Simon Kelner is reportedly being moved into a new role at the Independent, to be replaced by Chris Blackhurst, business editor of the Evening Standard who will assume day-to-day control of editing the newspaper (read more about Blackhurst here).
And while it appears the wheels were already in motion - before they fell off - Kelner may be glad to be stepping back from the coalface after what must have been a tough week on the paper.
The week began with fierce criticism over an article from columnist Joan Smith - described as "vile", "obscene" and "bigoted" by some of those commenting - in which the writer drew a comparison between the father of murdered Milly Dowler and Levi Bellfield, her killer. Smith suggested the discovery of pornography in Dowler's home in 2002 "might" place both men on a "spectrum of abuse" that ranges from "behaviours that aren't necessarily illegal" - such as owning pornography - to crimes such as "domestic abuse and rape". All this while Dowler was still coming to terms with what he described as a "truly mentally scarring experience" at Bellfield's trial the previous week.
Smith wrote:
"What is so extraordinary about the outpouring of sympathy for Bob Dowler is that so many commentators have been willing to overlook what this might imply about his feelings towards women... When men like Bellfield are finally apprehended, there's usually a history of abusive behaviour which has gone unchecked over a long period... the most important lesson is that we understand the existence of a spectrum of abuse..."
As a sign, perhaps, of the Independent's faltering identity, this hatchet job on a grieving father and innocent man drew comparisons to some of the Daily Mail's darkest moments - such as Jan Moir's notorious assault on Stephen Gately - as well as complaints about the editor's decision to run the article and his subsequent failure to remove it.
One reader commented: "This article is vile... Shame on the writer, and shame on the Independent for printing it." Another added: "I am truly disappointed in Joan Smith for writing this article and her Editor for allowing it into the Independent today."
And then, into this maelstrom of criticism, came 'Harigate'.
Earlier this week it emerged that Johann Hari, the Independent's star columnist, had been using quotes written by some of his interview subjects to better explain points they had made in discussion with him. He was deceiving readers about when and where those comments were made, dressing them up with often ludicrous context to make it sound as though they were said directly to him, in the moment. An apology swiftly appeared in the Independent, though Kelner sprang to Hari's defence with a slightly odd rebuttal of an accusation nobody was making:
After all, it seems unlikely Hari could misrepresent somebody if he was using quotes that were already in the public domain - some written by the subjects themselves.
Kelner arguably then made matters worse by suggesting the criticism of his columnist was a politically motivated attack from right wing bloggers and writers. But the very fact that bloggers and writers across the political spectrum had criticised Hari ensured Kelner's argument met with a mix of bemusement and incredulity.
In fact, as David Allen Green pointed out over at the New Statesman (hardly a right wing attack dog) it is more likely Hari's level of deception was punished relatively lightly as a result of his politics, because he found safe harbours among the storm:
"Just imagine had it been, say, Peter Hitchens, ...Richard Littlejohn, Rod Liddle, Toby Young, Guido Fawkes, Melanie Phillips ... and so on, who had been caught out indulging in some similar malpractice. Would the many liberal ...writers and pundits who sought to defend ...Hari have been so charitable? Of course not."
But since the initial allegations and Kelner's defence of Hari, things have progressed considerably. Guy Walters in the New Statesman has pointed to a couple of additional examples where Hari appears to have actually taken quotes obtained by another journalist.
Even by Hari's own definition "plagiarism is passing off somebody else's intellectual work as your own" and it seems unlikely Hari or Kelner would now claim the process of the interview itself is not an intellectual work and the quotes resulting not the fruit of the interviewer's intellectual labours.
The Guardian then added yet another example of the same, apparent practice, inviting others to dig deeper into Hari's archives (and find further damning evidence). Only Hari knows how many other examples may be found but The New Statesman's Walters has clearly seen enough:
"It now appears that Mr Hari has made quite a habit of pinching quotes given to other interviewers, and claiming that they were given to him... it's clearly a straightforward piece of theft from someone else's interview. That's plagiarism."
It's hard to argue and it's hard to imagine Kelner enjoyed seeing this issue play out so publicly across Twitter - to a crowing audience of peers and rivals who questioned not only his columnist's ethics but also his own grasp on the Independent's journalism.
It may be with mixed feelings that he moves on to a new role within the organisation.
I think that Kelner's defence of Hari was all about defending his legacy as editor and that as you suggest his departure from the post had already been agreed http://www.pr-media-blog.co.uk/kelner-ousted-independent/
Posted by: Rob Brown | Jul 01, 2011 at 13:05
Sad for the Indy & Kelner. But feel writing was on the wall, trailed by release of Standard's financials & Lebedev's Snr's eccentric compliment for the Mail.
Posted by: Lookatluca | Jul 01, 2011 at 14:14