Comments on: The Windschuttle hoax kicks on

By: Justy

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

Oh Give it a break. This grand self praise on how this hoax was carried out,plus Windshuttles reply is way over the top. Its about time Crikey stopped this nonsense and got on with some real reporting.
If it continues it will be just one reason why I will not be renewing my subscription .Grow up the lot of you and start some real journalism.

By: dr j

dr j — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“Like a brick thrown into a pond, the Quadrant hoax continues to send ripples encompassing a widening circle of intellectual Australia.”
For goodness sakes, give me a break.
The vast majority of those involved in the apparently breathless debate and commentary are no more than self-described “intellectuals”. Pissants and solopsistic retards may be more accurate. Wouldn’t know an intellectual if anyone of them fell over one.
And as for Windschuttle, another pathetic little self-publicist. Ignore the prat.

By: Tom McLoughlin

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

I read Graham Young's stuffy piece. It was notable for condescension, high on assertion and weak on evidence to argue Wilson's article was 'badly written' - a meaningless criticism of her anyway because it just compounded the strength of the hoax. He was very tendentious, wrong about the science (human genes arguably could be used in crops (ever heard of fish genes in strawberries?) and frankly sounded tired. Lauding neutrality. When did the character bypass become a virtue?

It was thoughtful the way a preacher gives a requiem. Wilson on the other bespeaks energy and wit.

Then there are the dopey comments, not just Young above, on Margaret's string about 'the Big Media are so much more objective' and 'play the ball' and implicity polite. Oh for God sake. How naive. Some of you folks need to take the Jurisprudence final year law unit at ANU in 1989 that I greatly enjoyed. Chapter and verse on why judges, let alone journalists, cannot divorce themselves from their socio economic conditioning and biases. Journalists are what? Objective? Oh please.

I watched movie Network with Peter Finch yesterday. Great stuff. As satire/drama of the institution of television news it was too real. Wilson just put the con in conservative, and they don't like it. How totally unsurprising.

By: Mad Jim McAuley

Mad Jim McAuley — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The fact that Windschuttle has left a comment up on the Quadrant website suggesting that Simons and Crikey were part of the construction of the hoax, rather than being made aware of it after the fact, is now clearly libellous - given Simons's, Crikey's, and now Katherine Wilson's repeated denial of the charge.

So, effectively, Quadrant is using Australia Council funding to falsely attack journalists' reputations.

Ironic, really. For decades Windschuttle has been the most litigous person around with regards to libel. Every small magazine editor has received a legal letter from Keith at some point or other, over allegations that, on viewing the material in question, struck one as frankly paranoid. These letters increased in frequency when Windschuttle married well. Recipients of these letters included, erm, Quadrant.

Though these things rarely proceeded, they had the desired effect - small magazines can't afford to even defend against a libel writ, let alone lose one.

I suspect Simons is the non-suing type on grounds of principal and cost. Nevertheless, she should consider her options here. Windschuttle is a blustering bully, who employs - see Fabrication of Aboriginal History Vol 1 and only - the tactic of the big lie.

As can be seen from the unusually harsh reporting by the Australian on the matter, many on the right are hanging him out to dry (the Oz has never forgiven him for filing a full page oped piece about the upcoming visit of the former Italian radical Toni Negri - days after Negri had cancelled the visit.

Surely there's an angle out there to stump Simons the fifty grand needed to call Quadrant on this disinfo?

Alternatively someone should tell the head of the Australia Council Literature Board -about this abuse of funding - bloke named Saluzsinsky. Wonder if he's any relation to the Saluzsinsky who is a past (and present?) member of the Quadrant board?

Great times. Great friends. Great beef.

By: roger gestetner

roger gestetner — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

i couldn’t give a rat’s about the politics: it’s the incompetence of windschuttle the editor that is extraordinary. i’d have been facing the boot even as a cadet for such a sorry performance.

By: C W Williams

C W Williams — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Ho Hum! Who was it who said (approximately) that the reason arguments between academics are so venomous is that the issues are so trivial? Autobouginage all round!