Comments on: How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant

By: Allen Glover

Allen Glover — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As left as I am, I cant help but think of all those poor people living in glass houses.

By: Michael H Goldhaber

Michael H Goldhaber — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Mr. Windschuttle, of whom I have never previously heard, is wrong in suggesting that Sokal’s footnotes were all bogus. In fact they were literally true. Sokal just felt that what he quoted was senseless, which was debatable.

By: Christine Hyde

Christine Hyde — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Quadrant readers are natural sceptics and spoofs are simply time wasted in concoction when there is so much of interest to be explored. As for the Ern Malley hoax, that was perpetuated by two people who did not have the insight to see that even if they wrote gibberish, they were unable to write badly. Shame on them!

Please! There is no wit in this Sharon Gould effort!

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I don’t know much about Quadrant, but I do know this isn’t Ern Malley and that this isn’t a clever “hoax”.
This is odd, and says more about the author than anyone.
It is easy to deceive if this is your goal - just ask the Enron auditors !
I am embarrassed that this is what a Crikey subscription currently offers me - where is Stephen Mayne ?
It brings to mind Brian’s mother’s line: “He isn’t the messiah, he is just a naughty little boy !”

By: Mmm

Mmm — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I already have a name in mind. It looks like a royally executed prank. Whether it really has deeper political consequences I'm really not sure. One for the literati perhaps. By all means enjoy. Something to console oneself as Howard gets his medal of freedom.

Notice how the Toad, to quote a veteran wonk, wraps himself in the flag even at this dreadful time. A bit like Henderson airbrushing perhaps a million deaths and saying history still has to judge. Like yeah we did in the street in Sydney 2003 with 250,000 -500,000 rally unprecedented in my time saying No War in Iraq.

As if the Australian people agreed with him and he still says it's a medal in our name. What a nerve the guy has. Is Windshuttle the Toad's toadlet as it were still on the ABC Board?

By: Jenny L

Jenny L — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Solipsistic to the core Windschuttle will comfort himself with denial and plod on as before. Nothing will shift him or his factions from their blinkered view of being tailors of truth. Which is a shame because if Keith Windschuttle is so genuinely committed to transparency he should be thankful for his exposure as a human being warts and all. What a shame Windshuttle’s reality check has come this late in his career.

By: Miss Viv

Miss Viv — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Although this article seemingly exposed a hoax article, I am sure most of you wouldnt be surprised by the fact that the basis of the article "the insertion of human genes in to food crops, insects and livestock" is a topic that is very real and based on fact. Scientists have be actively polluting of our food sources with "modified genes" for quite awhile now. Even mutating species is not above the "ethics" of scientists in this day an age.
So what exactly about the bogus article doesnt ring true? The fake references?
I can guarantee that somewhere out there, there is a few scientists mixing up a genetic cocktail waiting for the opportunity to be legally able to add these human "modified" genes to our prepackaged food and food sources.
Twenty years ago most of us would never have thought that a strain of wheat would have the capabilities of being able to produce a "natural" toxin that would kill all insects on touch. We also would not have thought that it was possible to create a breed of fish that glowed in the dark, thanks to a little gene splicing with jelly fish DNA.
What makes anyone think that we dont already have human DNA implanted into our food sources already?
Science has been know to make more than a few mistakes on an environmental stage, cane toads for one.
Although this was a hoax article I believe there is information within the article that sets my alarms off.
I dont care if it was fake to payout Windschuttle, I do believe that there are many people out there wanting to further modify out food sources and it scares me.
If human DNA is spliced into our food "soylent green is people" will no longer be a classic film quote but our reality.

By: J Laws

J Laws — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What on earth are you challenging JohnG? Windschuttle has admitted he got stung by a hoaxster as you try to tell us something else. Keith Windschuttle was done over professionally on Keith W’s own admission and you p*ss into the wind about the reporter being part of a leftist plot. If that’s not contrary to your demands for a ‘different media’ (I assume the biased right wing press to which we’re so accustomed) I’m stuffed.

By: Sam Collyer

Sam Collyer — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Mr Windschuttle made a mistake, let's be clear. But the fact that Crikey has hung another right wing figure out to dry is hardly a news flash. The next question here is how Crikey, in the spirit of demonstrating its commitment to fairness, is progressing in its pursuit of those of alternative political/philosophical persuasions. In all my time reading Crikey, I can't recall similar journalistic doggedness in relation to someone who was demonstrably left-wing. It makes one recall Smaller Fish to Fry, that wonderfully-cutting episode of Frontline where Mike Moore keeps missing the bigger stories. That said, clearly it's only people with the surnames Akerman, Bolt, Devine and Albrechtsen that make such unprofessional errors warranting such a detailed investigation. Thank you for keeping us all informed.

By: Stephen Rowley

Stephen Rowley — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I don’t get it. I’m no fan of Windschuttle by a long stretch - on the contrary - but the article “Sharon Gould” submitted is a completely pointless hoax. There isn’t anything in it that makes Windschuttle foolish for publishing it: having read through it, it’s a perfectly lucid, well-written piece. It’s not even virulently right wing. Perhaps some footnotes don’t check out, but even there, most are correct. So what’s the point being made against Windschuttle: that he doesn’t check every footnote? Wow. Perhaps a peer-reviewed academic journal should feel foolish for publishing this, and not picking up the fact that the CSIRO research didn’t exist, but it seems petty in the extreme to suggest Quadrant should have checked every reference. Slipping a few errors and bodgy footnotes into an otherwise completely coherent article is not what the Sokal hoax was all about.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“So what’s the point being made against Windschuttle: that he doesn’t check every footnote? Wow.”

Yes, why should Keith Windschuttle, historian and editor, be checking sources and footnotes??

Crikey is just being meeeeeeeeeeaan.

By: Dave Clancy

Dave Clancy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I agree totally with Stephen Rowley and disagree with most of the gloating toadies on this page and elsewhere. The article was almost all correct. Windschuttle is a nasty-minded person but what a pointless waste of time this exercise was. It exposes far more the pettiness and stupidity of the author, and in this case, of Crikey, rather than of the editor. Anyone who has any degree of scientific literacy in the area will tell you the same.

By: Richard Farmer

Richard Farmer — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

A magnificent yarn!

By: Mark Duffett

Mark Duffett — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Dead right, Stephen Rowley and Dave Clancy. “…empirical research as being divorced from social and political consequences, and therefore beyond question”…what a ridiculous, stupid and ignorant misrepresentation.

By: Margaret Simons

Margaret Simons — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Give me a break, Sam. If a hoaxer had taken down a lefty, and approached me with the story, all other things being equal I would have behaved in exactly the same way.

By: Cathy

Cathy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I’ve got one word to say to Keith Windschuttle - well-earned Karma.

By: Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

Dr Harvey M Tarvydas — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Windschuttle isn't accountable for quality of science. He doesn't even pretend to be a scientist.
I am a scientist and have serious problems with professionals purporting to have scientific ability but have so little that they are guided by the wisdom that tells them my claims are 'to good to be true' ‘no one like me could be so far ahead of the game’ (I have been used to being way far ahead of the game since I was 14) that they call me a hoax with the comfort of that wisdom.
Even these horrible experiences contribute quality and dimension to my wisdom.
Wisdom is what Windschuttle can demonstrate and for which he can be accountable if he claims such. If babbling nonsense makes him popular he is no more accountable than the sexy teenage girl in a mini-skirt believing she is ‘hot’ or others believing she must be an easy poke.
Wisdom belongs to the wise we should stop trying to give it away to anybody that stands in-line with their hand out.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Journalistic doggedness? A cunning hoax?

Come on people — this is undergraduate foolery! If I had based a history essay on the work of David Irving I would have been failed and rightly so. The whole point of Quadrant is that it considers itself above the slings and arrows of the Left. That they should fall for something so obvious proves that their ‘critique’ is nothing but a pose. We rely on Crikey, and we should be able to rely on Quadrant, to constantly question their own platform and preconceptions. That’s the difference between paid journalism and a self-referential-congratulatory blog chosen at random from the internet!

By: Kate Jackson

Kate Jackson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

You would think the preliminary queries of an editor reviewing articles for publication would be: who is the author, what other works have they produced and what are the credentials. Me thinks Quadrant might be short on contributors and skimped for editorial talent with Windschuttle elevated to an administrative role beyond his ability.

By: JohnG

JohnG — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The truth means nothing to Crikey. Your extreme left wing tendencies have been exposed. How about giving the world the truth instead of left wing spin. You have a chance to make a difference and you are frittering it away. Nearly as bad as ‘Get Up’

By: Cheese

Cheese — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Poor Keith, hoist on your own ideological petard. Suffer, you fraudulent fascist bastard.

By: Euan

Euan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

it couldn’t have happened to a nicer old bastard! Crickey you have made my day. Somebody had better send him the employment section.

By: Christina

Christina — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What on earth is going on? I understand that Windschuttle exposed historians who wrote works under their own name without doing the requisite research and using dubious sources. How does this equate to a dodgy article under someone else’s authorship being slipped into Quadrant - notwithstanding duty of care by the magazine? My moral compass must be from another universe.
Christina.