A Spat with Johann

My dear friend Johann Hari and I have been having a little discussion on Twitter about the death toll in Iraq. It’s a bit like one of those email exchanges pioneered by Prospect magazine, only less intellectual. Anyway, I’ve cleaned it up and turned it round (one of the peculiarities of Twitter being that things are often read in reverse chronological order).

It all started when Johann (right) was unworthily rude about the finest peace-time prime minister of the democratic era:

JH If Tony Blair had given his £4.6m book proceeds to Iraqi civilians, he could have given £4 to the family of each person killed

JR Johann, you know that figure is wrong. Your case is strong enough, tho I don’t agree w it, without such wild exaggeration.

JH No, it’s not wrong. http://alturl.com/hjku2

JH And I’m afraid for somebody who still defends Blair’s claims on Iraqi WMD 2 accuse others of exaggeration is beyond parody

JR That ORB survey has been thoroughly discredited, as you know http://blogs.independent.co.uk/tag/iraq-body-count

JH It’s not discredited just because you say it is. Do you think Alistair Campbell’s dossier is discredited yet?

JR No, it is discredited because Prof Spagat and others say it is and no credible media organisation has touched it since.

JH It fits with the Lancet report, which is taken very seriously. So is the 45 minute dossier still credible in your eyes?

JR No, it doesn’t, and the Lancet report has also been discredited, as you must know. What has the dossier got to do with it?

JH I’m trying to ascertain what the word “discredited” means to you. Do you think the WMD claims and dossier are discredited?

JR Oh, I see. No, they turned out to be wrong.

JH Your standard seems to be “it’s discredited if I disagree with it, and evidence-based if it fits with my world-view.”

JH So are they and the sources they were based on discredited?

JR No, the sources are discredited; the dossier was a serious attempt to present evidence avail at the time. My, how 7 yrs fly

JH Right. So we have a fundamental disagreement about what the word ‘discredited’ means, at the core of this conversation

JH A peer-reviewed study in the world’s leading medical journal is not my idea of “discredited”; a piece of blatant propaganda is

JR “Peer-reviewed” does not mean “suspend all critical faculties”. Further reading http://bit.ly/dtaVPb

Update (I inadvertently gave myself the last word before Johann returned to his keyboard, having failed to complete the reading I set him):

JH Of course it doesn’t. But their very extensive checking & correction process found no errors.

JH I know it’s horribly inconvenient to ur worldview to admit all those people died. It was inconvenient to mine but facts r facts

I expect many minds will have been changed by that illuminating exchange.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye - Breaking views from Independent commentators -

• "Not growing inequality"
• A defence of competition in health care
• Prime Ministers shopping
• Bill will survive; Andrew will not
• Names of Wonder