Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
Gould and Windschuttle: The fallout
|
I am trying to decide which part of the 24 hours since Crikey published news of the “Sharon Gould” hoax has been the most bizarre. Was it when Helen Dale/Darville/Demidenko emerged to give “Sharon Gould” some advice, and threatened to write more on the affair for, wait for it, Quadrant? “I will make only one suggestion: hoaxer, if you’re reading this, out yourself. I failed to out myself back in the day and the reaction was much worse as a result. People think you’re pulling their chain and unwilling to take responsibility for pulling their chain. I speak from experience.” Was it when a journo rang me to ask if it really was Mark Latham commenting on my blog, The Content Makers? (it isn’t, so far as I know). Is it Keith Windschuttle’s continued suggestions, in the face of my frequent and flat denials, that I am the hoaxer? Or his protestations in the Sydney Morning Herald, that he has not really been hoaxed, because the article was “only 10 to 15 per cent invented”. Or was it the claims that Quadrant has actually published “science” far more dubious than the “Sharon Gould” article, without it being a hoax? Hard to say, and take your pick. The nation’s mainstream media did the story big this morning. Readers can find the links easily enough by themselves. But the fiercer and more interesting debate is taking place on the blogosphere, including, but not only, on my blog. The commentary seems to me evenly divided between those who are delighted at Windschuttle’s discomfit, and those who are horrified by the deception, whether or not they like Windschuttle and his public record. Some people feel both ways. Andrew Norton, editor of the Centre for Independent Studies Policy magazine is highly critical of Crikey in general, and of the publication of the hoax in particular. He also makes the claim that the standards for magazines such as Quadrant and Policy are lower than those for academic journals, and (here’s the extraordinary bit) lower than for daily newspapers! (and lower than for Crikey, I wonder??) He also has some interesting reflections on what Quadrant publishes:
The left-wing Overland magazine, on the other hand, has this to say:
Meanwhile the editor of The Monthly, Sally Warhaft, spoke to me this morning to say (bravely) that they fact check rigorously. “It takes a lot of time and resources, but you just have to do it. I am astonished and gobsmacked that Windschuttle thinks otherwise. There is no excuse.” And Helen Dale/Darville/Demidenko made this shrewd comment on her blog, in addition to her advice for the hoaxer:
The liveliest debate is happening at the left-wing blog Larvatus Prodeo, including contributors asking (in a referral to the infamous Manning Clark controversy) whether Sharon Gould has yet been awarded the Order of Lenin. This Larvatus Prodeo thread also contains other evidence of sloppy sub-editing at Quadrant, including spelling mistakes such as “Memories of Catholic Schoolday’s” and “A Solider’s View of the Iraq War.” Also on this theme — Quadrant’s editing — is Barry Saunders on the international site Counterknowledge:
And Tim Lambert:
And would-be Quadrant contributor Harry Clarke, who had an article rebutting climate change denialists rejected by Windschuttle, now says: “My paper on climate change correcting the climate change denialist drivel Quadrant has been publishing over recent months may not have been rejected as much for its content than because of the lack of judgement of its editor Keith Windschuttle.” Predictably, Greenpeace gets in to the act on the theme of Genetic Modification of food:
Meanwhile I understand that the ABC Board, of which Windschuttle is a member, meets on 19 February. Of course, everyone will have forgotten about all this by then. Won’t they? |
|
|
20 Comments
Margaret slightly misunderstood my comment. Policy has much higher standards than Quadrant, and daily newspapers. Most articles are refereed, and as editor I also check facts and references where I have reason for doubt or when the author is new and I need to establish how careful they are. It is a quarterly magazine with long timelines so there is more opportunity for doing this quality control than for a monthly or daily. While people often disagree with articles, factual errors are very rare, and I would never knowingly publish something that was factually wrong.
I didn’t say Crikey should not have published the hoax story, but for the reasons explained on my blog I don’t think it is as significant as the coverage it has received would suggest.
Here it is again, the Tribal Right’s unbelievable inability to admit a mistake. It’s almost inspiring.
I don’ know Tara. Maybe watching Australia play a cricket team of fraudsters/hoaxers with their faces covered would be entertaining !
I don’t understand why you are making such a big deal out of this. Crikey makes a living publishing lies and half truths.
I still think this whole affair is more of a prank than a hoax in the Malley/Sokal vein - in short, the Malley/Sokal hoaxes was about proving a point, this is more about embaressing an individual. But I’ve got to say the response from Windschuttle has been far more of an eye opener about the man than anything else. It’s a sad state of affairs for anyone of any public profile when Helen Dale/Darville/Demidenko gives you advice that actually makes sense and is worth following.
Ye hath sown, Keith Windscuttlebutt.
To anyone who has looked carefully at what’s going on here, “Gould’s” hoax is not ham-fisted or undergraduate. Firstly, it is troubling that not even the existence of the author of the article was checked before publication. Isn’t this indictment enough? Secondly, it is equally troubling that some people find the article “lucid” and “coherent”. It begins plausibly enough, but if you don’t smell a rat about half way through (and then not check the references!), then you really need to reassess your standards.
I guess that what Gould is trying to show is how easy it is to suck people into a particular point of view, or at least make an argument seem plausible, when it doesn’t challenge their pre-conceived notions. And isn’t this what Windschuttle previously tried to do?
It’s always wonderful to see a manipulative, elitist ideological warrior brought to account, whether he or she is of the loony left or ridiculous right. By the way, does anybody know how many subscriptions Quadrant attracts? Having read a couple of copies, I wonder who on earth would want to subscribe to it.
Ye hath sown, Keith Windscuttlebutt.
Two points come to mind
1) How easy it is too hoodwink the majority of Australians with science (or really pseudoscience). How can we make sense of climate change or anything similar until science is taught properly at schools?
2) Yes Windschuttle was hoodwinked but he has not lied/misrepresented/omitted facts as have the so-called social scientists/historians he criticises
While I appreciate the relish with which Crikey is covering Windschuttle’s hypocrisy and politicised editorial, enough is enough. I fail to see how some washed up right-winger who edits a publication only read by the same is Crikey’s leading story, I’m sure there is far more important news out there.
Marg did real good!
I remember once, many years ago, a wanker academic (name deliberately withheld) attacking Manning Clark on the basis that CM had written that a ship sailed into Jackson Cove at 1.30 p.m. when it was really 2.35 pm (or something like). Therefore, ipso facto, MC was a fraud!
These precious and pretentious little farts must be exposed for the mountebanks that they actually are before the stink becomes unbearable and our nation’s history becomes a rag-tag of superimposed opinion rather than documented fact.
Right wing/Left wing, doesn’t matter. Integrity and ethics do, but.
Watching a self-righteous ideologue exposed for the employment of hypocritical double standards … much more entertaining than the cricket
Does anyone really care???
I’m sorry , but perhaps my trip overseas has opened my eyes to the quite insular nature of the Australian media…good to see Gaza got a mention
Having read the hoax article, and Windschuttle’s response, it would appear that he has been taken in by some mischievous prank which in all seriousness should have been detected by competent editorial journalism.
Notwithstanding this, I believe that Crikey has behaved irresponsibly in this manner, especially as they were aware of the issue before the publication and then lay in wait for a cheap shot.
Whilst journalists as professionals do not always see eye to eye, I would have thought that journalistic professionalism would have overridden the desire for a cheap point at this stage.
I believe that Crikey, which I actively support as alternative journalism, is pandering to its left-wing sycophants and acolytes rather than behaving responsibly as a journalistic channel and I have communicated this information to them separately by e-mail.
I would be surprised if I get any response from them.
I say, Quadrant should bring back Mann. He may have had his biases but he was capable intellectual honesty. Quadrant needs a *real* editor.
It’s simply wonderful to read such a zealot as Windshcuttle ending up the target of a scam that’s shot down his credibility. Isn’t it everyone’s dream to see bigots like KW getting their come-uppence by their own sword? No doubt all the sweeter with the passing of JW Howard’s loathesome government that promoted Windshchuttle’s credibility. Of note to Windschuttle and Howard cronies. When a nation is so deeply p*ssed off about being politcally done over and in this case left with a second grade two-party system it will hit out at those associated with its pain. As Helen Dale, Demidenko, Darville will tell you the slings and arrows of political poison in Australia will seek you out. Windschuttle just got too close.
“Yes Windschuttle was hoodwinked but he has not lied/misrepresented/omitted facts as have the so-called social scientists/historians he criticises”
Any proof of lies Mr/Ms R or are we just parotting Winscuittle’s line?
the total inability to check facts as in this case would get you a failing grade at Uni and the sack from any scholarly journal.
As said I suspect it’s one for the literati, and fair enough, given they make a crust from getting this stuff right or not. True to say it’s confection to displace Gaza and Israel nukes and possible Iran nukes and the who damn mess Cheney and GW have left us in. And thank heaven for little sanity breaks from that too.
And I am quite sure the s/he the hoaxer is not thee, Margaret Simons. I reckon I know. But here’s the thing - it’s totally not the same as the Helen Dale fraudster case. That was genuinely fraud. This was a test because it was self declared a hoax soon after publication.
I’ve a good mind to call Bob Phelps of Genethics and ask him if my guess is right, and no I don’t think it was him. Enjoy your fame Hoaxer you really worked hard for it.
Windschuttle’s claim that only 10 or 15 per cent of the article was inaccurate would have more plausibility if he had let readers know that some of what he was publishing was false. Even more helpful if he had flagged the relevant passages.
Should Quadrant readers now assume that up to 10 to 15 per cent of any article in the magazine is factually wrong? Should Quadrant offer a prize to the reader who can best identify the false claims in each issue?