A truly bizarre editorial decision from Ben Naparstek, who occupies the chair at The Monthly, has resulted in the publication of a review of Jacqueline Kent’s biography of Julia Gillard by Christine Wallace, who is writing a rival biography of the Deputy Prime Minister for Allen & Unwin.
Wallace, in her review, describes the Kent book, The Making of Julia Gillard, as a “political quickie”. I’ve read it, and that’s fair comment, though Kent does cast a fair bit of light on aspects of Gillard’s rise through Labor ranks which are not well known, such as the effects of her long term rivalry with Lindsay Tanner and Kim Carr.
In his defence, Naparstek points to a similar review by Michelle Grattan.
However, Michelle Grattan has not written a book which is in direct commercial competition with one she is reviewing.
Naparstek also claims Wallace is best qualified to review Kent’s book – by virtue of being the author of a rival biography of Gillard. Bizarre.
There’s a fair bit of obfuscation in Naparstek’s defence of his editorial decision. Whether or not Dr Sally Warhaft, a former editor of The Monthly, is a friend of Kent’s (and in the public realm, the fact that she was somehow involved in launching Kent’s book can’t be taken as evidence of that) seems to me to be entirely irrelevant, and to only serve to revive the pointless and inward looking arguments about the ramifications of her relationship with Robert Manne as chair of the magazine’s editorial board. It’s unwise, I’d have thought, to even give this sort of thing the remotest airing in public. And particularly unwise for Manne himself to appear to be the one conjuring this spectre. It’s only going to reinforce the (reasonable) perception that the affairs of The Monthly are still driven by impenetrable circle jerk arguments of no interest or relevance to its readers.
The last thing anyone wants to read is another 3000 word treatise on who said what to whom in some Melbourne restaurant. It’s about as interesting as an email exchange between Gerard Henderson and Robert Manne.
Leaving that looming potential pr disaster aside, how difficult is it actually to understand that Wallace doesn’t get a free pass for trashing a book in direct competition with her own by disclosing that she’s writing one?
To frame this as a “biography war” surely only draws attention to the ethical vacuity behind the decision to commission Wallace’s review in the first place. It’s pretty much an admission that what is really going on is trolling for a controversy, and that – as with all the other “wars” – the putative subject of the interchange will be lost in the fog at the moment of its declaration. This silliness should not be allowed to obscure the basic fact of the elicitation of a blatant conflict of interest by The Monthly. It’s as simple as that.
Elsewhere: Andrew Crook in Crikey.
Update: Andrew Norton writes:
While editors do need to exercise judgment about what impact apparent conflicts of interest will have on a review, avoiding them entirely is very difficult.
Perhaps, but that’s not an argument in my view, for not leaning over backwards to avoid conflicts. Norton appears to give some solace to Naparstek in his claim that Wallace was somehow uniquely qualified to review Kent’s work by virtue of being in the process of writing her own (rival) book. That seems to me to be an entirely spurious claim, because any purported expertise Wallace might bring to the scrutiny of Kent’s work could not – in the eyes of any reasonable reader – avoid the trap of being vitiated by their opposing commercial interests.
Which is the real point.
Which is the other real point.
Which is the other other real point. This post is pretty much word for word the argument I was making to m’mates over coffee this morning. (Two of them are lawyers, you’d think they’d get it without any help from me.)
If you are going to appoint a 23-year-old to the editorship of a national magazine then you have a moral duty to stop him from making this sort of bingle. And if you are a book reviewer with any ethical sense at all, you would never dream (I said this at my own blog not long ago in a post on book reviewing and its responsibilities) of accepting a commission to review a book by a friend, an ex, an enemy or a rival. It’s just not done. Mainly because it makes you look untrustworthy and amoral.
This bizarre, as you say, commission is the kind of thing I was thinking of when I wrote this post about the change of editor back in May.
Yep, Pav, I was inclined to refer back to some of the comments made at the time of Naparstek’s appointment. It occurred to me also that Wallace is equally culpable, as are the publicity people at Allen & Unwin (assuming they were aware of this, which is a fair bet). The questions about maturity of judgement remain, but there’s also the question about the abuse of power.
I think there’s also a slightly separable point about the insane pursuit of a stoush for a stoush’s sake (or rather for the sake of publicity) no matter what about. Very quickly, the focus moves away from the merits, or otherwise, of Kent’s book, or indeed about Gillard’s life and career, to a “war”, which just draws attention to the participants therein. It’s hard to think this isn’t consciously intended.
Lots of blame to go around in this farce, it seems to me.
The link to the actual review seems to be broken, here is the link:
http://www.themonthly.com.au/books-christine-wallace-other-biography-jacqueline-kent039s-quotthe-making-julia-gillardquot-2015
Thanks, furious balancing. I’ll correct the link in the post.
I could draw a longer bow (that our national grasp of conflict of interest took a almighty battering over the last 10 years – I do wonder how Generation Ben developed in that climate) but I’ll give our man at the Monthly the benefit of the doubt and instead conclude: smells like teen inexperience.
Update: Andrew Norton writes:
Perhaps, but that’s not an argument, in my view, for not leaning over backwards to avoid conflicts. Norton appears to give some solace to Naparstek in his claim that Wallace was somehow uniquely qualified to review Kent’s work by virtue of being in the process of writing her own (rival) book. That seems to me to be an entirely spurious claim, because any purported expertise Wallace might bring to the scrutiny of Kent’s work could not – in the eyes of any reasonable reader – avoid the trap of being vitiated by their opposing commercial interests.
Also, Norton is speaking in generalities, not specifics. I would argue it’s not actually that hard myself. But even if it was hard (which I don’t think it is, mostly), thems the journalism breaks. Don’t like it, go edit Quadrant.
“any purported expertise Wallace might bring to the scrutiny of Kent’s work could not – in the eyes of any reasonable reader…”
Speak for yourself Mark, but I think Wallace is exactly the reviewer I would like to read. At least I know she has made a serious effort to research Julia Gillard. She makes her commercial interest perfectly clear. Any storm in a teacup would probably benefit sales of both books.
Ok, Russell, if and when I ever get a book contract, I expect that you’ll welcome me as reviewer of a book published by a rival on an identical topic.
Let’s make this clear. “Julia Gillard studies” is not a subject of academic expertise, and this is not a learned debate between experts (and in academia, there do and ought to exist protocols which would prevent this sort of spat occurring between experts in the same field). Wallace is a journalist. She may well have turned up stuff that’s not in Kent’s book. Some of her informants may have a different take or recollection on the same events.
Who knows? Hers isn’t published yet. I don’t see that the mere fact that she is writing about the same subject she and Kent have both researched absolves her from the obvious issues raised by using epithets to describe her rival’s work. Or obliterates the very obvious perception that no matter how hard she tries otherwise, she cannot be an objective judge.
The fair minded should indeed be able to see passages in Wallace’s “review” where she has manifestly been unable to avoid snark at Kent.
The framing of all this as a “war” also completely undermines any pretense that whatever is published is some sort of objective take. Note that the responsibility for such hyperbole lies with Naparstek.
I’m very disappointed to read the comments suggesting there’s some grey area, or worse, that it’s all good, which typically echo previous ones (cf some of the overlaps between Norton’s post and points made on the Crikey comments thread).
Conflict of interest is not some arcane concept, or some matter for some non-existent court of literary opinion to adjudicate.
It is a basic protocol of argumentative fairness. And of rationality. That needs to be understood by those arguing the ‘expertise’ point.
It is apparently impossible to see this in a world where self-promotion in the cause of commercial self-interest is so widespread as to make elementary ethics impenetrably obscure?
As I remarked earlier, Wallace ought to be hanging her head in shame. Should sheer audacity be celebrated in this ludicrous way?
Really, Russell? And you would trust a direct competitor for sales to give you a fair, objective, unbiased view on which you could base a decision whether or not to buy and read the book? Because if you would, I’ve got a nice bridge you might like to buy.
““Julia Gillard studies” is not a subject of academic expertise, and this is not a learned debate between experts” and as you say, Wallace is a journalist. The magazine is The Monthly, for heaven’s sake. This is not academia – it’s more popular culture. The potential harm from a conflict of interest isn’t great enough to outweigh publishing the piece, given how open Wallace has been about it. Where’s the harm?
Where’s the harm?
Exactly. Something about storms and teacups comes to mind.
So there’s no harm in blatant self-promotion and denigration of others in the cause of one’s own monetary, commercial and reputational interests?
With all due respect, do you two apply this standard to other aspects of life, or is editing and publishing somehow exempt?
So there’s no harm in blatant self-promotion and denigration of others in the cause of one’s own monetary, commercial and reputational interests?
At most, there should have been some disclosure on the side of The Monthly. Compared to the shameful shenanigans of much of the Oz media, this is small potatoes.
What, and that makes it all right?
The harm is to
(1) Jackie Kent, who, like everyone else who writes a book, deserves to have that book reviewed fairly (particularly in a magazine with a national circulation) by someone with no vested interest — undeclared or not — in trashing it;
(2) The Monthly, which a lot of people will be taking less seriously from now on;
(3) subscribers to The Monthly, who are being short-changed by the low standards of ethics and professionalism evident in such a commission;
(4) the public culture, where this sort of thing (further) lowers the standard of public discourse; and
(5) the honourable pursuits of magazine editing and book reviewing, which it cheapens.
You may not care about (5), but those of us who follow these pursuits for a living and try to do them as well as possible care about them quite a lot.
Once more with feeling: It. Is. An. Open. Conflict. Of. Interest. If you either (a) can’t see that or (b) don’t think it matters, then there is no common ground of understanding on which to have a conversation.
Also, it is a really bad review, and I don’t just mean ‘unfavourable’, I mean ‘badly done’. Less than half of it is actually about Kent’s book and the rest appears to be using the ‘review’ as a platform for a thinly disguised preview of Wallace’s own. An experienced editor would have spiked it. But then, an experienced editor would never have dreamed of commissioning it in the first place.
(4) seems in evidence already, Pav, judging by the (non) argument that because other unspecified publications or writers working in the Oz media are lacking in unspecified standards (“shenanigans”), then no one else has to have any, or a spurious disclosure of a conflict somehow suffices in comparison. This notion of disclosure is in itself redolent of a complete ethical blindness, as if one could say anything one wanted provided one acknowledged that it would otherwise be unethical to do so.
None of the ‘arguments’ made to excuse this behaviour are remotely coherent as such.
This notion of disclosure is in itself redolent of a complete ethical blindness, as if one could say anything one wanted provided one acknowledged that it would otherwise be unethical to do so.
‘Ethical blindness’, eh? All this weeping and wailing over a faux pas by one of Australia’s few independent mags. This is typical of much of Larvatus of late – cack-handed attacks on small targets. Frankly, if there’s full disclosure, I can’t think of a single ‘ethical’ reason why somebody can’t publish whatever they like. And if you want some specific examples of worse conflicts of interest, have a think about the coterie of clowns associated with the Coalition, who never disclose their connections. And yet this episode in The Monthly is supposed to be an attack on Australian publishing standards in toto.
In the end, subscribers will vote with their feet if they think their mag is shoddy. In the meantime, perhaps moral outrage could be spared for a few more deserving targets.
Much ado about nothing.
Bravo Pav at #15 – completely and utterly in agreement.
Transparency is everything; conflict of interest is not a shrug and so what event. It is not something the market will put right. It undermines the very functioning of the beloved market.
Naparstek shouldn’t have commissioned it; I’m incredibly disappointed with Chris for having accepted it; and A&U are a bunch of dills. At least Chris’s book isn’t being published by Black Inc…..
I’m honestly surprised that people here and at Crikey seem so blase about this. Yes, it’s not the apocalypse, but this is about standards, and without a standard you’re left with a system open to abuse about the important topics, as well as the ones you designate as trivial. I’m 100% with PC here; she nails it.
Also, as a former freelancer, I can attest that conflicts like this were – not common per se, but – certainly not uncommon in my own, personal, experience. They are part of a greater malaise within publishing based on declining (plummeting?) ethical standards for which no one – writer, editor, publications and reader – is a winner.
Agree with Mark and la Pavlova on the ethical lapse.
I can think of a similar case several years ago, but the trashing was dressed up as an article in an academic online journal. Author of rival biography trashed other biography in the course of making several points. It looked tawdry to my untutored eyes.
Wholeheartedly wish standards could be improved across the wide brown. The Monthly had several deficiencies under previous editor too, I thought.
OT, what do experienced writers think of Ms Wallace’s work? e.g. Greer, untamed shrew, MacMillan, 1997.
Granted its the editor’s duty to find some-one who has expertise in the modern Labor Party and in Julia Gillard in particular. But surely Wallace is not the only writer out there with this kind of expertise? Or does this young guy simply not know where to find them?
I’m not sure I’d put this down to lack of ethics. More like edirorial clumsiness. But it would have been better if it had not been done.
Those who dismiss this stupid decision by the Monthly appear to have the same regard for it as they would for Who magazine. I don’t and that’s why I subscribed to the bloody thing. However in the light of this and previous engineered controversies I’m starting to reconsider my financial commitment. I have had a gut feeling that the quality of the copy has been sliding a bit (one piece back in March was about “eccentrics” and was worthy only of the old “Parade” style mag) and this kind of crap isn’t helping.
When you see the quality of copy in overseas politics related magazines (e.g. The Economist) The Monthly is being to look very second rate.
It doesn’t actually undermine the force of an argument to diminish its target. But the point made by several others above is spot on – it’s precisely the decline or absence of ethical practice at a publication which should know better which reveals the entire dimensions of the problem across a field. So I don’t, not for a moment, regard this as either a storm in a teacup or not worth of comment.
The attacks on such a decision seem to stem from a line of thought that believes readers cannot cut through bullshit and make their own minds up from their own analysis of a review. If the magazine has clearly stated that the reviewer is writing a book to rival the one being reviewed, there is no harm in publishing such a review, unless of course you are one of those dimwits who rely so much on a review to make up your mind about the final product. Points raised can stir debate about the book being reviewed and the issues that it covers. If you think this is unhealthy then you seem to have an odd sense of what a healthy media must be about. There was never an age of truly objective journalism – everybody – has their own agenda. The sooner people realize this the better for all and we get on with worrying about the important things in life.
Not at all; it’s a line of thought that believes readers shouldn’t be expected to read (and pay for) bullshit in the first place.
I find it intriguing that all the commenters here who think it’s all just much ado about weeping and wailing over unimportant storms in teacups have nonetheless taken the trouble not just to read the post and the thread but to leave comments themselves. Can’t help wondering who they’re trying to convince, but their solipsism is truly astonishing: ‘I don’t care about this issue, therefore it is not important.’
“If the magazine has clearly stated that the reviewer is writing a book to rival the one being reviewed, there is no harm in publishing such a review”
Accepting for argument’s sake this is true (it’s not, see PC at #15), what do you think the point of book reviews should be?
“[Doing] no harm”? That’s a pretty low bar, and in fact a pretty perverse one. It’s fine for book reviews to do certain kinds of harm, and if they never do, then they’ve lost their point.
Which is of course to do good – inform readers about what’s out there to read, in such a way that they might come to trust the word of certain reviewers or publications and use them as a reference point for the sort of qualities they’re after in a book.
Was the author consulted first? I think it would probably take Kent’s informed consent to remedy the ethical flaw here.
Dr Cat:
Well, there goes News Ltd’s business model.
Remember when they proposed Eddie McGuire to commentate on AFL for channel 9? Of course we all knew ‘where he stood’, and could have read his comments in that light – but it wasn’t the point. No one wanted to see that painful, self-interested charade play out every weekend in our national game – viz, one of the 17 teams elbowing their way into the commentary chair to pronounce over the others.
There is no difference here.
I remember thinking: only in Howard’s Australia, and after 10 years of this disgraceful “self-regulation” nonsense, (leading, for example, to AWB funding the guys shooting at our soldiers) could this bollocks even be proposed.
Now some might call that a longish bow, but frankly I wonder whether some of the youngstas come from a good home… in a public culture sense… if you know what I’m sayin. Not that I blame them – Im suggesting they were let down badly in formative years.
I don’t think you can blame it all on Howard, Lefty E. Don’t forget, he was just building on the work of others (Hawke, Keating, Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Greenspan, Clinton, … )
“Not at all; it’s a line of thought that believes readers shouldn’t be expected to read (and pay for) bullshit in the first place.”
Then… don’t pay for it? It’s really a simple solution here. Instead of having a whinge about such a review, as it clearly disturbs your sensibilities as to what the editorial reasoning of a magazine should be, and what a review should be, simply don’t buy the next issue of The Monthly.
The utopian idea that the media will ever be more than what it currently is [and always has been] (a cesspit of bad writing, worse editorials, left or right attempts at setting agendas and inaccurate reporting) is nice, but a fairy tale.
That people get their arms up in the air over this insignificant review and treat it as a declaration of the death of editorial standards at a media publication is fact that you are all missing the point.
As said above, this is small potatoes. You certainly admitted that it was too – why not attack all the greater crimes against your idea of the media in this country?
Ultimately you can force decisive change through the simple action of not purchasing the product again. Nothing sends a clearer message to editors.
ethical and moral lapses long pre-dated Mr Howard
They sure did predate Howard. But not quite in the same smug, faux-uncomprehending “but why WOULDNT we bribe Saddam? its just how business is done, and we have to compete!” way. Scratch the surface and many still believe that.
And nor, in my opinion, to it enter the wider popular culture as normalised public behavior in the way it did under Howard.
In the past was done, then denied, or covered up, and the usual ‘oh yes very regrettable’, ‘few bad eggs spoiling it for the rest’ routines etc etc.
The Howard years differed in that they drifted a step further: toward trying to justify / normalise conflicts of interest, to question the rectitude of interest conflict rules, rather than just sweep breaches under carpets, old skool corruption style.
This is also when “commercial in confidence” became a form of censorship.
And don’t forget “plausible deniability” LE that seemed to gather a role all of it’s own.
Mind you I think AWB was bribing people in the ME way before the Howard era.
Even if you disregard the conflict of interest, it’s a terrible review…in fact it barely functions as a review at all. It’s more a critique of Guillard than it is of the book.
I think Lefty E has a point, actually. Remember how appalling Pauline Hanson looked in 1997? By about 2005 she just looked normal, and it was not she who had changed.
“By about 2005 she just looked normal”
Well, that’s a bit strong, but I take your point.
I’m completely with Mark and Dr Cat. My understanding is that the idea of a review is it comes from someone who approaches the book with more knowledge of the area than the average reader, but broadly the same lack of prejudice about what they’ll be encountering.
I do think there might have been a way to do this ethically, and would be interested in what others think of the idea. Have someone reasonably neutral write a (possibly much shorter) review of Kent’s book. Then give Wallace a chance to explain why her approach is better, and (when Wallace’s book comes out) give Kent equal space to do the reverse. Now one can debate whether the topic is important/interesting enough to justify this, but I suspect there are plenty of people who are interested enough in Gillard to want to read one book, but not both. This would give them a chance to make an informed choice. The only losers are the authors of books on, say Kevin Rudd, who might have a few readers dragged away.
I don’t know that it is that strange a decision. I read reviews in foreign magazines all the time by people who have written on the same subject. And I’m sure that includes biographers.
Maybe there’s some unwritten rule that a few years have to elapse between your own book being published and when you can review someone else’s book. That is, it’s a competition thing.
But I understand the reviewer discloses all of this in the first paragraph. Readers of The Monthly fall into the category of the over-educated – surely they can deconstruct this whole issue, make a cuppa and then not worry about it.
What’s interesting is the obsession The Australian has developed with The Monthly. And, really, it’s all about getting at Robert Manne. You see, Manne is a former neo-conservative – their numbers are growing – and he fills the intellectual Right with doubt. They look at Manne, eminently sensible and level-headed, and they have heretical thoughts. Face reality about Iraq, the GFC, global warming, the racist trend of the “centre-right” – or lash out at Manne for being right?
I’m sure The Monthly will be thankful for yet another publicity boost – I’m buying the next copy.
#5 Lefty E Oct 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Biography of an ALP politician still barely a year into her first term in ministry. Who cares.
Review of a biography of an ALP politician still barely a year into her first term in ministry. Who cares squared.
Supposed conflict of interest over a review of a biography of an ALP politician still barely a year into her first term in ministry. Who cares cubed.
Fanciful association between alleged Howard government improprieties and supposed conflict of interest over a review of a biography of an ALP politician still barely a year into her first term in ministry. One may as well put down the glasses because that nag is gone for all money.
“Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”
Sayre’s Law
I guess my point is that how credible was it that Wallace would do anything other than a hatchet job on Kent’s book? If there was really no chance she’d be favourable then it wasn’t a review, it was a critique. Not the same thing, and should be treated differently.
I’d add that the declining standards of ethical conduct across the wider media only make it more important that places like the Monthly set an example. Without that it gets harder to criticize the other abuses.
“Its a great book, definitive word on the subject, if you only read one book on Gillard, make sure its this” effused Wallace. Not.
Do I need go on?
No, LE, you would be wasting your energy. Because not a single one of the ‘So what?’ brigade here has engaged with any of the actual arguments about editing, reviewing and ethics. They just keep repeating themselves.
P.S. Why do people rake over The Monthly with a fine-tooth comb? Maybe because unlike other magazines on the Left – like, say, Arena – you can actually read an essay and see that the author had some point in mind and it wasn’t just some stream-of-consciousness blather.
Why don’t others clearly state a conflict of interest? Right-wingers at the Australian should own up to their reasons for caring so much about the editorial standards of The Monthly – btw, glass houses anyone? And those on the Left should fess up to their motives – dislike of social democrats, the ALP, the fact that Robert Manne was right about communism, well-thought-out positions, level-headedness.
Well, f*ck, since there’s no issue here, why not review our own books under pseudonyms then?
What a way to generate informed debate. Imagine the deep background on the creative process. The insider angles. The gripping insights into behind the scenes tensions with the spouse.
I cant see a problem with that. Let the market sort it out.
Yes well the next time you read a review of a book on Amazon or any of the social network bookshelves, bear in mind that LE’s ironic advice has already been acted upon. Marketing 101 in publishing circa 2009 – favourable viral marketing by any means. Which makes it all the more pertinent that mags such as The Monthly, mags that aspire to being of high quality, should offer a standard above the babble of marketing and self-interested opinion making.
This is a bit facile; it’s hardly an either-or proposition.
Indeed. Thanks, patrickg. I’m an occasional blogger. Last time I looked, I was under no obligation whatever to “attack” stuff, or indeed to write about anything I don’t feel like writing about. In fact, the motivation to do it is the other way round. I write about what I want to. I’m not someone who is or wants to be obliged to provide comprehensive or regular coverage of everything. People want that? Write it yourself or read what someone else writes. Criticism of what I choose to focus on is just meaningless, given that I’ve already several times explained why I think this *is* an important issue.
those on the Left should fess up to their motives – dislike of social democrats, the ALP, the fact that Robert Manne was right about communism, well-thought-out positions, level-headedness…
Oooh, zing, snap. Got US bang to rights there. Good job we have more brainier people like you, Ginja, to keep us on track.
Yes, Helen, you have to wonder what Ginja would define as a well-thought-out position, particularly as his (soz for pronoun, call it a wild guess) first two paragraphs at #40 indicate that he has read neither the post nor the thread — or, if he has, he has not understood them. I thought Mark had had a pretty good go at a well thought out position in the post and various people had thought it out further in the comments, and that it was all about, you know, thinking, and ideas and stuff. But apparently it’s all just part of ‘the media’ and ‘magazines on the left’. I mean, look at the fineness of intellectual calibration there.
Okay, I’m going to have one more go at explaining why ‘full disclosure’ is not enough.
A number of people seem to think ‘disclosure’ in this book reviewing situation is all that’s required, so let me draw a parallel. I’ve spent a fair amount of time on committees to assess arts grant applications, including here in Adelaide. Adelaide being the size it is, occasionally some of the people on these sorts of committees are potentially direct or indirect beneficiaries of this or that grant; a pianist, say, might be scheduled to play on a program for which support funding is being requested, or a writer might have a manuscript in the pipeline with a publisher applying for a grant in support of the coming year’s publishing program.
In that situation, committee members are required to disclose the fact that they have a vested interest in the decision.
And then they are required to leave the room while the application is discussed and assessed.
‘Full disclosure’ is not the whole enchilada. The idea is to follow up full disclosure with appropriate action, and to remove oneself from any discussion and decision that could possibly be to one’s own financial or other benefit. Strangely, everyone in the arts world understands the ethical basis of these rules.
Well, let’s use an example of another biography and how it should be done. recently there have been a spate of biographies published on Samuel Johnson (3, I think) and they have been reviewed in the Guardian and other magazines. The first of these books was by the Johnson scholar, Peter Martin, and, if I recall correctlyly the others were by writers who did not specialise in Johnson but had an interest in him as a significant figure in English literature or in thehistory of 18C England. It would have been be quite easy for the Guardian’s editors to get Martin to review one of the later published books (after all, he’s one of the world experts on Johnson) but THEY DIDN’T. Insteads, if I remember rightly they chose reviewers who had expertise in the area, but actually hadn’t written anything about Johnson, so far as I remember. (And, I imagine the world of Johndson scholars, while pretty small, would probably not be quite as small as the world of Gillard scholars.)The wrters on Johnson weren’t asked to review each other because it wasn’t the right thing to do.
Now for some reason the young editor of Monthly didn’t get this – whether it had to do with the internal politics of the Monthly in their various manifestations past and present, or because he was inexperienced, or grew up in a society that seems to have lost its ethical base, I don’t know. I think Harold Pinter in one of his early plays – The Dumb Waiter ? – referred to people doing things a certain way because it was ‘common practice.’ The Monthly seems to have lost track of this.
Alternatively, there have been a number of books on Stalinist Russia reviewed lately in the Guardian, and there several times they have had Robert Conquest, an anti-Stalinist historian who has published several books on the era (I leave the question as to whether you can be any other kind than anti-Stalinist open to debate) at least 2 reviews of other writers.
So, with the contradictory examples of the Johnson bios. and Conquest reviews in mind is there no firm criteria, really, for editors to make a judgement about this particular ethical problem of who reviews what?
Yes, P’sC
and on university committees, in local govt council chambers, etc.
You abesnt yourself from the discussion. Supposing you didn’t? If caught out, severe consequences might follow. At the least some doubts about your honesty and credibility would arise.
It’s another “check/balance” attempting to ensure some fairness.
In the present case, both the reviewer and editor have dropped a few rungs.
Paul,
interesting examples. Quite possibly Mr Conquest’s main publishing days are gone…? IIRC his biggest books on the Stalin era came out in the 1970s and 1980s? (Not saying old historians haven’t got another book or three still to go….)
BTW I enjoyed Mr Conquest’s barb, reported by Martin Amis in Koba the Dread, I think. When asked if he’d like to change the title of his old book on Stalin’r reign of terror for a new edition, he suggested “I Was Right You F*cking Morons”.
The publisher ignored the suggestion. Can’t think why.
Ambigulous @ 55,
Among the various historiographical debate going on in Australia which raises a question (to which I don’t really have an answer) analagous to the problems arising with the Gillard review. And I have to admit an interest here as, so far as I’m aware, I was one of the first historians to raise it in my book on the Brisbane Line Controversy.
Were the Japanese going to invade Australia in World War 2?
Peter Stanley and I argue they weren’t. A recent book, the name of which escapes me at the moment, argues they were.
Now, the hypothetical question I want to raise, which relates to the ethics of the Gillard review,and only as an example, is, if you are an editor and you receive a book which puts one or other of the invasion hypotheses – the Japanese did intend to invade Australia or they did not – which reviewer do you get to review it – an advocate on invasion or an advocate of no invasion? Since, I don’t think historians are neutral on this theory, so you are going to get a reviewer who has one interpretation or the other, and the question is a little complicated as it all depends on whether or when the Japanese made a decision not to invade.
One of those hypotheses where dates are actually quite important.
So, despite my strictures in earlier posts on the Monthly, I’m just raising this example to point out how complicated editorial descisions, especially when it comes to biography and history can be.
I wonder if Julia Gillard was asked if she’d like to review it. Actually, I’d read that.
Most book reviews are pretty bland, isn’t there a case for having a review by someone who might have something different to say? As for ‘conflict of interest’ is everyone in the world presumed to be motivated by self-interest all the time? As I was quoted in the Kent book presumably I should be agreeing with Mark here on the grounds of self-interest but I am not.
Thanks Paul
On a remainder table outside my local newsagent, was a book on Australia in WW2. So I looked up “Paul Burns” in the index.
The author had written: “the question of whether there really was a ‘Brisbane Line’ deserves a whole book. Fortunately, Dr Paul Burns has written a very good book on the subject. The claims by Eddie Ward….” (this is from memory, can’t recall the author or title).
Such are the joys of the LP reader: broadening out my interests and being guided by knowledgeable posters.
I dips me lid.
I’d just point out that most professions with their own professional bodies have regulations governing this sort of thing – with quite serious penalties involved, and in the case of some, actual legislation is involved. And in these professions, some conflicts of interests are considered so grave that even full disclosure does not ‘cure’ the conflict.
eg a lawyer might well be barred from practice for failing to disclose a commercial interest in a deal when acting for one of the parties. And in many circumstances, it would not be ethical to act for the client even with full disclosure.
I have to say, id be a lot less concerned about this if Wallace’s book was already out in the public sphere. But she gets to have a national go at her direct competitor before her own book’s even on the table. It totally stinks!
I always smile when I hear people laying down rules about ethical book reviewing. Say I don’t like an author and want to get back at him/her. I don’t actually write the review myself, I get a mate to return a favour and write a nasty review.
Take this flap itself. For some reason The Monthly isn’t their cup of tea – maybe they’re on the Right, maybe they’re Rundleistas, maybe the lucid and the sensible isn’t their thing – but they haven’t laid their cards on the table in the way this reviewer apparently has.
But I doubt it matters. As I said, readers of intellectual magazines like The Monthly are an over-educated bunch, the sort of people who pride themselves on being able to suss out things like a reviewer’s motives/politics/fairness (years of learning post-Marxist post-structuralism must count for something).
But it’s good for the magazine – it should court controversy, not run from it.
Ginja, let me explain to you how an argument works. Someone says something, right? And you disagree with it, so you reply, and in your reply, you actually engage with what was said, and you make some kind of direct argument back. Then the conversation develops, right, and new arguments are made, so you follow the conversation, and if you disagree with the new points, then you need to engage with and directly answer them too. In order to do that, you need to read them first.
I hope this helps.
Its Peter Stanley’s new book, Ambigulous.
Gosh, we wouldn’t want to seem over-educated, would we. Not in ‘Straya.
You’re a savage woman, PC. Remind me to never get on your bad side.
I back Russells position in that it’s an interesting POV that just happened to be available. It’s called opportunity and I would say it has been well marked since Julia Gillard is the enigma of the moment in a country that happens to be the enigma of the moment so I, obviously not for one, am truly appreciative of a POV that is purposely trying to slice and dice the dullness of it all!
“N” “O”, I haven’t read it and possibly never will but that isn’t the point!
If it is unethical to write a review about a book you are in competition with then surely it is one-hundred fold less ethical for a sociology academic to run an activist left wing blog in which he disparages right wing intellectuals, such as Hayek, with claims they are nothing more than idealogues.
How could a right wing sociology student possibly feel confident she/he will not suffer discrimination after reading the anti-right vitriol on this blog? How could she/he possibly base his ideas on Hayek and feel comfortable that there will not be repercussions?
Of course Bahnisch’s answer is that he is “professional” and thus able to be “objective”, something that he seems to think is beyond others, including Wallace.
(whistles) That’s the slickest segue I’ve ever seen, Kim W – from something ethically suspect to Hayek in one short hop.
Well, Kim W, you seem not to recognise that insofar as its possible academics in the social sciences strive to be objective. This is of course not entirely possible as you might be aware if you have any knowledge of the philosophical debate on the nuture of objectivity and subjectivity which, as I understand it, rightly concludes no matter how hard one tries to be objective was is always influenced by subjective forces, whether its political events, one’s own feelings about the topic, the desire to discover or think something new, etc, etc, and by unconscious biases and assumptions that you have to try and bring to the fore and recognise so you can take account of them in your thinking.
I am with pride an ultra-left wing socialist, but not in my historiography except that i do have a preference for working on history-from-below, insofar as that’s possible from the sources, which for the most part are written by the ruling elite and the middle class, though not entirely. While its possible to find socialist strains in early colonial Australian history, if you really really stretch, and certainly some proto-socialism in the English Civil War (though some historians would dispute that) or in the French Revolution, or even medeieval history, I’ll be buggered if I can find them in the American Revolution (not that that aspect interests me that much in that topic).
In my previous area of specialist study, the Australian home front during World War 2, one well-known socialist historian who was studying the same topic as me airily dismissed me as being too much of an empiricist.
The point of all the above being, it can be very unwise sometimes, and note the qualification, to try and fit any ideology to a scholar’s work, even if you know their ideological preferences. And pretty stupid. You can come a cropper. Badly.
Paul Burns makes a good point. Why shouldn’t someone with a vested interest (and that term is is a vessel capable of holding everything from ego to expertise to material gain) review a work of non-fiction and trash it? Historians, with vested interests of the most obvious kind, have been trashing each other’s works forever. (See the wonderful AJP Taylor/Hugh Trevor-Roper exchange.)
I might add there are times when social scientists are impelled to make moral judgements whether they come from the left or the right.
Economists make moral judgements about planned, semi-planned or laissez-faire economies all the time.
I can’t imagine a sociologist working in the sociology of health, education or inequalities not at some time being compelled to judge whether certain policies are good, bad or neutral.
At the risk of breaking Godwin’s Law, how can one study the history of Nazi Germany without having to come to some kind of moral judgement about the history; or Stalinist Russia; or the Fourth Crusade? or for that matter, Australian aboriginal history? And of course there are areas of study where the conclusions are so grey one can’t honestly come to a moral conclusion about it.
Dr Bahnisch to you!
It’s okay, David at #65 — he won’t read it.
PC – I have read the comments, I swear …. but haven’t been persuaded. Usually when we see “conflict of interest” it’s ministers with shares in some company related to their portfolio, or doctors sending patients for unnecessary tests – to a pathology laboratory they partly own etc, the sort of stuff most of us think has more serious implications than any to come from book reviewing.
And when it comes to book reviewing there are different standards for different types of outlets – I would expect a higher level of review of this book in the Australian Journal of Politics and History, than in The Monthly. I regard The Monthly as part entertainment, and I expect the book reviews there to be entertaining. You might not approve of reviewing as stoush, but in this context it might be just the thing. If I read the review in The Kirkus Reviews, I wouldn’t expect entertainment – those reviews are written by reviewers, not journalists. As other commenters have written, most of us can read fairly well – we’ll know by the writing what sort of thing it is we’re reading.
I think your example of the arts grants funding doesn’t really apply: we all have different expectations of a process of awarding public funds, to that of to editing a magazine like The Monthly.
If The Monthly were to offer Kent the opportunity to review Wallace’s book by way of a ‘right of reply’, should Kent accept the offer?
Thanks Pavlov’s Cat for your continued contributions here which have so very clearly highlighted the importance of the issue. It’s not just an arbitration on whose take on reviews that’s happening in this instance, it’s also about who is allowed to occupy the speaking voice in public. The Monthly has made its decision quite clear in this instance. How much import is to be given to the fact that the former Editor has friends in other publishing houses or consents to launch a book is to my mind a fascinating sideplay, but the central issue is ethics. It’s just that some like to forget such a thing exists.
Isn’t it time to look at one of PC’s original propositions again? It’s that ‘… if you are a book reviewer with any ethical sense at all, you would never dream … of accepting a commission to review a book by a friend, an ex, an enemy or a rival. It’s just not done. Mainly because it makes you look untrustworthy and amoral.’
Why wouldn’t you review a work of non-fiction by a rival? (In academe, it’s quite possible that your rival could also be your friend and ex or your ex and enemy.) Whether the review makes you look untrustworthy or immoral depends entirely on the review. Forthright, honest and defensible criticism, right to the point of trashing, might lose you your friend but it’s hardly likely to make anyone think you’re untrustworthy or immoral in an an intellectual sense. On the contrary, many would see you as putting your integrity above other considerations.
“…you would never dream … of accepting a commission to review a book by a friend, an ex, an enemy or a rival. It’s just not done. // … Why wouldn’t you review a work of non-fiction by a rival?”
Well, in strict Darwinian terms, isn’t everyone a rival? For everything? So what’s the problem? That X doesn’t approve? Who cares? From what authority does X derive their view? What’s the objection? That it would say lead to a breakdown of relations in the present book-reviewing system? Well, in Darwinian terms… who cares? Another system will arise to replace it, perhaps having nothing to do with books at all; maybe just with mandibles, and gills. What business is it of yours?
The implications may be more ‘serious’, but the principle is the same. I review books for (most of) a living myself, so naturally these matters are important to me, and I’ve given them a great deal of thought over many years while watching the effects of book reviews on people’s livelihoods, reputations and mental health. Some of which, and I can think of examples in all three categories, have never recovered.
Do we? I don’t. I expect all cultural institutions to behave with integrity, especially where money is changing hands, and I reserve the right to criticise them when they don’t. And anyway, with respect, the way you’ve put that suggests to me that you didn’t understand the point of the parallel, which was not about editing but about a reviewer’s acceptance of a commission from which, ‘disclosure’ notwithstanding, he or she potentially stands to gain financially when his or her book sells better than the victim’s because readers of the review will say to each other ‘Ooh, it got a bad review, let’s wait for the next biography to come out and buy that instead.’ The example was an analogy about the function of ‘disclosure’, not a direct comparison with the particular situation.
For the reasons that have been given by several different people over and over again on this thread, as well as in some of the links in Mark’s original post. I’m going to abandon this discussion now; the eye-popped, jaw-dropped facial expression I keep involuntarily assuming every time I come here is one that does absolutely nothing for a woman of my years.
PC – I’ll have the last word then …. I’m glad that you’re allowing that other conflicts of interest may have more serious implications – that was my original point: in my list of priorities this potential conflict of interest isn’t very important.
What about context? My point is that readers of The Monthly aren’t likely to approach this review in the way you have – they would have much lower expectations of an expert, disinterested analysis, and recognise an obvious attack on one book by the author of a similar book. All good fun, if well done. Maybe I just have much lower expectations of The Monthly than you do. As for journalists, we know where they always rate in the public’s estimation of occupations.
So, the defense offered by Naparstek is a) Wallace is uniquely qualified, and b) Grattan wrote a similar review. Um, what?
Ok, sure, uniquely qualified people are allowed to come to the same conclusions as other people… but if they do, then that’s not particularly interesting. Certainly nowhere near interesting enough to override the obvious conflict-of-interest concerns.
…not to mention the obvious cynically-generating-controversy-for-free-publicity concerns!
PC – I’ll have the last word then …. I’m glad that you’re allowing that other conflicts of interest may have more serious implications – that was my original point: in my list of priorities this potential conflict of interest isn’t very important.
I hope you don’t mind, Russell, if I just nick into your lounge room and take your VCR. After all, no-one would die, and there are much more important things going on. Plus, that would make me a burglar, and people have very low expectations of criminals.
Russell @ 81 (and earlier) – if I read you correctly, the consequences of unethical behaviour only become important when they are economic (which may actually be the case in this instance anyway), and the large the amount involved the more important.
Or have I misrepresented your stand?
David – no, not only economic, damage of any kind. I think in this case the damage is likely to be neglible – I doubt it will make any difference to the sales of the book reviewed and I don’t think it will do any harm to the noble cause of book reviewing because of the type and context of this ‘review’. Most ‘reviews’ of books in magazines like The Monthly should be read as more opinion than review.
Helen – we’ve all agreed that burglary is a form of serious damage and so we’ve made it illegal. Calls for stricter Laura Norder don’t usually extend to book reviewing.
Stop demanding Pavlovian responses, PC!
One minute you lot are laying down the law about who can and cannot write reviews, the next you’re dictating how we leave a post.
And Helen, over-education is a wonderful thing, but the over-educated can sometimes get things a bit out of perspective (like this little flap, for instance).
Remember, we’re talking about a free-ranging literary-political magazine, not the Lancet or some other academic journal. Next people are going to be demanding detailed footnotes. The literary world is anarchic and incestuous – it’s no place for ethics or peer reviews or dullness.
This is why academics shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near literature – they suck the life out of it.
Right, Ginja, so now you’re resorting to ad homs. (Or ad fem, I guess, in this instance.) Maybe that’s the logical end point of making an argument against standards and ethics.
Geez, Ginja, I didn’t even finish high school and I even I think you give anti-intellectuals a bad name.
The bizarre thing is that over in the Polanski/Henson thread there was the suggestion that the arts community was not engaged in a discussion about ethics, and over here the mention of ethical standards is decried as a storm in a teacup. They’re sucking the life out of literature, no less!
Who draws the magic line for when it’s okay to have such a discussion?
It doesn’t really work like that with ethics does it?
Yep. I find it very curious that apparently if something isn’t serious enough to criminalise, then it must be ok. It’s really a very puzzling attitude.
Don’t stay puzzled Mark … just think of a continuum between say, spitting and murder. Spitting isn’t OK, it’s not nice, but it’s just not as serious as murder.
Russell, sure. But this is a lot more serious than spitting. You can’t equate a serious conflict of interest with something trivial without doing violence to your own argument.
Ps – spitting in public is illegal.
At least on Brisbane buses, at any rate, judging from the warning signs!
Labor is worse.
And I might weigh in here too, to suggest there isn’t a magic line that decides where and not ethics reside. There are arguments being put forward that either the medium (The Monthly) or the subject (biography) don’t warrant that kind of concern.
So we end up with the situation where informal social construction is the decider. The bread and circuses approach to selling “literary” magazines (straight-forward stoush and any publicity is good publicity). According to Ginja, the Lancet is on one side of that magic line and The Monthly on the other. Or from Russell, it sits somewhere between spitting and theft.
I’m sorry, but that’s not the way it works. In my work with climate change, I have to maintain an ethical stance at all times when making any kind of public comment, whether in a refereed journal, or on LP. I don’t always succeed. My points of view and those of my colleagues are weighed up against people who have no ethics at all, who have the 110% conviction they are right, who have no respect for any scholarly medium or for scholarship itself.
Many people find themselves in this situation when engaged in public discourse. Ethics is not simple, it requires critical argument with oneself and with others. Debate, standards and regulation. Some informally imposed by individuals and groups, others declared as rules of practice.
To suggest that standards don’t apply in one particular area by use of analogy with another area where they don’t apply in practice is bogus. As is also the old saw of over education. Mass communication has made public debate so cheap (this is a good thing) that quality control is as important as ever (and this is the price we have to pay for it). And in that, it’s not education that is important, it’s attitude.
Mark, where was my ad hominem attack? You’ve lost me there.
And f.b.: what did I say that was anti-intellectual? I’m here defending an intellectual magazine, so I could hardly be accused of anti-intellectualism. My point was that well-educated people should have no trouble sussing out the motives/fairness of a review.
Many here seem to find The Monthly infuriating, yet unlike just about any magazine of its kind in Australia it sells well and actually has an impact on the political debate. A magazine like Arena would – or should – kill for the kind of national and global impact The Monthly has had (the Gunns article, Rudd’s piece).
I’m sure there’ll be more flaps like this and the Warhaft brouhaha – it’s great for a little magazine.
“I have to maintain an ethical stance at all times when making any kind of public comment” – that sounds awfully tiring Roger.
Surely context and conventions play a part? When you mention people who “have no respect for any scholarly medium or for scholarship itself” it makes me think: the authors aren’t scholars, the books aren’t scholarly, The Monthly isn’t a scholarly journal … so why would I expect the conventions of scholarship to be observed?
Look at another review in the same issue – Robert Manne reviewing Paul Kelly’s new book. Manne tells us that Kelly is a chameleon type who takes on the mindset of whoever is in power etc etc. This is not scholarly reviewing – but it’s the standard of discourse at The Monthly, a magazine that has a line, a point of view, a style. It might be bad mannered for Wallace to trash the other author’s book, but I don’t see it as much of an ethics issue since she doesn’t pretend that she’s disinterested.
Ok Russell, the comment on scholarship was not aimed at this particular issue. It’s in reference to those who would deny knowledge and the conventions of knowledge-based publication to push their own point of view – but as you say there are standards.
So for this issue, scratch any reference to scholarly and substitute respect.
Entertainment is fine, if that’s all The Monthly or any similar publication wants to do. Though if there’s a pretense to be anything more, where we have an author writing a biography reviewing another biography on the same subject, it’s frotteurism. Standards/respect. Kind of go together, really.
And yes, watching what you say lest it be misused is very tiring. Seen Patchauri (head of IPCC) on telly lately? Bloke is absolutely fed up with providing the same careful responses to the same denialist rubbish ad nauseum. I love doing satire, but can’t mix levity, irony or black humour with any serious comment. It shows how important words and meaning are, and why people who rely on them can become tetchy when they’re used cheaply in what they see as an inappropriate context.
Thanks Roger – that’s a nice way to end this exhausted thread – I get to learn a new, useful word:
frotteurism: The act of rubbing one’s genitalia against another’s person, usually that of a stranger. Must be non-consensual and is considered a psychiatric condition as well as a criminal offense in most places.
There are wider meanings to the word – was conjuring up the idea of dressing in respectable garb, carrying out unwelcome and somewhat crude actions that resemble something else entirely!
There was a big frottage craze at UQ in late 92. Just sayin…
I knew I’d heard of it happening somewhere in Australia.
Every schoolgirl and ex-schoolgirl who’s ever caught a crowded bus or tram has known about it from the age of about 13, Paul. Next time you see some woman being stern about blokes, reflect on what lifetime of untold experience might be behind it.
Oh, what an innocent mind I’ve got. That never even occurred to me, PC. Seriously.
I should clarify that the frottage craze at UQ was for consenting frotteurs in private.
I think we call that “dry humping”, Mark @ 105 …