= |date= 2011|format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-personal-apology-2354679.html|quote= So first, even though I stand by the articles which won the George Orwell Prize, I am returning it as an act of contrition for the errors I made elsewhere, in my interviews. But this isn’t much, since it has been reported that they are minded to take it away anyway. (I apologise to them for the time they’ve had to spend on this.) So second, I am going to take an unpaid leave of absence from The Independent until 2012, and at my own expense I will be undertaking a programme of journalism training.|accessdate=2011-09-18}}</ref> The real question is how "a programme of journalism training" could help Hari to become an honest and a decent, no, not even a journalist, but an honest and a decent person.