Comments on: Sharon Gould hoax: Quadrant and Wilson respond http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/02/sharon-gould-hoax-quadrant-and-wilson-respond/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:58:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: kayt http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/02/sharon-gould-hoax-quadrant-and-wilson-respond/#comment-16023 kayt Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-16023 Nice story.<br /><br />Just 2 little things.<br /><br />1) You wrote: "The hoax article, published in the January/February issue of Quadrant, argued for the insertion of human genes into food crops." Yes but that wasn't the central thrust of it's argument. It was a point used to illustrate the shallowness of debate about scsince in the Australian public sphere.<br /><br />2)You quote me as saying: “A discussion about how easily sloppy journalism can turn into published copy is probably not in the best interests of media owners intent on culling senior journalists and subeditors from their payrolls,” without my qualifer that that would be a consipratorial kind of interpretation. I added that I thought it was more likely that the media simply didn't fancy soul searching about the quality of science journalism.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />kayt Nice story.

Just 2 little things.

1) You wrote: “The hoax article, published in the January/February issue of Quadrant, argued for the insertion of human genes into food crops.” Yes but that wasn’t the central thrust of it’s argument. It was a point used to illustrate the shallowness of debate about scsince in the Australian public sphere.

2)You quote me as saying: “A discussion about how easily sloppy journalism can turn into published copy is probably not in the best interests of media owners intent on culling senior journalists and subeditors from their payrolls,” without my qualifer that that would be a consipratorial kind of interpretation. I added that I thought it was more likely that the media simply didn’t fancy soul searching about the quality of science journalism.

Cheers,

kayt

]]> By: AGAP http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/02/sharon-gould-hoax-quadrant-and-wilson-respond/#comment-16024 AGAP Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-16024 Surely Katherine Wilson should have at least read the bloody thing before responding to it? Surely Katherine Wilson should have at least read the bloody thing before responding to it?

]]> By: Jeremiah http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/02/sharon-gould-hoax-quadrant-and-wilson-respond/#comment-16025 Jeremiah Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-16025 The hoax and its media coverage said more about typical lefty media dislike of Windschuttle, his predecessor, also an old lefty, PPMcG and Quadrant's characteristic scepticism towards leftish pieties and PC than it does about Quadrant. The only surprise is the failure of KW's defence mechanisms and critical faculties to seize on the untrue, and truly scandalous, allegation that the CSIRO had closed down important research and to follow it up. The artcle was, after all, sensible enough, expressing defensible views and not throwing obvious fallacies or falsehoods in the readers's face. But here's something for Quadrant supporters to laugh about, if some ambivalently. The leading article in that edition by Tim Curtin criticising Garnaut descended into the completely muddled and incomprehensible as a number of knowledgeable scientists confirmed to me. Where were that legion of media luvvies when it required some real knowledge or reasoning power to see what was wrong? As usual, innumerate, ignorant of science and irrationally fashionable in their interests and views. The hoax and its media coverage said more about typical lefty media dislike of Windschuttle, his predecessor, also an old lefty, PPMcG and Quadrant’s characteristic scepticism towards leftish pieties and PC than it does about Quadrant. The only surprise is the failure of KW’s defence mechanisms and critical faculties to seize on the untrue, and truly scandalous, allegation that the CSIRO had closed down important research and to follow it up. The artcle was, after all, sensible enough, expressing defensible views and not throwing obvious fallacies or falsehoods in the readers’s face. But here’s something for Quadrant supporters to laugh about, if some ambivalently. The leading article in that edition by Tim Curtin criticising Garnaut descended into the completely muddled and incomprehensible as a number of knowledgeable scientists confirmed to me. Where were that legion of media luvvies when it required some real knowledge or reasoning power to see what was wrong? As usual, innumerate, ignorant of science and irrationally fashionable in their interests and views.

]]>