He's either taking the piss because he must be aware he researches fuckall and gets caught out nigh-on every week with some clanger or other, or he really believes his own hype now.
I love how the re-employment of the discredited Johann Hari (a mistake for sure, I agree with Littlejohn there) and the Guardian reporting what WikiLeaks released (but not actually being responsible for the leaks or the publication of material in itself) is being passed off as a "balance" for everything morally bankrupt that the red tops have done, as if it somehow makes it alright and/or that they now shouldn't report the sleazy practices of the tabloids. Yes, the broadsheets have made and do make mistakes in judgment too. But two wrongs don't make everything alright, and if anything, it's MORE evidence more press regulation is needed, not less. And it's not really on the same scale, is it? A review of the transcripts of the Leveson inquiry show just how morally bankrupt the tabloid owners, journalists and editors are - much of their behaviour is simply disgusting. So please don't suggest that just because the Indy foolishly re-hires someone that we should now ignore everything else.
- CM Burns, Windscale, 13/1/2012 9:06
Maybe the bit about Hari is throwing the mailites off, but it's in the green and in the top rated batch - and everything else is fawning and/or ranting.