New Statesman - Johann Hari and media standards - 0 views
-
Consistency is a virtue. One cannot attack - in any principled terms - the reactionary and the credulous, the knavish and the foolish, for a casual approach to sources, data, and evidence, or for disregarding normal journalistic standards, if when it is a leading liberal writer that is caught out it is somehow exceptional. It simply smacks of shallow partisanship.
-
inconsistency also undermines the normative claims for the superiority of a liberal and critical approach.How can one sensibly call out the "other side" on any given issue in terms which one would not apply to one's "own side"?
-
now that Johann Hari has apologised, one wonders if many who rushed to his support should apologise too. There were many liberal, rational, and atheistic writers and pundits who defended him on Twitter on terms they would never have extended to a conservative, religious, or quack writer or pundit exposed as making a similar sort of mistake. Naming names would be inflammatory; and they, and their followers, know who they are. What is important here is the basic principle of consistency and its value. Just imagine had it been, say, Peter Hitchens, Garry Bushell, Richard Littlejohn, Rod Liddle, Toby Young, Guido Fawkes, Melanie Phillips, Damian Thompson, Daniel Hannan, Christopher Booker, Andrew Roberts, Nadine Dorries, and so on, who had been caught out indulging in some similar malpractice. Would the many liberal or atheistic writers and pundits who sought to defend (or "put into perspective") Hari have been so charitable? Of course not.