Comments on: Gould and Windschuttle: The fallout

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: sean bedlam

sean bedlam — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Here it is again, the Tribal Right’s unbelievable inability to admit a mistake. It’s almost inspiring.

By: Jack

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

I don’ know Tara. Maybe watching Australia play a cricket team of fraudsters/hoaxers with their faces covered would be entertaining !

By: shane e

shane e — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I don’t understand why you are making such a big deal out of this. Crikey makes a living publishing lies and half truths.

By: mcwong

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

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.

By: Clare Ellis

Clare Ellis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Ye hath sown, Keith Windscuttlebutt.

By: KB

KB — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: Hugh McMahon

Hugh McMahon — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Clare Ellis

Clare Ellis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Ye hath sown, Keith Windscuttlebutt.

By: R

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

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

By: Andrew S

Andrew S — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Annie

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

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.

By: Tara Bean

Tara Bean — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Watching a self-righteous ideologue exposed for the employment of hypocritical double standards … much more entertaining than the cricket

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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

By: Greg Angelo

Greg Angelo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Warwick Fry

Warwick Fry — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I say, Quadrant should bring back Mann. He may have had his biases but he was capable intellectual honesty. Quadrant needs a *real* editor.

By: Cathy

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

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.

By: dermot J mCguire

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

“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.

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Clive Hamilton

Clive Hamilton — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?