Without proof, who knows who said what? An update on damning the Archbishop of Canterbury without evidence

Totally out of the blue¸ and for no particular reason, today I’ve decided to provide an update on my first ever blog post.

It looks like Wikipedia is currently bang up to date, and may well continue to rapidly get updated depending on how extensive the fallout is over the coming days. More background reading is available from Brian Whelan, Oliver Kamm and Tim Worstall... and, somewhat bizarrely, Johann Hari himself.

Oh, what the hell, let's give the excellent Daily Mash a mention as well.

Sooo, what does Johann have to say... on twitter...

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

When interviewing a writer for a 6000-word profile, accurately quoting their writing is not "plagiarism" or "cut & paste journalism"

27 Jun

... and on his own website...

Interview etiquette:

"So occasionally, at the point in the interview where the subject has expressed an idea, I’ve quoted the idea as they expressed it in writing, rather than how they expressed it in speech... Since my interviews are intellectual portraits that I hope explain how a person thinks, it seemed the most thorough way of doing it"

"This is... why, after doing what must be over fifty interviews, none of my interviewees have ever said they had been misquoted, even when they feel I’ve been very harsh on them in other ways"

"I called round a few other interviewers for British newspapers and they said what I did was normal practice and they had done it themselves from time to time. My test for journalism is always – would the readers mind you did this, or prefer it?"

"I’m open to suggestions from anyone who thinks there’s a better way of doing this"

My response to yesterday's allegations:

"When I’ve been wrong in the past – as I shamefully was over the Iraq War – I have admitted it publicly, tried to think through how I got it wrong, and corrected myself. So I’ve thought carefully about whether I have been wrong here. It’s clearly not plagiarism or churnalism – but was it an error in another way? Yes. I now see it was wrong, and I wouldn’t do it again"

"Why? Because an interview is not just an essayistic representation of what a person thinks; it is a report on an encounter between the interviewer and the interviewee"

... and how about one of his employers...

Simon_Kelner Simon Kelner 

@JohannHari101 has worked at @theIndynews for 10 years. In that time, we have not had a single complaint about his misrepresenting anyone

28 Jun

So that's that then... but, but, but I hear you all ask (hello? anyone? anyone care?), what about Archbishop Michael Ramsey, and my first ever blog post? Did I ever get anywhere with getting to the bottom of what was increasingly looking like a groundless slur?

Well, yes and no.

First up, the Independent. I find it quite incredible that on Tuesday 28 June, Simon Kelner (editor-in-chief of The Independent) can claim that in 10 years no-one has ever complained about Johann Hari misrepresenting anyone. Although I guess it's easier to make such a claim when you don't bother monitoring the email address that you promote on your website for feedback.

Here's the first email that I sent to newseditor@independent.co.uk on Thursday 31 March:

Subject: Smearing the Archbishop of Canterbury

Dear Sir / Madam

I'd be interested to hear your views on whether an article in your paper smearing a dead individual should either include a link to a reliable primary source as evidence to support its claims or at the very least should be able to produce said evidence when challenged: http://alturl.com/4bcty

Let's face it, anyone can miss an email. So I emailed again on Thursday 7 April:

Hi, newseditor

Any thoughts?

And again, on Saturday 16 April - I even cc'd customerservices@independent.co.uk this time:

Hi - any thoughts?

So what response did I get? Well, the total response to my three emails, to two different email addresses was... nothing, nadda, zip, zero. Not. A. Dickie-bird. It's one way of being able to claim that you've had no complaints, I guess.

Now on to the main event. At the end of my first blog entry, I included an email that I sent to Johann Hari on Saturday 19 March. 

Here's the subsequent correspondence (slightly edited to remove some, mainly personal, details).

Johann replying on Sunday 20 March:

Chris, as I said, my copy of the book is packed away because I just moved, but I got it from God Is Not Great. You can email Christopher to ask him the origin of the quote. These websites also attribute the quote to the book or to him, you may want to ask them:

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070603
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26792

Best wishes

Johann x

Me replying later on Sunday 20 March:

Thanks very much for your reply, Johann

I sent you one of those links, and didn't feel the need to send the other one, as it doesn't further things at all.

As I said, I bought the book as you told me that was your source. Two of us have read it, and can't find the quote. It's definitely not in the index or references.

As I also said, I'm sorry you felt the need to block me on Twitter. Your choice obviously, but I'm not sure what I actually did to warrant it...? I thought that would be the course of action when faced with abuse or obsession. Maybe the fact that you are good at replying to people is your weakness, as it then encourages people to contact you, which in turn can look like obsession. Or maybe I was abusive, but I'm not sure how...?

I still come back to my original question - did Archbishop Ramsey say that millions of people dying is just fine or not? If he did, when did he say it, where, in front of who, and why?

Apologies for sounding repetitive, but if I'm being unreasonable, do say. Is the above not the kind of question that journalists are expected to know the answer to? As I said, you chose to include the quote. No-one made you. Don't you want to be 100% sure that it's genuine and accurate?

Thanks again for your rapid reply, and apologies for being a nuisance. I don't know why, but I feel very strongly about this. Maybe it's the fact that a dead guy might need a friend... and trust me, if he did say it, he's no friend of mine.

Cheers

Chris

Me emailing again on Thursday 7 April (maybe I am a closet stalker):

After almost three weeks, I'm getting the distinct vibe that a further response from you is not imminent.

I've emailed Christopher Hitchens today, which is something that I really hoped I wouldn't have to do. I had thought that using a quote within an article brought with it certain responsibilities to satisfy yourself of its veracity, but I guess not. I'll let you know if he replies.

I still think it's a real shame you felt the need to block me from following you on Twitter on account of me having the audacity to question a quote that you chose to include in your article.

If you do have further information, I'd be very happy to update the below - not that anyone cares anyway...

http://justanotherbleedingblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/without-proof-who-knows-who-said-what.html

Chris

Me again (cue the Psycho music) on Sunday 8 May - I had big news to share:

Good afternoon Johann

Christopher Hitchens has got back to me and confirmed that it wasn't Archbishop Michael Ramsey.

I was wondering therefore whether you would be interested in publishing a correction, as it is now clear that the quote is not attributable to Ramsey.

I also wonder whether you would agree that all this effort could be saved if you would just include primary sources within your articles.

The below article is a classic example:

http://www.johannhari.com/2011/03/29/the-biggest-lie-in-british-politics

If you start with a fact, why not reference that fact? Don't expect your readers to go away and check for it themselves - be helpful and include a reference so that it can be readily and easily looked at. You then go on to include more facts and several quotes. Given my experience of having to spend plenty of time tracking down a quote on your behalf (and finding it to be incorrect), it would also be immensely helpful if you provided references for these as well.

Cheers

Chris

Johann replying the same day:

Thanks Chris - I'll get the Indie to put a correction at the end... they have a policy of only linking to other Indie articles as sources.

Best wishes

Johann

Not knowing how long would be reasonable to allow for a correction to be published, I left it over a month, before eventually following up on Sunday 19 June:

Thanks very much for your email, Johann

I appreciate that it might take a while to correct the Indie article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-get-bishops-out-of-our-lawmaking-2218130.html

But hopefully you can correct the version on your own website quite quickly and easily:

http://www.johannhari.com/page/9

I'm also delighted to see that you are now including references in your articles on your own website:

http://www.johannhari.com/page/1

If the Indie continue to be difficult about including links to external websites, then I'd go for the George Monbiot approach:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/16/cameron-blair-nhs-kitemark

• A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot's website

Cheers

Chris

As at Wednesday 29 June (today), Johann hasn't replied, and neither version of his article includes a correction.

I'll continue to exercise patience, as I'm sure Johann has one or two things on his plate this week... I guess I'm just somewhat surprised he didn't manage to get around to publishing a correction before now, having eventually (!) accepted that Archbishop Michael Ramsey has been unfairly maligned.

Goodnight once more journalism, wherever you are

Chris

Give us some credit and stop pretending that AV is rocket science

Cliché alert, but a picture really can be worth a thousand words, so let's kick off with a couple and save my fingers and your eyes. It is a true mystery how such an incredibly complicated system like AV can be so easily explained not once, but twice, using only beer, coffee, sweets, and excrement as props.




If you want more detail, there's this excellent dissection of the No campaign's offensive leaflet, and this incredibly helpful and straightforward explanation of AV.

I'm not a particular fan of how either side has conducted themselves during the run up to the referendum, but I did just want to highlight a couple of quotes from those heading up the No campaign:

David Cameron - "(AV) is obscure, it's unfair, it's expensive, it could mean that people who come third in elections will end up winning... I feel in my gut that AV is wrong"

I feel unqualified to comment on what Cameron's gut may or may not tell him (maybe Matt Baker knows more than me, thus prompting him to ask our PM how he slept at night), but it is fair to say that it is possible for a candidate to come third in the initial count and end up winning when all alternative votes have been counted. Possible, but very unlikely in practice. The claims that it is unfair and expensive are much easier to dismiss - AV is neither. If anyone tells you that it is, ask them to explain how and why. Despite having a bone to pick with him on a totally separate matter, I have to hand it to Johann Hari for his excellent recent article - if you get the X Factor, you get AV. And the Independent has published a clear, concise and compelling article to support its Yes to AV stance.

William Hague - "It would be unBritish to change to a system (AV) that is unclear and more expensive and would produce many problems"

14 pints a day Hague goes one up on his boss. It's not his (beer) gut that is against AV, but rather AV is against the very essence of being British. Oh please. And I love the fact that the "many problems" alluded to go undefined.

Baroness Warsi - "... there is an even bigger problem with AV: It gives more power to extremists. Why? The whole system is so complicated the problem is all too easily obscured"

So complicated in fact that The Sun requires a small box containing fewer than 80 words to explain it:

What is AV?

On May 5 the nation votes in local elections AND the referendum on AV.

Under our first-past-the-post system, the candidate with the most votes is elected. Under AV, voters rank candidates in order of preference.

If no candidate achieves 50 per cent or more of the vote, the one with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed according to second preferences.

This continues until one candidate achieves 50 per cent.

That really is honestly it. Fewer than 80 words to not only explain AV, but to also explain FPTP and remind us when to vote. All the obscurities, all the complications. The lot.

And why oh why, if AV gives more power to extremists, is the BNP urging its members to vote No to AV on Thursday 5 May?

Between now and the referendum, I urge you to visit both the No to AV website and the Yes to AV website.

Refresh your memory of the actual posters used by the No to AV campaign (and do have a play at making fake posters), and why not read what a fair dinkum, green and gold aussie has to say about it all - some absolutely fantastic blog posts from someone with experience of dozens of Australian elections using a system similar to AV, including debunking many of the myths peddled by the No campaign.

No, Australians aren't looking to dump their election system. No, Australia didn't have to introduce compulsory voting as a result of adopting their election system. If you only read one of Antony Green's blog posts, read this one.

And please do take the opportunity to vote on Thursday 5 May!

Goodnight grown up, honest political campaigning, wherever you are

Chris

P.S. A late honourable mention to the below:



P.P.S. Final word to the invariably excellent Sir Charlton of Brooker.

Without proof, who knows who said what? Damning the Archbishop of Canterbury without evidence

My first, and quite possibly last, ever blog.

Hello, my name is Chris Mason. I believe in God, but please don't hold that against me. I liked the last pope (good old JP2 - he looked like Yoda for starters), I'm not keen on the current pope (Ratzinger, God's rottweiler - he looks like the Emperor for starters).

My first, and as I say quite possibly last, ever blog is about a dead guy and whether he said what it has been claimed he said.

It's not about religion vs atheism... not for me, anyway. It's about the basic responsibility of journalists to link to primary sources, and the inability of dead people to defend themselves.

Soooo, if you're still with me, here we go. This article was published by The Independent on Friday 18 February 2011. It was written by Johann Hari and includes the following:

In 1965, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury scorned the people who were campaigning for nuclear-armed countries to step back from the brink, on the grounds that "a nuclear war would involve nothing more than the transition of many millions of people into the love of God, only a few years before they were going to find it anyway"

The rest of this blog is purely about my ongoing efforts to validate this astonishing quote, so please do stop now if you have no interest in finding out the truth.

If you're still with me, here goes... here's Johann announcing the publication of his article on Twitter:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

Why are bishops still writing our laws - and why is Clegg about to make it worse? My latest article: http://ind.pn/hKEajX

18 Feb

Here's Ben Goldacre commenting on the quote:

bengoldacre ben goldacre 

i am in LOVE with the 1965 nuclear war quote http://ind.pn/hKEajX @johannhari101

18 Feb

Here's me asking for evidence:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@bengoldacre @johannhari101 Do you have a source/reference for Archbishop Ramsey's quote about nuclear war?

18 Feb

Here's Johann 'referencing' the quote:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@bengoldacre Isn't it bonkers? Hitchens quotes it in God Is Not Great.

18 Feb

Here's me asking for the context to the quote:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 @bengoldacre I don't have Hitchens' book, so please can you tell me the date/context/setting of Archbishop Ramsey's quote?

19 Feb

Here's me asking again (to be fair, Johann Hari is actually good at replying, particularly given that he's got 50,000+ followers on Twitter):

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Sorry to bother you again, but I find that nuclear war quote by Archbishop Ramsey so shocking - would be great to know more

21 Feb

Me again:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Hi, sorry, one last try. Any more info/context about the nuclear war quote from the then Archbishop of Canterbury?

22 Feb

Johann's reply - could be more helpful, if you ask me, but hey:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@Do0g1e It's from Christopher Hitchens' book God Is Not Great, as I said earlier.

22 Feb

Me saying that I'll buy the book:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Ok, I guess I'll just have to buy the book to discover if a date, context or setting is given. Hopefully it is.

22 Feb

Me having bought the book (I know, I'm a mug - Johann Hari owes me £4.78), and not found the quote:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 I've bought Hitchens' book God Is Not Great, but couldn't find the nuclear war quote. What page is it on?

12 Mar

Me again:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Hi there. Have now bought Hitchens' book God Is Not Great, but can't find nuclear war quote. Any chance of a page number?

16 Mar

Me once again:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Any chance of a page reference to the quote from God Is Not Great that you attributed to the AoC in 1965 in a recent column?

17 Mar

Johann giving a bit of a weak and odd reply:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@Do0g1e I moved so the book is in my boxes - look it up online, it's quoted all over the place, or try the index

17 Mar

Me answering that weak and odd reply:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 I bought the book after you told me that was your reference. I can't find the quote in it. I've googled extensively.

17 Mar

Johann telling me that the quote is in the book, telling me that I actually have to read it (oh, I see, is that how books work? I thought you just stuck them on your bookshelf and looked at them), and blowing me a kiss to signify that hopefully I'll be an atheist soon (that's how I use x's anyway - maybe he uses them differently):

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@Do0g1e Well, the quote is there, that's where I got it. You'll have to read it! Hope it converts you to atheism x

17 Mar

Me asking for the source, having looked for it on the internet:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Only references I can find link back to your column. Aren't you keen to source such an emotive quote?

17 Mar

Johann telling me that he can't unpack all his books (thousands apparently - why buy thousands of books if you're going to leave them in boxes?) to find the quote - I'm only asking about one book, a book he apparently used as a reference only last month:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@Do0g1e I can't unpack and look through thousands of books to find it, to save you the hassle of reading Hitchens! Sorry

17 Mar

Me clarifying the fact that I've read the book (well, d'uh):

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Sorry, think we're misunderstanding each other. I read the book - I can't find the quote. I'm not trying to avoid reading.

17 Mar

Johann claiming that the first edition is different to the one I went out and bought on his recommendation:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@Do0g1e Oh, I see. Well it's definitely there - I have the first edition & read it there. Email Hitchens and ask for source if you like...

17 Mar

Me appealing to his journalistic instincts (naive, I know. Kalle Blomquist is clearly a fictional figure):

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Fair enough. Still curious that you aren't more keen to validate the quote (it's a doozie). I'll continue trying to.

17 Mar

Johann claiming that he had 'validated' the quote:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@Do0g1e I have validated it - I checked it as I wrote the piece.

17 Mar

Me stupidly saying that I'll continue chasing evidence on Johann's behalf (what can I say? He's got 50,536 followers on Twitter, I've got 25 - I'm slightly in awe):

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 No worries. I'll try to contact Hitchens for his source. Based on this, he sounds decent enough -http://alturl.com/trbfj

17 Mar

Me once again appealing to the fictional Kalle Blomquist:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 Just always come back to it being such an astonishing thing for him to say - in public particularly, but even in private.

17 Mar

Me dragging Ben Goldacre back into proceedings (he's a legend, but hey, he was happy to comment on the quote without evidence or proof):

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 @bengoldacre Sorry, but aren't you keen to nail down a source for a quote that you are both happy to repeat / comment on?

17 Mar

Me painting my colours to the mast - it's true, it's about a dead bloke for me, not about religion:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 @bengoldacre Bashing religion - fine. But you're bashing an individual who's dead and can't defend himself.

17 Mar

Me on my soap box (apologies, I'd had one or two beers by this point):

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 @bengoldacre Why am I alone in trying to ascertain whether the then AoC actually condoned nuclear war or not?

17 Mar

Me now on my high horse (apologies again, I'd definitely had one or two beers by this point):

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 @bengoldacre Evidence? Referencing? Sources? Does that only count when it's science? Religion is fair game?

17 Mar

Me admitting that I don't know whether the quote is genuine or not:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 @bengoldacre Maybe he did condone nuclear war, but I'm the only one trying to find out if he did http://alturl.com/trbfj

17 Mar

Other tweets that are relevant/interesting - Ben Goldacre decrying a journalist who won't respond to his polite email asking for an explanation of a story:

bengoldacre ben goldacre 

simon johnson from the telegraph hasnt even deigned to reply to my polite email asking how his whale story came about http://bit.ly/dNSsM7

17 Mar

Johann commenting on what he thinks of a journalist not replying when questioned about a story:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@bengoldacre That's when you know you've won the argument...

17 Mar

Ben Goldacre making a general point:

bengoldacre ben goldacre 

@johannhari101 almost all i get from journalists, quacks, antivaxxers, & corp's i criticise, is different forms of "shut up. just shut up".

25 Feb

And then, when I was debating whether to bother pursuing this (particularly as I still readily accept that the then Archbishop of Canterbury may have said such an outrageous and heinous thing - I just want to find out if he definitely did or not), Ben Goldacre published an article that was so wonderfully timed that it just felt like it was meant to be: 

bengoldacre ben goldacre 

Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?: Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 19 March 2011 Why don’t... http://dlvr.it/Kmdf4

19 Mar

And just in case we were left in any doubt about his feelings on the matter:

bengoldacre ben goldacre 

If you don't link to primary sources, you are dead to me RT @guardianscience: gu.com/p/2npeb/tf

19 Mar

Here's me agreeing wholeheartedly - he's right, and he's a legend as I said:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@bengoldacre Well said! Please can you encourage @johannhari101 to link to primary sources, unless his articles are exempt for some reason.

19 Mar

What happened next? Well, Johann Hari blocked me from following him on Twitter - bit extreme, no?

I don't actually know whether tweets go through to people who have blocked you, but here's me trying anyway:

Do0g1e Chris Mason 

@johannhari101 @bengoldacre Sorry you feel the need to block me, Johann. I'm just asking for a source/proof for a quote you chose to use.

19 Mar

And finally, here's Johann summing up his views about just following someone else's argument without thinking:

johannhari101 Johann Hari 

@arg1985 "You can say X, because bad person Y also says it" is a really bad argument...

20 Mar

Soooo, where does all this leave us? Well, first of all, thanks very much to anyone who actually got this far. Yesterday (Saturday 19 March), I emailed Johann Hari and Ben Goldacre, reiterating my points. I could paraphrase, but here's the complete email:

Good afternoon to you both

I guess there's a very good chance that this email will never be read (fair enough, you're both very busy people and must get a lot of unsolicited correspondence), but I live in hope as I still think what I'm asking for is actually very simple and reasonable, and hopefully resonates with at least one of you.

The below article was posted on The Independent website on Friday 18 February:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-get-bishops-out-of-our-lawmaking-2218130.html

It includes the following quote:

In 1965, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury scorned the people who were campaigning for nuclear-armed countries to step back from the brink, on the grounds that "a nuclear war would involve nothing more than the transition of many millions of people into the love of God, only a few years before they were going to find it anyway".

I find this quote quite astonishing, outrageous and absolutely heinous. But understandably my reaction straight after thinking wow, that's incredible, is to then think right, well it would have been nice if it was referenced but a quick google should provide references aplenty. It was only 46 years ago after all, and there must have been some reaction at the time.

Oh, and before I go any further, I should probably 'fess up and declare that I believe in God. But painting me as a religious fundamentalist would be something of a stretch (I'd have to start going to church for starters).

Thanks to google, I now know that the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1965 was Michael Ramsey:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/887

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ramsey

Seems like a decent enough bloke:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDD133EF930A15757C0A96E948260

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/24/obituaries/lord-ramsey-83-dies-in-britain-former-archbishop-of-canterbury.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And he's dead, obviously. So he can't defend himself.

So, how about my efforts to google the actual quote... well, I admit I am not exactly an investigative journalist, but all I've managed to find are lots of links back to the Independent article, along with the below:

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26792

It's long, but here's the relevant bit:

Christopher Hitchens: Who said the following -- just to give you a random quotation -- “A nuclear war would involve nothing more than the transition of many millions of people into the love of God, only a few years before they were going to find it anyway.”  Who said this?  Want to guess?  You would if you were asked to.  If you were given it as a blank text, it would be Rafsanjani on a bad day.  Right?  Or Rabbi Kahane, perhaps,  yearning for Armageddon. It’s the Archbishop of Canterbury, in about 1965, the leader of the mildest and most mediocre and sheep-like Christian group of all, the Episcopalian.  Rightly do they call themselves a flock; people who actually want to be called sheep. Well, they look like it, too.

I've also been told that it's in Christopher Hitchens' book God Is Not Great. I've bought and read the book (so's one of my housemates - don't worry, he's an atheist), but can't find the quote. The book has a helpful index and reference section at the back - it's not in either.

So this is my question. If a journalist voluntarily decides to include a quote in an article, do they have a duty to source and verify that quote? Including that information within the article would of course save all the additional effort that others have to go to find it, but when they're asked outright for an actual verified source, shouldn't they be able to produce that quickly and easily?

And finally, before I leave you both in peace, is the fact that someone else also claims that the Archbishop of Canterbury said it in oooh about 1965 actually a verified source? I don't know whether Archbishop Ramsey said what it's claimed he said about nuclear war, but then I'm not the one claiming that he did. Is it too much to ask for a date, venue, context (let's face it, context can be absolutely crucial), properly documented reference for such a quote?

Any enlightenment would be much appreciated, including whether I am asking too much and being unreasonable.

Yours sincerely

Chris Mason

P.S. Believe it or not, it's not about religion or atheism for me. It's about a dead guy having a truly despicable quote attributed to him, for which I am still waiting to see any actual proper evidence/proof.

Just to make clear one last time, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1965 may have said something that I find absolutely despicable, but I want to know that he did before I judge him. Is that wrong?

I also want journalists to take responsibility for including primary sources in their articles. Is that wrong?

And finally, I want journalists to do more than just re-quote things that someone else claims was said, without any evidence or proof. Is that wrong?

Goodnight journalism, wherever you are

Chris