Yes, I found a cricket angle. Sad but true. The graphic at left was generated by the genius that is Tony the Teacher over at the After Grog Blog (and do follow the link; a beautiful funny awaits you there, quite apart from the picture). The cricketing point that Tony and his commenters make helps to make one of my points for me, too. As ‘Pedro the Ignorant’ observes:
It is one of life’s greatest regrets that this slug is still in a Test side, allegedly calling himself a bowler, and claiming world records.
I have loved the game of cricket all my life, everything good about it, the traditions, the gentlemanly behaviour on the field, the sportsmanship, in fact everything incorporated into that wonderful old world saying; ‘That’s not quite cricket, old chap’.
Mongrels like Hanse Cronje and the google eyed chucker have shit on the game, and cowardly administrators have kissed the arse of the media moguls, the bookies and the money grubbing ‘entrepreneurs’ who now claim to own the ‘franchise’.
Well, fvck your ‘franchise’ you grubs. You took a unique and wonderful game that was once a metaphor for a way to live your life, and turned into just another dollar spinning exercise.
History will not look kindly on you, you wreckers. Easy to tear a long standing tradition down, isn’t it?
Homer Paxton — who umpires local school games — follows up with this observation:
It is to the eternal disgrace that he’s allowed to ‘bowl’.
However, when I played I did get into trouble when I called chuckers. I found umpires did not want to know about it.
I still get into trouble now when kiddies chuck. Normally it is simply getting used to bowling but there are still some who simply chuck and their ‘coaches’ turn a blind eye to it.
That, friends and neighbours, is damage. In some respects, the game of cricket will never be the same. And damage is what matters when we come to consider the Company of Hoaxers (not Fraudsters), and Katherine Wilson’s latest in the genre.
At various places around Ozblogistan (enumerated in considerable detail in my earlier post on the topic), people have been calling Katherine Wilson a fraud. Or they’ve been calling Ern Malley a fraud. Or Sokal. Or me. Or whoever else hoaxy happens to take their fancy at that point. At one point Wilson herself started flicking the ‘fraud’ word about — evidence of both ignorance and schoolgirlish naivete on her part.
The labelling is ideological in origin, the rule of thumb being ‘hoax on you, but fraud on me’. Sokal, by this metric, is a hoaxer to a righty, but a fraudster to a lefty. Wilson is a fraudster to a righty, but a hoaxer to a lefty. And so on down the line.
This will not wash.
‘Fraud’ is a legal term of art, one of the most serious allegations in the book. It is narrowly confined, requires an impressive bank of evidence across multiple elements, and — crucially — also requires proof of damage. The deceit must be deliberately undertaken in order to damage. Bernie Madoff? Fraudster. Just look at the damage he’s caused — reputable Jewish charities down the gurgler, pensioners minus their life savings, yadda yadda yadda. In the UK, counsel who plead fraud put their practicing certificates on the line, it’s that serious. I’d be very surprised if Australia were any different (Legal Eagle will no doubt be able to enlighten us). And the damage has to be quantifiable, too. Keith Windschuttle can’t raise things as intangible as ‘it’s harmed Quadrant’s reputation’. Indeed, it’s quite likely that the national blow-up has ensured that every issue of Quadrant anywhere has sold out in a trice. It’s entirely possible that second hand copies are now trading above list price on Ebay. It’s also highly likely that people unimpressed with Wilson’s antics (separate from the hoax) will take out a subscription. In the long run, Keith Windschuttle wins.
Of course, hoaxes and frauds can be cousins under the skin. A very clever fraudster — think Catch Me If You Can – excites a degree of amused admiration, even if somewhat sublimated. A good hoax produces a similar chuckle. However, in the field for which common law fraud evolved over time — finance — there is never any admiration. Bernie Madoff — destroyed lives, not just money. Nick Leeson — goodbye Barings, it was nice knowin’ ya. Bernard Ebbers — well, I hope WorldCom’s erstwhile shareholders don’t know his release date in advance.
That said, it’s perfectly possible to rank hoaxes, and as I mentioned over at LP, for mine, ‘Ern Malley’ remains the Gold Standard of hoaxes. It also seems that the hoaxer must out themselves or — as Nanu perceptively observed in my earlier post — the media story finishes up being about the hoaxer, not the funny stunt they’ve pulled.
But Katherine Wilson is not Muttiah Muralitharan. There is no damage.
17 Comments
I agree that fraud falls onto a contiuum in terms of the damage it does — and I also tend to think Katherine Wilson probably did Quadrant a favor, since some people might have actually heard of it now that hadn’t before. Alternatively, I don’t think it caused _no_ damage, since it will reinforce the typical orthodoxy of many academic journals of rejecting, for no real scientific reason, either people they haven’t heard of or people from places they haven’t heard of (which, for many US journals, and no doubt legal ones, includes Australia). You can already see that sort of bias from one of Andrew Norton’s comments on his blog about being an editor. Given this, I guess we can expect to hear from more of the same old crew at Quadrant in the future, and given the status of many conservative views in Australia (i.e., going the way of the dodo), this type of thing reduces the diversity of views one is likely to encounter or hear of, which I consider bad.
One thing the whole business has made me promise to do is to write for Quadrant again! I planned some pieces with Keith earlier in the year, but finishing them simply wasn’t compatible with the BCL. Now I’ve got quite a bit of material that’s of decent quality (and that’s been vetted by my supervisor), I’ll be sure to send it Keith’s way. And at least I can hold my head up as a libertarian, not a conservative — so different from lots of the Quadrant crew.
First, let me say Murali is not a chucker. My memory is that tests show he flexes or extends less than Brett Lee. So why not campaign against Lee? In fact both fall within the 15% limit.
Anyone who has read my blog knows I am a member of the revolutionary left. However I feel very uneasy about the hoax on Quadrant. I think the battles against Windschuttle (and indeed against the rest of the Right and the reformist Left) should be fought with facts, figures and reasoned argument, not trickery.
To indulge in subterfuge like this demeans the Left and devalues debate and discussion.
We develop, strengthen and refine our own ideas by having them tempered in the flames of debate and action.
Hoaxes damage us and our ideas and distract from our ultimate goal – the abolition of the profit system and wage slavery and the establishment of a democratic and planned society in which production occurs to satisfy human need.
John, I agree that it is better to engage in reasoned argument.
Wilson’s hoax does not actually refute any aspect of Windschuttle’s arguments. At most, all it proves is that Windschuttle is a hypocrite when it comes to footnotes – prepared to countenance inaccuracy in the articles he publishes, but not in others whom he criticises in the academic sphere. It might not even prove that; all it may establish is that Quadrant is under-resourced when it comes to checking every article.
I agree with conrad that this may discourage free and open discussion in political journals, as editors may now be unwilling to accept pieces by people they haven’t heard of before. I only hope that there are no copy-cat or retaliatory hoaxes – that would also be less than ideal for good political argument.
Dear John (bien) Pensant
To indulge in subterfuge like this demeans the Left and devalues debate and discussion
My dear, “The Left” requires no “subterfuge” to be so demeaned.
“as Nanu perceptively observed”
If I’m ever perceptive, I can assure you all that it’s entirely accidental.
[Meanwhile at the Cat they discuss the chimp-human divide...I offer our power of perception]
Damage is in the eye of the beholder, sl and your post sorta of said that anyway before coming down on the side of Keith baby. In the court of public opinion largely set by the msm Windschuttle has to be the loser in this.
There might be a spike in sales for the current issue, for purely conjunctural reasons, but the hoax and what it’s revealed about his editorial m.o. means, he is f”ked as an editor. He’ll be gone in 12 months tops.
This came up in one of Jeff Sparrow’s pieces — he’s written a few around the place. He’s in no position to dig up every reference.
Why the abuse of Murali? As John said, he bowls within the rules of the game. Carrying on as if “chucking” was some kind of moral issue is ridiculous. Fast bowlers regularly overstep the line – sometimes they are called by umpires and sometimes not – and we have all seen wickets taken by balls that slow motion cameras later revealed to be no-balls. We don’t call such bowlers cheats, frauds etc because they have broken the games’ rules in their efforts to take wicket. Most bowlers move their elbows to some degree when they bowl – it is a question of degree, and the ICC’s new rules are an attempt to reflect the science of the matter. Blaming Murali for the destruction of cricket is pathetic and childish.
“He’s in no position to dig up every reference.”
I imagine the vast majority of editors are in this position. So if you don’t have good reviewers, you are always vulnerable to this.
You were doing so well, until Homer got quoted as an authority.
Umpires can no longer call, Byron. That feature — thanks to the ICC — has gone by-the-by. Sinc: in this case he’s right, and to be honest I have no idea what umpires are supposed to do in school games these days. I’ve umpired a few college matches and — thankfully — haven’t had to deal with any chuckers.
“You were doing so well, until Homer got quoted as an authority”
LOL
SL – a school umpire calling a chuck?? Ahh those school umpies, with their slow motion vision.
SL
Seriously is there something in the water at Oxford or have you taken a silly pill to write this post?
Everything was going fine until I coughed up all my coffee on the screen.
You’re quoting homer as some sort of authority!!!!?
Is this some joke you’re pulling or is this real?
left speechless with a dirty screen and waiting in anticipation for an answer to this potential travesty.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, JC. And Homer does know his cricket.
SL
Yes, but if Homer was a broken clock he would manage NOT to be right twice a day. He has that sort of “gift”.
Dig deeper, SL and you’ll soon realize that the Homester would know very little about cricket.
Personally I feel for the kids relying on his umpiring as it must be soul destroying.