I read voraciously, mainly in print form, and increasingly online and like to think I am a critical reader of what I have in front of me and can tell truth from fiction; now I am not so certain of my abilities in this regard. The Australian and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers today have reported on a hoax perpetrated on Keith Windschuttle, editor of the journal Quadrant (see A., p. 1 & SMH, p. 3, or go to the online editions).
Briefly, Quadrant (www.quadrant.org.au) under Windschuttle's editorship, published a hoax article, Scare campaigns and science reporting by Sharon Gould, in its January-February 2009 print and online issue. The newspapers report that Quadrant was the target of efforts designed to highlight the journal's right-leaning views. All was revealed by the online newsletter, Crikey (www.crikey.com.au/) yesterday. A blog by the anonymous hoaxer detailing the campaign to deceive Quadrant is to be found at the Cirkey blog site (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/crikey/files/2009/01/diary-of-a-hoax.html).
Windschuttle, in his rebuttal of the controversy, makes valid points:
"Any printed or online publication that accepts freelance contributions, as both Quadrant and Crikey do, is vulnerable to the same tactic. All such publications have an obligation to their readers to do a basic job of fact-checking, which Quadrant did in this case. The incidents, authors, publications and institutions in the article in question all checked out accurately. However, there is a point beyond which such sub-editing practices cannot go, especially when dealing with an author’s discussion of the detailed content of several books and their footnotes. There comes a point at which all publishers have to take their authors on trust." (Windschuttle, QED, 6/1/2009, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/01/margaret-simons-and-an-apparent-hoax-on-quadrant).
That's reasonable, however, I would add that basic "fact-checking" should include the author's academic qualifications, and affiliations, referral by the editor to an appropriate expert for comment, particularly if the editor is not familiar with the content or the author. By doing this the editor reduces the risks of this sort of episode occurring. Much embarrassment to Mr. Windschuttle I think.
So, how does all of this effect me? The first thing is be honest: I have read the newspaper stories and then the offending article at Quadrant Online -- if I had read the article without forewarning I would not have picked it as fake. It mixes fact and fiction in a subject I have no expert knowledge in. I depend on a long chain of people being honest and doing their jobs. In spite of pretensions to be widely read I can't be expert in everything I read, yes, I can pick up obvious errors and distortions, and question what I read, however, I must rely on others to watch my back. When I agree with the arguments of the author of a piece I tend to be less critical and more forgiving of error, in short, when I trust I drop my guard. What I can do for myself is to be aware of my own biases and not be too bedazzled by something I like the look of on the page or screen.
The text of the hoax article, minus the footnotes, is available at Quadrant Online (www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/1-2/scare-campaigns-and-science-reporting).
Briefly, Quadrant (www.quadrant.org.au) under Windschuttle's editorship, published a hoax article, Scare campaigns and science reporting by Sharon Gould, in its January-February 2009 print and online issue. The newspapers report that Quadrant was the target of efforts designed to highlight the journal's right-leaning views. All was revealed by the online newsletter, Crikey (www.crikey.com.au/) yesterday. A blog by the anonymous hoaxer detailing the campaign to deceive Quadrant is to be found at the Cirkey blog site (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/crikey/files/2009/01/diary-of-a-hoax.html).
Windschuttle, in his rebuttal of the controversy, makes valid points:
"Any printed or online publication that accepts freelance contributions, as both Quadrant and Crikey do, is vulnerable to the same tactic. All such publications have an obligation to their readers to do a basic job of fact-checking, which Quadrant did in this case. The incidents, authors, publications and institutions in the article in question all checked out accurately. However, there is a point beyond which such sub-editing practices cannot go, especially when dealing with an author’s discussion of the detailed content of several books and their footnotes. There comes a point at which all publishers have to take their authors on trust." (Windschuttle, QED, 6/1/2009, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/01/margaret-simons-and-an-apparent-hoax-on-quadrant).
That's reasonable, however, I would add that basic "fact-checking" should include the author's academic qualifications, and affiliations, referral by the editor to an appropriate expert for comment, particularly if the editor is not familiar with the content or the author. By doing this the editor reduces the risks of this sort of episode occurring. Much embarrassment to Mr. Windschuttle I think.
So, how does all of this effect me? The first thing is be honest: I have read the newspaper stories and then the offending article at Quadrant Online -- if I had read the article without forewarning I would not have picked it as fake. It mixes fact and fiction in a subject I have no expert knowledge in. I depend on a long chain of people being honest and doing their jobs. In spite of pretensions to be widely read I can't be expert in everything I read, yes, I can pick up obvious errors and distortions, and question what I read, however, I must rely on others to watch my back. When I agree with the arguments of the author of a piece I tend to be less critical and more forgiving of error, in short, when I trust I drop my guard. What I can do for myself is to be aware of my own biases and not be too bedazzled by something I like the look of on the page or screen.
The text of the hoax article, minus the footnotes, is available at Quadrant Online (www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/1-2/scare-campaigns-and-science-reporting).
2 comments:
Nice summation of the issues. You write well.
Umm, a link for you
http://www.archaeology.org/news/
Post a Comment