Neil Harman - any news ?

Armchair · County player

Neil Harman - any news ?

EddietheEagle · County player

Not on a creative writing course by any chance?

Spectator · All-time great

Whatever his failings (and we've gone over those), he is someone who cares (or cared) deeply about tennis - and at least one of whose colleagues has been willing to say on the record that he'd like some mercy to be shown. Jon Wertheim, who was one of the people whose work he had plagiarised and who confronted him with the plagiarism, wrote this a little over a month ago:

I know I speak for many when I say its been profoundly sad to watch this unfold. One takeaway for me: this has sharpened a distinction between abstract and concrete. Presented with this fact pattern in the abstract -- a colleague repeatedly plagiarizes work from others -- I think most of us would be inclined to reach a harsh conclusion. Yet when this happens to someone youve known quite well for many years -- a longtime colleague who owns his mistake with honor and humility -- you hope the decision-makers show some mercy.

www.si.com/tennis/2014/10/01/jon-wertheim-mailbag-tennis-controversies

-- Edited by Spectator on Monday 17th of November 2014 09:37:48 PM

Armchair · County player

I wasn't a fan of Neil's writing style, but I can't imagine how hard it must be to survive after being so publicly exposed when you've made a complete @alls up.

I'm vaguely concerned, I don't imagine that if you're a genuine bloke, and I think (with obvious massive misjudgments) , Neil was, that you'll recover easily from this as an individual.

Very sad to see and I hope he's doing OK.

korriban · Challenger level

I have no sympathy whatsoever. Mr Harman could write very well, and certainly loved tennis. But his weakness was that he loved all the trappings, and clearly started seeing himself as part of the story, best mates with many of the players and even part of the tennis establishment itself.....a sort of one man think tank that the great and the good of the tennis world could confide in or seek advice from, and to some extent this probably started to blindside him to the fact that he was just a journalist and nothing more. No wonder he started to cut corners, given all the other "stuff" he was doing, such as radio, TV, conferences, etc

Neil reminds me of Piers Morgan. Undoubtedly talented, very talented. But not half as talented and influential as they believe they are themselves. And at times borderline insufferable.

-- Edited by korriban on Sunday 23rd of November 2014 12:25:34 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

No sympathy. Year after year he accepted the pennies and prestige associated with the Wimbledon book and widely plagarised.

He didn't have to do it if he couldn't do it properly.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I side with korriban.

I think Spectator shows a kind heart (which is admirable) and, of course, no on actually wishes misery on the guy.

But there is no real difference between copyright theft and ordinary theft. And the scale of Harman's theft was huge, and repeated. And not admitted until caught out.

I note that Wertheim is a forgiving individual (although saying that it is 'sad' is simply true and that he hopes for 'some mercy' is simply humanitarian - neither really alter the situation) but there were many other writers whose work was stolen and they may well have a different, equally valid, view.

Repeatedly copying large chunks of others people's work, without permission and without putting in acknowledgment bylines, does not happen by accident or mistake. And it is especially disgraceful when done by a leader, someone at the very top of a industry where is notoriously difficult to succeed.

EddietheEagle · County player

I contacted him once after the ATP/Agassi crystal meth saga after I'd read an article of his. What bothered me was that we'd had Agassi (and others, not just him) telling us for years that tennis was a drugs-free sport. Agassi in particular had pushing a propaganda line about how effective the drug testing regime in tennis was, which a lot of others, including presumably Harman, either knew or suspected, to be baloney. My thought was that Harman ought to start earning his money for a change and start digging into the issue. While he basically sympathised in private with the line of thinking, he did nothing further and I was left with the distinct impression that his access-all-areas pass meant more to him than assessing the more serious issue of doping which Agassi's unwitting hypocrisy had revealed. This kind of blind-eye, all-is-rosy aspect to tennis is further evidenced in Wimbledon's initial disregard of Harman's plagiarism. They knew about it but carried on selling their opus regardless.

Armchair · County player

Hmm interesting how a passing thought on my part raises so many issues.

I am acutely aware of copyright/plagiarism/usage issues as a, now retired, professional photographer.
But while a total advocate of moral rights and ownership of work, I do know how lightly that is treated by so many of us.
As a musician you might be happy to 'use' an image, as a photographer you might download a music track. It's very easy to assume that ownership and rights only work in one direction - and only when it suits you.

I can assure you I NEVER treat things that way.

But while Harman was a journalist whos articles I rarely enjoyed, there is an issue that if we don't pay for news any more how do these people make their living.

And who now is a tennis correspondent, Jonathan Overend was doing the motor racing today not reporting on Davis Cup.

So while I can see the vilification of Neil ( for his plagiarism) as being totally justified I think many of us are falling into the trap of wanting the same level of journalism that we had when we paid for a newspaper and that income supported the employment of journalists.

Sorry that's not a well thought out rant but I do believe the issue of 'all is free on the internet' raises some questions.

On a train - teensy phone screen - so apologies in advance for literals .

korriban · Challenger level

it's one thing to consume an item without paying the copyright owner for that honour. that's a long running debate. but this is very different - it's about stealing someone else's work, passing it off as one's own in order to receive payment for it. there is no grey area about it, and some of Harman's half excuses are pathetic.