More Follow Ups on Hoax…

8 Comments

1. delperro
   Posted January 6, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

   I notice that she has taken the “poor Mr Windschuttle” line. She totally ignores the GOLD of the story and focuses on the conflict between your good self and the claims of of Windschuttle. Oh well looks like the major papers will again be stealing articles from Crikey.
   To the death of major papers and the onset of fine journalism in publications like Crikey.

2. Trevor Cook
   Posted January 6, 2009 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

   It’s great following this stuff as it happens too Margaret, thanks for the updates – great use of the blog!

3. geoff fox
   Posted January 7, 2009 at 1:13 am | Permalink

   I DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF TIME FOR THE WORK OF WINDSCHUTTLE

   but i have less time for smug deliberate dishonesty used to hurt and embarass other people; truth alone is enough to discount his work; the use of dishonesty is appalling

   scholarship and publication of literary magazines are thankless tasks and hoaxes only make the pursuit of truth harder

   freedom of speech is not the right to lie

   freedom of speech only works if those who speak are able to be held accountable for what they say

   do we really what a world where those who are able to find “clever” ways to embarass others are able to do so anonymously?

   anyone who speaks publicly to the detriment of others should not be able to hide behind anonymity

   any accused deserves the right to face their accuser

   my crikey subscrition is up for renewal soon

   margaret simon’s phrase “a successful and clever hoax” is so full of disrespect for truth that my decision not to renew is made very easy

4. Margaret Simons
   Posted January 7, 2009 at 7:35 am | Permalink

   Geoff, what you do with you hard earned is up to you, but I think you are shooting the messenger here. When the story came to me, the hoax article had already been accepted, and praised, by Windschuttle. The hoaxer was considering ways of making the fact of the hoax public. Are you suggesting that, presented with a story that a hoax like this has been carried out, Crikey (and I) should not publish this story? As for successful and clever, it is successful in that the hoaxer achieved his aims. Clever – well I think that is a fair description too. Honest, courageous, justified? Perhaps not. Did you read my earlier post on this? I said at the outset that Windschuttle had been lied to, and by someone who wished to remain anonymous, and that this raised ethical issues. I also explained why I acted as I did.

5. sceptic
   Posted January 7, 2009 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

   In sport we say that you should ‘play the ball, not the man’. An example of this is where a player concentrating on the passage of play is hit with a roundhouse blow by someone outside his line of sight.
   It is not necessary to comment on the type of character that engages in this sort of cowardly act.
   What is worrying is the frequency with which this type of thing happens in the areas of both journalism and academia.
   The hoax on Keith Windschuttle had no other purpose than to target the man, by engaging in deliberately disguised mendacity. What kind of sad people do this sort of thing?
   As for Margaret Simons whingeing about ’shooting the messenger’, this is rich given that she knew it was a hoax (or was it fraud?), and she became a collaborator by delaying publication.

6. Margaret Simons
   Posted January 7, 2009 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

   Sceptic. What is it that you think I should have done? Approached by the hoaxer, who had already had their article accepted by Windschuttle, should I have: published immediately, in breach of my agreement with the hoaxer? Published nothing at any time (thus letting a lie remain on the public record). Or delayed publicaton until some unspecified time? I published as soon as I was able, without going back on my word. Read my first post on this matter for a fuller explanation.

7. Tom McLoughlin
   Posted January 7, 2009 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

   No, it’s fine. They pushed an integrity test because he has made a career out of attacking the provenance of other people’s research. What is up for debate is how much effort should he have reasonably made in checking the hoax.

   Not googling the author. Mmm. That’s a killer line top of page 1 of The Australian today. And what MS should I do if I think I know who it is and can prove/argue it circumstantially? Nothing I presume. I reckon it would send my own website readership up a bit but it’s probably not very ethical to guess out loud.

8. andy george
   Posted January 8, 2009 at 9:49 am | Permalink

   Re the fraud perpetrated on Keith Windschuttle and Quadrant here’s my assessment, to counter the perfervid lefty analysis of Margaret Simons and the Crikey gang.

   1. Looking at the fraudulent article it looks to me like the fraudster went to a lot of trouble to confect this bonbon. So I’m not sure if many editors of journals would have checked every citation to uncover the lie buried deep within. Would the ABC? Would Crikey with its myriad suspect contributors spouting their partial points of view? Did the climate change errors perpetrated by Hanson get checked before publication such as the recent temperature fraud/error re Russian temperatures, late in 2008?
   2. Here Simons/Crikey et al are gloating over a fraud perpetrated against a target and taking the sides of the fraudster. Is Simons a supporter of Norma Khoury, Helen Demidenko’s fictional perpetration, or perhaps of Bernard Madoff or the Project Wickenby tax avoiders who falsify their records to evade tax? Is Simons a supporter of crimes generally or only against “people not like us.”
   3. The ethics of this stinks from a journalistic sense also. Would a journalist with knowing of an upcoming murder, or a Bernard Madoff scam, or Bilal Skaf’s plans that day in Sydney, wait until it’s done to respect the source? Would Simon s hold back an expose of Tony Mokbel or HIH or Skase to enjoy it being perpetrated?
   4. I think that Windschuttle should take comfort from this. After all he exposed the scientific frauds perpetrated by various famous historians in the aboriginal genocide fraud. This should if anything confirm his desire to expose fraud and confirm that we are all disadvantaged by fraud. It should also teach him to have a science editor to head off such frauds.
   5. Re the reports of Robert Manne laughing about this, nothing would surpriser me from that bilious hating quarter.

   So, Simons and Crikey, sit down and think about the larger issues involved before you get moist and hot about the pleasure you’ve just had watching an assisting in an unethical act.

   And by the way, comments to this site about the ‘value’ of Crikey in this affair -yes you Delperro – miss that it was probably leaked to Crikey as being ‘people like us” without any journalistic ethical misgivings in this issue