As I write elsewhere in Crikey today, a successful and clever hoax has been played on Keith Windschuttle and Quadrant magazine.
Depending on how long the silly season is this year, I imagine this story might run for a while — and in the longer term become part of the minor academic tradition that sees books and PhD theses written on the swelling tradition of Australian literary hoaxes and frauds (Demidenko, Ern Malley, Norma Khouri). There is a nice point to be made about the difference between a hoax and a fraud, about which more later.
But in the meantime, I thought it would be as well to say a few words about how this story came to me.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I am not the hoaxer. Nor is it a member of my family. Nor is it anyone at Crikey. Apart from this, I do not intend to say anything about who the hoaxer is, or isn’t, since even ruling people out can inadvertently narrow the field, as others have discovered before me.
The identity of the hoaxer is known to only a very small circle. It is the hoaxer’s intention to remain anonymous. He does not want notoriety. (I’m going to refer to the hoaxer as “him” and “he”, but no conclusions as to gender should be drawn from that). He did want to make a point.
And I should also say here that the editorial team at Crikey don’t know who the hoaxer is either.
I have not been a party to the hoaxing of Windschuttle. I first heard that this was in process three weeks ago — after Windschuttle had accepted the article in question. Nevertheless I agreed to accept the material Crikey has published today on the condition that I kept the identity of the hoaxer a secret, and on condition I did not publish until the relevant issue of Quadrant was out.
I know that most people who are interested will be taking this as rich cultural entertainment, but at the risk of being unbearably po-faced, I thought it would be fitting to say a bit about why I have done as I have done. Given that I write about media, and criticise journalists, I am aware of glass castles and stone throwers. Best get my oar in first.
Besides, sad though it may be, I find this kind of thing interesting — the ethics of it — and it is as well to discuss such things openly. Those can’t quite believe how pathetic that is had better stop reading now.
I know that even the hoaxer is feeling some sympathy for Windschuttle today, and I can certainly understand that. The heat and kitchens principle (as in, if you don’t like it, stay out) is a rough and imprecise mechanism for judging what it is fair to do to public figures. Keith Windschuttle is certainly in the kitchen. He has been a head-kicker in the “culture wars”. He has accused eminent historians of fabrication, and sloppy research, among other things. He is a public figure – a publisher, an ABC Board member and a controversial author. He is not known for his moderation, judiciousness or fairness in dealing with others. Nevertheless he has been deceived. He has been lied to, and by somone who wishes to remain anonymous.
Before going any further I should say that Windschuttle told me moments ago that he will publish a full response, covering both my conduct and that of the hoaxer, on the Quadrant website. I urge people to read it.
To read this story in full –and it’s a blo-dy good read — click through to Margaret Simon’s Crikey blog, The Content Makers. Lively discussion guaranteed.
I have no particular sympathy for Keith but having read the article and his response in Quadrant he has been misled by a particularly virulent hoaxer combining both fact and misrepresentation in one article.
Crikey as a willing participant in this hoax deserves no credit. It appears to be a cheap opportunity for some attention-getting which I would prefer to see achieved by competent journalism rather than undergraduate prank behaviour.
The one positive thing to emerge from this sorry situation is that journalists will probably, for short period of time at least, be more thorough in the checking of references.
Oh rapture ..
I really fail to see what this hoax achieves. It reeks of the sort of self indulgent parlour games you would expect from the Mexican Chattering Classes. Pulling a prank – and this really does feel like an undergraduate prank and not a hoax of Ern Malley proportions – on Quadrant or any other small scale publication achieves/proves what? And this isn’t anywhere near the proportions of Sokal.
A shame too, Margaret, as I had come to expect a better standard of critique of Windschuttle from you. Of all the ways to prove a point about someone a prank is surely the most diminishing for all concerned – especially you. And please stop trying to equate this with Ern Malley, it’s like me claiming the prank calls I used to make to talk radio are on the same level as Orson Welle’s “War of the Worlds” broadcast.
You’ve got to worry when the ‘hoaxer” wants to remain incognito. A bit like that typical “unnamed sources” that journalists want to quote when they cannot or will not verify their reliability. Strike, it could be Steve Vizard!
You’ve got to worry when the ‘hoaxer” wants to remain incognito. A bit like that typical “unnamed sources” that journalists want to quote when they cannot or will not verify their reliability. Strike, it could be Steve Vizard!