It is hard to know how to feel about the fact that I am getting both brickbats and bouquets that don’t belong to me. Those who are horrified at the deception involved in the Windschuttle hoax are blaming me, presumably because they can’t get to the hoaxer himself,* or because they think I shouldn’t have given the fact of the hoax publicity, or “sat on” the information for three weeks. (Hard to square those two things. Should I have said nothing, or should I have said something sooner?)
Those who are delighted by the whole thing are giving me credit.
Hey ho, swings and roundabouts. Today in the Crikey e-mail the hoaxer will once again speak for themselves.
In this morning’s media, Windschuttle continues to suggest that I am the “Sharon Gould” hoaxer, despite my denials. The basis for this seems to be that he thinks I know too much, and have checked the article too thoroughly, to be merely a reporter on the matter. Windschuttle writes:
In her discussion with me, Simons revealed a detailed knowledge of the article’s content. She said she knew that all the authors, publications, institutions and controversies discussed were genuine, but that the content was not. When I pointed out that some of the content was actually true, such as the reference to Andrew Wakefield’s paper on the MMR scare, she admitted that while some of the content was true, other aspects of it were untrue. When I asked her how much was true and how much was false, she said she would tally up a list and email it to me this morning. I found it surprising that Simons, if she was simply a journalist reporting what someone else had done, could offer to produce such a detailed analysis in such a short time. But perhaps it is not so surprising after all. Although not a scientist herself, Simons is a free-lance journalist and sometime lecturer at Swinburne Institute of Technology. She is the author of a book on the Hindmarsh Island Affair which argued, against the evidence of a Royal Commission into the issue, that there really was ‘secret women’s business’ among the local Aborigines. She obviously knows how to produce apparently credible scholarly citations, and has a vivid imagination.
Windschuttle also claims that when I rang him yesterday morning I “triumphantly” announced the fact of the hoax. I don’t think I was triumphant at all. It was always going to be a difficult conversation. I played it as straight as I could. Windschuttle was driving at the time, was naturally surprised, and asked for me to e-mail more details before he would respond. Which is fair enough. When we spoke at greater length later he was angry, and among other things, threatening, saying I had not got “what you think you have got” and that the whole thing would rebound on me. I’ll let you all know if that happens.
As for the state of my knowledge on the article, he doesn’t seem to have taken account of the fact that I have had all the material for three weeks. In that time I have read the article several times, checked many of the facts and footnotes for myself as well as speaking many times to the hoaxer, and read up on hoaxes past, including Sokal and Malley. I think this comes under the heading of the minimum level of research necessary in breaking a story of this kind.
Windschuttle also raises my 2003 book on the Hindmarsh Island affair, The Meeting of the Waters as though that publication somehow counts against my credibility. I have no desire to re-open that debate, but I suspect others will do so.
The book made enemies of those who had advanced the allegation that Aboriginal women had fabricated a story to gain advantage. Among these people are Christopher Pearson, Ron Brunton and Piers Akerman. It would be surprising if some of them don’t take a swipe at me over the next few days, even though Hindmarsh has nothing to do with the “Sharon Gould” affair.
My book concludes, and demonstrates through well referenced archival research (real footnotes!) and interviews with key players on all sides, that the Royal Commission on the Hindmarsh Island affair was fatally flawed, and that its conclusion that the Aboriginal women had fabricated their story was not supported by the evidence. I am not alone in thinking this. The Federal Court came to much the same conclusion in this judgement. My book won the Queensland Premier’s Literary Award for non-fiction, and was shortlisted for other awards as well. It was favourably reviewed in (refereed) anthropological and legal academic journals. Having read the book, the leading anthropologist Peter Sutton said:
“The additional evidence and the way you hang it all together makes me less
fence-sitting…The balance of probabilities lies with evidence suggesting jealously
guarded fragmentary parts of maybe several old traditions, whose custodians
tended to treat such knowledge as private or family property, emerging in
spite of competitive politics between individuals and factions. I still
allow that aspects of these beliefs may have been embellished or given
greater weight than before, and some may even have been recent inventions,
but the pattern and the matches with earlier material on some key strands
makes the overall fabrication theory insupportable.”
Since then, Sutton has himself uncovered further archival evidence that supports the Aboriginal women’s original claims, and which has strengthened his opinion that the Royal Commission got it wrong, and the ABoriginal women were probably telling the truth. Sutton, I might point out, is not known as a bleeding heart lefty.
Anyway. It was a long time ago, and has nothing to do with present controversy. If anyone is really interested, the details of a debate I conducted on the matter with Ron Brunton can be found on the Sydney Institute website here. (sadly, you have to pay to see the whole thing). And a good google will turn up elements of the controversy, including from those who criticised the book.
*No conclusions either way should be drawn from the fact that I use the male pronoun here.
8 Comments
Give us more, give this more news time PUHHHLEEEAAASSSSEEEE!
I know this isn’t quite up there with the US election in terms of importance, but I am curious if the decision to hold off for three weeks was yours alone or that of Crikey editor Jonathan Green?
I ask, because last year he was rather disapproving of Newsweek’s decision to honour its (similar) commitments to keep details of behind-the-scenes access to Sarah Palin off the record until after the election. The link is here: http://tinyurl.com/9ompdj .
At the time he observed: “That’s not a decision that any journalist worth their salt should take.” He added that if breaking a promise led to ostracism or opprobium for the journalist, “that is a price the ought in any conscience be paid for revealing the truth.”
As it happens, I don’t agree. You made a commitment, and kept your word – that’s what journalists do, and is the only professional thing to do. I wonder if Jonathan has changed his mind about that now too?
Cheers,
Tim
Hi Tim, No, its not up there with the US election, and I do think that is a relevant factor. Also, my holding off did not change the outcome of the hoax. Windschuttle had already accepted the article and Quadrant was on its way to the printers when I found out about it. The only thing my decision affected was how and when the fact of the hoax was publicised. Had my holding off been likely to affect the course of events, the ethical issues would have been diffferent and I think my decision would have been different. The hoaxer wanted me to hold off until Quadrant was out. I agreed to receive the information on that basis – but with the understanding that we would publish as soon as possible after that. And all this was my decision, not Jonathan’s, although I don’t think he disagrees with my reasoning. He is well able to speak for himself.
Fair point. Having once been hoaxed myself (and learning about it the day before we hit the streets), in some ways, it makes life easier for the editor to only find out afterwards. It saves a lot of stress on having to decide whether to pulp and reprint!
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.
Thanks Margaret for exposing this naughty hoax and explaining clearly what Mr. Windschuttle replies to you have been.
I must say I’m surprised that Mr. Windschuttle did not thank you profusely for bringing it to his attention. Imagine if you’d said nothing and some overseas newspaper picked it up and it went all around the world! Gosh he’d look double plus stupid wouldn’t he?
Now that it’s been nipped in the bud I’m sure nobody overseas will care. Mmm -I bet that’s what Mr. Windshuttle is hoping too. It’s a pity he chose to bring your 2003 book up, as it just clouds the issue at hand. It’s not a good modus operandi for anyone wishing to be seen as a clear-headed and sharp-sighted. In fact it paints the rather opposite picture of a muddle-headed academic with his eye off the ball and his mind on lost past battles. This may have been the very problem that resulted in Mr. Windschuttle publishing Ms Wilson’s article.
Mr andygeorge you seem a little TOO hot under the collar. Maybe you should wear a tank-top. I mean -comparing a sweet prank published in a little-read zine to murder.
Next thing you’ll hear a fart on a tram and think a bomb has gone off! Puh-lease. And when is laughter hate? Oh yes that’s right -in Orwell’s ‘1984′
Sometimes I’m slow.
I never connected this blog and you the author Margaret Simons with the book “Meeting of the Waters” which sits on my bookshelf.
Congratulations on a book that needed to be written.
Thank you fredex.