Last year, the Independent columnist Johann Hari, won the £5000 Martha Gellhorn Prize, which is awarded for journalism 'at the cutting edge' that goes 'against the grain of government spin'.

 

Mr Hari submitted three articles to the judging panel, one of which was headlined 'The Dark Side of Dubai', and appeared in The Independent in April 2009. In his piece, Mr Hari interviewed a selection of Dubai residents, all of whom seemed to say things that confirmed Mr Hari's thesis that Dubai is a society built on 'credit and ecocide, suppression and slavery'. The judges were no doubt impressed that Mr Hari appeared to talk to both the haves and have-nots, and in doing so, constructed a story that revealed startling polarisation and disparity.

 

One of Mr Hari's interviewees was Ahmed al-Atar, who writes a blog on the United Arab Emirates and regional politics. On March 22nd 2009, Mr Hari emailed Ahmed from his Yahoo account, and asked him whether he could interview him over lunch or dinner. "I don't need to disclose your name or identity," Mr Hari wrote, "and I can change any identifying details if you like."

 

Ahmed accepted the request, and Mr Hari wrote up their interview in his piece. I include the interview here:

 

Ahmed al-Atar is a handsome 23-year-old with a neat, trimmed beard, tailored white robes, and rectangular wire-glasses. He speaks perfect American-English, and quickly shows that he knows London, Los Angeles and Paris better than most westerners. Sitting back in his chair in an identikit Starbucks, he announces: "This is the best place in the world to be young! The government pays for your education up to PhD level. You get given a free house when you get married. You get free healthcare, and if it's not good enough here, they pay for you to go abroad. You don't even have to pay for your phone calls. Almost everyone has a maid, a nanny, and a driver. And we never pay any taxes. Don't you wish you were Emirati?"

I try to raise potential objections to this Panglossian summary, but he leans forward and says: "Look – my grandfather woke up every day and he would have to fight to get to the well first to get water. When the wells ran dry, they had to have water delivered by camel. They were always hungry and thirsty and desperate for jobs. He limped all his life, because he there was no medical treatment available when he broke his leg. Now look at us!"

For Emiratis, this is a Santa Claus state, handing out goodies while it makes its money elsewhere: through renting out land to foreigners, soft taxes on them like business and airport charges, and the remaining dribble of oil. Most Emiratis, like Ahmed, work for the government, so they're cushioned from the credit crunch. "I haven't felt any effect at all, and nor have my friends," he says. "Your employment is secure. You will only be fired if you do something incredibly bad." The laws are currently being tightened, to make it even more impossible to sack an Emirati.

Sure, the flooding-in of expats can sometimes be "an eyesore", Ahmed says. "But we see the expats as the price we had to pay for this development. How else could we do it? Nobody wants to go back to the days of the desert, the days before everyone came. We went from being like an African country to having an average income per head of $120,000 a year. And we're supposed to complain?"

He says the lack of political freedom is fine by him. "You'll find it very hard to find an Emirati who doesn't support Sheikh Mohammed." Because they're scared? "No, because we really all support him. He's a great leader. Just look!" He smiles and says: "I'm sure my life is very much like yours. We hang out, have a coffee, go to the movies. You'll be in a Pizza Hut or Nando's in London, and at the same time I'll be in one in Dubai," he says, ordering another latte.

According to Ahmed, this account of their meeting is a gross distortion, and consists of statements that Ahmed says he never made. However, the first problem is the setting, as he says the meeting never took place in a Starbucks, 'identikit' or otherwise. "It was actually a regular hotel café on the beach that was very nice," Ahmed tells me, who adds that Mr Hari never bought him lunch, despite what Ahmed reasonably inferred from Mr Hari's email.

 

The next problem is Ahmed's voice, which Mr Hari seems to state is 'American-English'. "I do not have an American accent," Ahmed claims.

 

And then there are the supposed statements made by Ahmed, many of which he claims to be fabricated. Ahmed emphatically denies that he gave Mr Hari the impression that everybody supported the government, and furthermore, he never said phone calls were free, for the simple reason that they are not. In addition, Ahmed's grandfather did not even break his leg!

 

Ahmed also has problems with the rest of the article. "Several of the people who he interviewed sounded very strange and out of place," he says. "The Filipina waitress at Burger King sounded very strange for a Filipina. I had a Filipina nanny most of my childhood and can speak intelligible Tagalog."

 

In short, according to Ahmed, Mr Hari "did a terrible job". "He is an irresponsible journalist," he says, "who has muddled facts and fabricated things." After the piece appeared, Ahmed called Mr Hari to ask to discuss the article. "He said he was busy, and he'd call me back." Unsurprisingly, Mr Hari never did so.

 

If Ahmed is to be believed, it would seem that Mr Hari has moulded the character of Ahmed to suit his pet theories. Mr Hari went to Dubai seeking to confirm his views rather than to enquire and investigate. As a result, far from presenting Ahmed as a thoughtful character who sees the good and bad in Dubai, Mr Hari portrayed him as an obnoxious rich kid who hangs about Starbucks crowing about his lot.

 

We know that Mr Hari is happy to pass off quotes obtained by other journalists as those obtained by himself. We know that he has been accused of being a “sockpuppet”. We now know something else: Mr Hari appears to put words into people's mouths to satisfy his own worldview.

 

In its way, Mr Hari's writing is as poisonous to the world of journalism as illegal practices such as phone hacking. In order to promote his agenda, Mr Hari takes economies with the truth, and for doing so, he wins prizes. His actions should not be tolerated by his masters or his readers, and he should be stripped of his column and his awards.

UPDATE: I’ve just heard that The Independent has suspended Hari for two months pending an investigation. This is surely a welcome development, although I have yet to hear from the organisers of the Martha Gellhorn Prize.