The Windschuttle hoax - replete with irony

The idea was to provide a space where tribal boundaries softened to some extent. We’ve had some successes, but despite those, I’m sure that the standard of public debate has become more toxic over the last 10 years that we have been in existence.

Recently I wrote a blog piece in response to a tweet by NYU university professor Jay Rosen who suggested people blog because of the inadequacies of the mainstream media who played “safety first”. My post suggested that most people blog for tribal reasons and to establish their identity as part of the group.

This affair tends to reinforce my perception.

What is important is not whether publishers make mistakes or not, but whether authors are diligent and honest in their work. Katherine Wilson wasn’t, and neither are many in the blogosphere and the mainstream.

The problem we have as an intellectual community is that we are too prone to accept what we want to believe. Wilson is right. There is a problem with science reporting in this country, as anyone who has followed the greenhouse debate should know. There is also a problem with reporting in almost every other area with journalists operating on group think. But it is not just journalists, but academics, scientists, politicians and public thinkers.

Whatever Windschuttle’s flaws (and I think some of them are significant) at least he has done the sort of fact-checking that others should have done. He should not be vilified because he has inadvertently made an error in this instance, particularly as the motive for the vilification is not because it is such a large error, but that he has been so effective in fact-checking the claims of others.

Whatever happened to playing the ball, and not the man?