Johann Hari - it's not plagiarism, but it's not okay

In a way, it's unfortunate that Johann Hari is the person at the centre of this whole debacle. Not because I like him, though I've expressed admiration for him before, but because he is a high-profile journalist whose opinions tend to be fairly divisive among right and left, conservative and liberal, whatever. So even though the controversy that exploded today raises some legitimate issues about journalistic integrity, much of the discussion consisted of the usual suspects on the right calling for Hari's head (or job, or Orwell Prize) or on the left defending him in a way you know they wouldn't if he weren't on their side.

At any rate, a summary, in case you're not in the UK or haven't used the internet today: On June 17, DSG posted a piece noting glaring similarities between an interview Hari did with Italian communist Antonio Negri in 2004 and a previously published book called Negri on Negri by Anne Dufourmentelle. After reading the post, blogger Brian Whelan yesterday posted his own analysis of Hari's interview with Gideon Levy, and found that, again, large sections of quotes purportedly given during the interview were actually excerpts from Levy's previous writings or lifted from earlier interviews. Hari responded with this, admitting to the practice and defending it in the name of clarity and coherence.

Two of the accusations that have resulted are that Hari is guilty of plagiarism and churnalism. He's correct in saying that he did neither of these things. Plagiarising is passing off someone else's words or work as your own. Hari is using words that have already been said or written by the person he's interviewing, and attributing those words to that person - but not in the right context. And churnalism is the term given to copy where journalists have basically just reproduced a press release - clearly not the case here.

But what Hari is guilty of is journalistic and intellectual dishonesty. He is leading readers to believe that an interviewee said something to him that they did not. His portraits are always intensely personal, and the way the dialogue is laid out suggests that an equally intense conversation took place between the journalist and his subject. The question isn't whether Hari misrepresented the interviewee's ideas (and he and his editor Simon Kelner insist that he hasn't), it's whether he misrepresented the whole interview to his readers. Hari has taken sometimes very poignant and intelligent thoughts and deliberately created the impression that they were said directly to him; he even goes as far as to describe the interviewee's tone or body language while delivering the quote.

Even more disconcerting was Hari's contention that he had called other journalists and asked about this practice, and found it was normal. It doesn't seem that anyone's come forward to confess alongside Hari, but I'm not sure whether this is a sign that he's lying or that people saw the controversy and didn't want their own careers similarly affected. I sincerely hope this is not 'normal practice'. What Hari has essentially admitted to is quoting what he wishes his interviewees had said to him rather than what they actually did. It doesn't matter that they've said the quote before or written the thought in their books and articles. Either you ask the right questions to get the answers you want - and if they're unclear, ask more questions or request clarification - or you attribute the quotes to their original source.

Hari writes, 'My test for journalism is always - would the readers mind if you did this, or prefer it? Would they rather I quoted an unclear sentence expressing a thought, or a clear sentence expressing the same thought by the same person very recently?' He says if someone interviewed him and he was all ums and ahs and you knows, he would prefer that they just quoted his article from the previous week in which he said the same thing more coherently.

But this is disingenuous - it's (actually) normal practice for journalists to remove the ums and ahs from a quote, because this doesn't change the meaning, it just allows for a clearer thought. That's what I would prefer he do - quote a clear answer to the question he asked, not quote what he thinks the person would have liked to have said had they had the time to write down and edit their answers. I do mind what he's done; I admired his interviewing technique, the answers he was able to get out of his subjects, and I now know that some of that is fabricated. At the risk of sounding like his mother, I find the whole thing really disappointing.

I'm curious to see what the outcome of this will be. Rumour has it that Hari will run a piece in tomorrow's Independent (apologising? defending? explaining?), and I think it's unlikely that he'll stop working for them as a result of today's controversy. But the Media Standards Trust has already called for a review into Hari's 2008 Orwell Prize and his reputation has undoubtedly suffered. Will he continue with the same style of interview portraits that have been at the centre of the controversy? Will he be stripped of his Orwell Prize? I think the latter is unlikely - the prize was awarded years ago and so far there are no allegations that any of the work he received the award for is in question. But as to his writing - it's obvious that his next interview will come under very close scrutiny, by his editors and also by those who hope to catch him out.

And perhaps this is what should have been happening all along. Was Hari allowed to get away with this because he is so high-profile, or because of cuts in the industry, which meant that his work has not been subject to very close scrutiny for some time? If you're interested in that, I'd suggest reading this report on Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke, which was brought to my attention this weekend, and which touches on editors placing too much trust in reporters. Worth a read!

We need to talk about rape

I'm sorry, this is going to be a long one. But I think it's important.

On the occasion of today's SlutWalk London, I want to say this: we need to have an open, in-depth conversation about the way society views rape. 'We' is really every country, though the discussion that needs to be had in each society varies.

But here in the UK (and indeed in much of the Western world), we need to have a discussion that focuses on why the majority of rapes go unreported and why, of those that are reported, conviction rates hover around 6-7%.

In other countries around the world, there are cultural and legal reasons why women don't report rape; in some societies women are by law to blame, and can be punished for adultery if their rapist was married, or ostracised by their communities.

We don't have that problem here. And yet, by and large, victims (women and men) don't report sexual assault, and when they do, the perpetrators are seldom punished. Why is this and what can we do about it?

I have more answers for the former question than the latter. As to conviction rates: in order to be found guilty, it must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the crime was committed. The vast majority of rapes (around 80%) are committed by someone known to the victim. This means that some of the more obvious signs of a violent crime - a break and enter into the house, a weapon, physical trauma - may be absent.

In cases where drugs or alcohol are involved, there are likely to be even fewer physical signs that a victim resisted (since they might be physically unable). So when it comes to evidence before a judge or jury, rape cases often come down to 'he-said-she-said', and as long as the alleged rapist says it was consensual, well, there's doubt. Evidently a lot of doubt, given the dismal conviction rates.

While a not-guilty verdict based on the 'proven beyond a shadow of a doubt' criteria doesn't necessarily mean that the judge or jury doesn't believe the victim, it is an element to consider. And this idea that the victim is lying - that she simply regrets consensual sex, that she was just too drunk to remember consenting, that she's trying to exact revenge for some reason, that she was some how at fault because of the way she dressed, because of her sexual history, because she led the guy on - it's pervasive. Anecdotal evidence from women who have gone to the police over sexual assault claims suggest that many women (in every country) are asked questions or otherwise treated in a way to suggest that they aren't to be believed.

So we need to have a conversation that looks at several things: we need to dispel some of the myths around sexual assault, we need to understand why we are so reluctant to believe that someone could be a rapist, and we need to figure out how to change the way our police and justice systems deal with victims.

As the SlutWalk phenomenon spread from Canada, I trawled through comments on news forums, many of which genuinely did not understand the outrage toward the police officer's comments that women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to avoid being raped. Isn't that common sense?, many asked. Isn't provocative clothing going to provoke? Isn't it like flashing valuables about only to complain about being robbed? Misguided people, I thought, but surely just a minority.

But no. After speaking to people I know - people who come from across the spectrum in terms of education and upbringing - I realised that this is not a minority view. Most people don't mean it in a malicious way. They aren't saying a girl in a short skirt deserves to be raped. But they do think that it makes her more likely to be raped. They've never heard the studies that say that rapists don't remember what their victims were wearing, and they don't consider the hundreds of women who are raped in institutions and care homes, or the elderly, or women raped wearing jeans or track suits or in some areas of the world burkas.

Rape is not a crime of passion and lust, it's a crime of power. Rapists don't attack their victims because they're 'sexy' or seem available. They attack them because they're vulnerable or perceived as weak, and because the rapist wants to exert their own power.

Even in a situation where one person has maybe gone home with another from the bar, possibly insinuating that sex will happen, and then changed their mind. Sure, the perpetrator may have initially been attracted to the person. But where a normal person would understand that no means no, and simply leave it at that (disappointed, sure), a rapist becomes angry that he has not gotten what he wanted. When he has sex with the person anyway, despite them saying no, he is not doing it because he finds them irresistibly sexy. He's doing it because he wants to exert his power to take something from them that they don't want to give. And this would be as true of a woman in a track suit as it is a woman in a low-cut top.

And yet, despite these facts, we still have Sandra Parsons in today's Daily Mail saying, 'Let’s be clear: rape can never be excused. Never. Yet I defy anyone to look at a group of teenage girls out on the town on a Saturday night, tottering drunkenly through the streets in micro-dresses designed to show as much thigh and fake-tanned cleavage as possible, and not feel a tremor of foreboding about how their night might end...the fact remains that dressing in such an overtly sexual manner appears to send a signal that the wearer is at the very least hoping to excite and provoke any men she encounters.'

And there it is. A girl dressing in a sexual manner sends the signal that she's available for sex. How stupid of her. She's provoking men. And men, well, they can't help themselves, can they? A man takes one look at someone dressed provocatively and his inner rapist just jumps right out?

Parsons misses the point. Women can dress however they please, and send whatever signals they want. Maybe they are showing themselves as sexually available, maybe they are out looking for someone to go home with. And they can choose who that someone is. Just because a woman is sexually available, it doesn't mean she's sexually available to all who apply. And the vast majority of men will understand that. They might ogle, they might make crude comments, they might try to buy her a drink and chat her up. But if she's not interested, they won't try to have sex with her. Those that would, would with anyone. They won't pick a girl tottering around in a group of friends, just because her dress is the shortest. They'll pick a girl who is walking home on her own wearing her work uniform, because she's the easiest target.

But again, Parsons' view about provocative dress is widespread. And it's part of the reason we're so reluctant to believe that certain men could be rapists. The myth goes: if a woman is dressed like a slut, she probably is one. She's probably slept with loads of people, she's not very discerning. So she went out, dressed like that, got drunk, met this guy...why wouldn't she have sex with him, same as she's probably had sex with a bunch of guys before him? Wasn't he right to expect that, given her dress and behaviour? And isn't it true that tons of women just claim rape the morning after, when they're ashamed of what they've done? (I'm not saying that's what Parsons believes - she makes it clear that she's not making excuses for rape in her article. But this is the victim-doubting thought process that stems from believing that what a woman wears matters.)

Well, first of all, no, it isn't true that tons of women make false rape claims. The false reporting rate is about 4%, which is similar to other crimes. Still, so many people believe that if a woman wasn't held down at knifepoint by a stranger in a dark alley, then we need more information besides the fact that she said no. If she knew the attacker, we need to know how well, in what capacity, and did she ever flirt with him? We need to know her sexual history, we need to know how drunk she was, we need to know if she's a 'slut'. Basically, we need to look for reasons he might have thought no means yes. We need to look for the fact that she's often said yes in the past, so, she probably said yes this time.

No always, always, always means no, whether it's to a stranger, a co-worker, a husband/boyfriend, a date, a person you've brought home from the bar, a careworker, a john, a family member. No always, always, always means no, regardless of what you're wearing, whether you've had sex before, whether you've been kissing, whether you've been drinking, whether you're in the middle of having sex. There are no exceptions.

So the discussion we really need to have is why, when people report sexual assault, society automatically begins looking for exceptions. We need to discuss why these prejudices exist in relation to rape, and why they are so effectively exploited in the legal system to let 93% of people off the hook. And we need to have this discussion with young people, so they understand as they grow up that there aren't any exceptions. Only when the myths around rape, which all serve to blame the victim in some way or another (too slutty, too drunk, too flirty, leading on, lying, money-grabbing) are brought to the forefront and dispelled, not least within police forces and the judicial system, can victims begin to feel both safe in reporting sexual assaults and confident that something will be done about it.

For that to happen, this conversation has to go far beyond this blog, newspaper comment sections, women's groups, and those who pretended to be outraged about Ken Clarke for a microsecond, to reach into communities, schools, institutions and people's homes. At the very least, if the SlutWalks make a few people sit up and question the myths society believes in, they'll have achieved some purpose.

On Syria

Lest you think I'm only partial to looking at the mistakes and shortcomings of mainstream media, I want to applaud the work being done in/about Syria.

Most major papers/networks/wires have a correspondent or stringer working in Syria, usually under a false name. These reporters are taking huge risks with their own safety to get information out of the country as government crackdowns become more violent and deadly. The Syrian version of the Arab Spring has more in common with Bahrain and Yemen than Egypt and Tunisia, as Bashar Al Assad's government has indiscriminately killed over 1,100 people, including, purposely, children.

The journalists reporting from Syria are at risk of being beaten, jailed, tortured and even killed if found out. Foreign journalists, who are likely to have big news organisations and national governments behind them, tend to fare better than their Syrian counterparts (well, relatively; I'm sure the time Al Jazeera's Dorothy Parvaz spent in Syrian detention was terrifying, but she was released unharmed. Several Syrian journalists and bloggers have simply disappeared. Similarly, when the four New York Times journalists were held in Libya, they were beaten and threatened, but ultimately freed. Their Libyan driver, Mohamed Shaglouf, is still missing.). Both are to be commended, but it's worth remembering that when all's said and done, the Syrian journalists will still be living there, and will have to deal with the future Syrian state, whatever it may be.

That journalists have continued to be able to get out reports on government atrocities, the refugee flow into Turkey and the deaths of 120 members of the Syrian security forces in Jisr al-Shughour (killed by police or protesters, depending on who you ask), despite a government campaign of misinformation, fear and chipping away at what internet freedom exists, is testament to their courage and ingenuity. So thank you to the foreign and national journalists, bloggers, tweeters and revolution organisers, who are putting themselves in very real danger to keep us informed and spur change in Syria.

And a mention, too, for domestic coverage. I caught then end of an excellent interview on Sky News yesterday afternoon. Colin Brazier was speaking to a Syrian government spokeswoman, whose name I didn't have the sense to write down at the time and now can't find. My favourite bit: after listening to the woman go on about how Syrian forces have never fired on anyone who didn't fire on them first, denying the number of people killed, etc., Brazier said something along the lines of: 'Let me ask you a question probably no one ever has. Suppose you are lying. Suppose you are acting as an apologist for people who are committing crimes that might well be investigated by the International Criminal Court. Does that concern you at all?' Would that all interviews included such difficult and important questions!

Does the IMF Need a European Leader?

Another cross-post from the work blog.

**********************

Between now and the selection of the new IMF Managing Director on June 30, the three European countries responsible for 40% of the IMF’s current lending commitments will seldom be out of the spotlight. Portugal is due to choose the government that will ultimately have to implement the policies to secure its €78bn bailout. The Greek government will have to present yet more austerity measures and implement privatisation of €50bn in government assets in order to secure the next tranche of its loan, which is reportedly at risk of not being released, and faces GDP figures, bond repayments and in all likelihood a general strike before the month is up. Ireland will desperately seek a cut in the interest rates on its €85bn bailout as it fights off rumours that another one will be needed.

As the IMF leadership decision draws nearer, there can be no doubt about the importance of the relationship between the Fund and Europe. But what does that mean for the board tasked with selecting Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s replacement?

While there are nominally at least two candidates to become the next MD, and by some accounts as many as five, all eyes are going to be on the European candidate, France’s Christine Lagarde, when nominations close on June 10. And not because she’s the frontrunner: June 10 is also the day that France’s Court of Justice is expected to decide whether Lagarde will face a judicial review over her role in the 2007 Tapie affair.

Lagarde, who was widely tipped for the job even before Strauss-Kahn officially resigned on May 18 amid allegations of sexual assault against a New York chambermaid, was the first to declare her candidacy and did so despite the question mark over whether her intervention in a legal dispute between tycoon Bernard Tapie and Credit Lyonnais, which saw Tapie awarded €285m in damages from the then public owned bank, constituted an abuse of authority. But if judges rule next week that Lagarde should be formally investigated, can she still go ahead with the IMF candidacy?

When Lagarde was appointed Finance Minister in 2007, she became the first woman to be put in charge of the finances of a G8 country. If she goes ahead with her candidacy and is successful, she will be the first woman appointed to the head of one of the world’s most powerful financial institutions since its inception in 1945. However, if the judicial review goes ahead, Lagarde could become the second IMF chief in one year to go before the courts, a scandal the IMF would be keen to avoid.

There’s clearly a strong argument that Lagarde should not be touted as a shoo-in for the job with a legal black cloud hanging over her head. However, the long-standing tradition that says that the IMF chief is always European has been a hard one to shake, especially in an age of high-profile IMF lending to European countries. European leaders have thrown their support behind Lagarde, arguing that a European MD, and one that has previously shown support for bailouts, is needed to understand the fiscal and structural problems and solutions in Greece, Ireland and Portugal. At present, there’s only one candidate who fits the bill.

But does the IMF really need a European to solve a European problem? After all, during the Latin American debt crises of the 1980s and 1990s, nobody suggested that having an Argentine at the helm of the IMF would be a good idea. Could the experience of candidates from emerging economies be just the ticket? Banco de Mexico Governor Agustin Carstens is so far the only publicly declared candidate, with former South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel and Kazakh National Bank Chairman Grigory Marchenko also rumoured to be contenders. Carstens argues that a Latin American who has experienced debt crises but has a good fiscal record is what’s actually needed to help mend the problems in the euro zone.

Aside from that experience, a non-European candidate also brings distance from Europe, which European leaders may fear, but could be exactly what the IMF needs. It may be that someone who doesn’t feel a national attachment to preserving the euro is better able to make critical decisions on IMF lending to the euro zone; it may also be that during the next MD’s five year term, focus will shift and crises will emerge elsewhere, mooting the current ‘need’ for a European leader.

The French judges’ decision next week should give us a clearer picture of where the IMF race is headed. If Lagarde is cleared by the Court of Justice, she is all but certain to be appointed MD, unless the US throws its support behind Carstens. If the Court rules in favour of a judicial review, Lagarde’s success is much less clear-cut. Barring the sudden, last-minute declaration of a second European candidate, a withdrawal would mean the likely appointment of Carstens.

Disastrous as an inquiry would be for Lagarde and the French political sphere, it need not be a crisis for Europe and the IMF. Any competent managing director will be able to negotiate and handle the existing EU bailouts, and the IMF could benefit from the opportunity to appoint its leader based solely on merit rather than at least partially on nationality, as well as the chance to be more representative of emerging economies.

The benefits of a non-European MD deserve to be considered whether Lagarde remains in the running or not, and certainly when the next appointment comes around. Europe will not be able to claim forever that it is at the same time most competent to run the IMF and most in need of its help.