|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Corrections
The Australia Defence Association's public-interest watchdog role integrally involves the promotion of informed public debate on defence and wider national security issues. This naturally includes the ADA contributing to media coverage and on-line forums.
We take great care with our contributions to public debate so they are as accurate, current and as relevant as possible. Sometimes, however, we need to correct a statement or clarify the reasons behind our stance. This page helps fulfill this purpose.
This page is also used to publish corrections relating to inaccurate, sensationalist or uninformed media coverage of defence and wider national security issues. In this regard, it is also worth reading our letters-to-the-editor and formal comment pages.
f you wish to provide feedback to the ADA on the corrections below you can do so on our feedback page.
21 April 2011
Email to Damon Johnston, Editor of the Sunday Herald Sun
Dear Damon,
The email [to Samantha Maiden] below is largely self-explanatory. I would be happy to discuss this matter in more detail, especially as the misquotation and misrepresentation has now appeared widely in other News Ltd publications (including an unfair, unbalanced and untrue editorial in last week’s Sunday Telegraph based on the misquotations and misrepresentations).
The misquotation and misrepresentation in Samantha Maiden’s article is frankly inexcusable in its lack of professionalism and in its patent dishonesty.
This is compounded by the fact that when she rang me a few days before publication she confirmed what I had told her (not what was published), and agreed as to the context of my explanation of a complex and nuanced set of circumstances, but then still misquoted and misrepresented me out of such context in the published version.
Even allowing for Samantha’s obvious lack of knowledge on defence subjects ― hence my detailed explanations to help her with the background and the concepts involved with the ADFA incident ― it is therefore hard to believe that such misquotation and misrepresentation could be in any way accidental.
Her very brief and arrogant email reply to my complaint below merely claimed her notes supported her “interpretation”. This could not possible be true. Anyway this unsupported denial ignores the other aspects of my complaint regarding the biased description of the ADA as somehow denying what we had clearly not done and where the denial had actually come from the Minister’s office, and the biased descriptions of the Association as somehow “right-wing” and as a “lobby” in the pejorative sense.
Please publish a correction with the same prominence as the original misquotation and misrepresentation. I would appreciate it if the wording of the approval was discussed with me beforehand.
Regards, Neil
Neil James
Executive Director
Australia Defence Association
__________________________
To: Samantha Maiden (News Ltd)
CC: Chris Mitchell (editor, The Australian); Neil Breen (editor, Sunday Telegraph); Lauren Wilson; Michael Owen
Subject: Misquotation and misrepresentation of the Australia Defence Association
Date: Monday, 18 April 2011
Dear Samantha,
The ADA is very disappointed in your Sunday Herald Sun article (17 April 2011, p.33) and subsequent articles (and broadcasts) based on its misquotations and misrepresentation.
First, you misquoted and misrepresented what I said and the ADA stance on the ADFA sexual assault issue:
-
I was clearly discussing ADFA's no-fraternisation rule when I pointed to several of the additional difficulties that ADFA faced compared to civilian tertiary institutions in preventing sexual harassment and other sexual misbehaviour. Chiefly that the cadets lived together closely 24 hours a day, it is a high-pressure environment because of the military training and associated expectations, and they are generally more physically fit than most university students. I never said, suggested or implied that sex was somehow an excusable or the only outlet for them. I did stress that under such conditions the Academy's no-fraternisation policy is both essential but very difficult to police (and that views on the policy among the cadet body are quite polarised between its supporters and those who think it is unenforceable because of human nature). You misused my quotes out of context and inaccurately. This has seriously misled many readers.
-
It is also incorrect and very misleading for you to report that the ADA has "... denied any role in the whispering" being undertaken about the background of the female victim. You were advised, off the record, that we wrote to the Minister for Defence asking for his confirmation that no-one working for him was spreading the lie around the press gallery that the ADA was somehow smearing the female cadet involved. On Friday (15 April 2011), the Minister's chief-of-staff assured the ADA, on the Minister's behalf, that they were not behind these untrue and defamatory allegations. It was the Minister's office that denied the matter. We had nothing to deny because we have not done anything to that would need denying. You knew the whole story but still reported this aspect in terms that implied that the ADA had something to hide when the opposite is clearly the truth.
-
It is incorrect again to write that the ADA was "... unaware of allegations of the woman's sexual history being raised to discredit her and said he [meaning me] didn't regard it as relevant". This is both contradictory to what you wrote earlier in the article and wrong in that the use of the word "it" does not impart clearly enough that it is the previous sexual history, if any, not just the the allegations that the ADA does not consider relevant.
These misquotations and misrepresentations were unfairly and inaccurately repeated in a "Sunday Telegraph" (17 April 2011) editorial and in "The Australian" in an article by Michael Owen and Lauren Wilson on Monday 18 April 2011. They also enabled the editorial to thoroughly misunderstand ADA policy and actions in this matter, and then make numerous factually incorrect or confused remarks about the ADA's role and competence as a public-interest watchdog that painted the exact opposite of the ADA's efforts to bring objective and informed views to public debate on this matter.
Second, to describe the ADA incorrectly as somehow a "right-wing lobby group" is absurd. The Association is fiercely independent and staunchly non-partisan and this has long been widely acknowledged by both sides of politics as numerous references in Hansard, for example, will attest. Our guarantors have always included equal numbers of retired senators and MHRs from Labor and the Coalition. Among recent Ministers for Defence, both a Liberal and a Labor Minister joined the ADA immediately on retiring as Minister because they respected our objective and non-partisan input to public debate - including our extensive submissions on reform of the Department of Defence. Our Board of Directors includes a former senior ALP official, a former senator from the Australian Democrats and a former chief-of-staff to a Liberal state premier. No serious observer of defence issues, or "player" in the defence debate, would regard the ADA as either "right-wing" (or indeed as a "lobby" in the pejorative sense).
Third, the ADA is a public-interest watchdog, not a lobby. Again our long record of contributing to informed public debate on defence issues, and objectively and critically monitoring the performance of all connected with defence policy and its execution, is widely acknowledged by those who keep up with such issues.
Could you please ensure corrections of your misquotations and misrepresentations are published as soon as possible in order to prevent further public confusion and to prevent further misconceptions about the ADA being wrongly publicised.
Neil James
Executive Director
Australia Defence Association
27 October 2009,
ABC admits errors in the 7.30 Report story broadcast on 09 September 2009
The Corrections and Clarifications page of the ABC website at http://abc.net.au/news/corrections/ reads:
"Female diggers
7.30 Report
On September 9, in a background story about women in the Australian Defence Force, the ABC reported three inaccuracies:
The story contained a comparison between women serving in other foreign defence forces and reported “But in Australia women have been kept away on the basis they're not strong enough to cope” is inaccurate. The ABC acknowledges that female diggers do serve in combat zones.
The ABC inaccurately reported that “Women already make up about 13 per cent of the permanent Defence Force ranks, but those 7000 soldiers, sailors and air crew are limited to support roles”. The ABC understands that women in the ADF are not limited to support roles and do serve in direct and indirect combat functions in combat units.
The ABC sought comment from Neil James of the Australia Defence Association, however, due to time restrictions and editing processes, Mr James’ comments regarding the possible capture of female diggers on the battlefield were misrepresented.
The ABC apologises for the lapse in standards."
The more detailed email response sent to the ADA by the ABC on 28 October 2009 reads:
"Thank you for your email regarding The 7.30 Report story Aussie Combat Women. In keeping with the Corporation’s complaint handling procedures, it has been referred to me for investigation and response.
The ABC acknowledges your concern with certain aspects of the report. First, the ABC agrees that the reporter’s comparison between female diggers and women serving in a range of other foreign defence forces, with the statement “But in Australia women have been kept away on the basis they're not strong enough to cope” is inaccurate. The ABC acknowledges that female diggers do serve in combat zones.
Second, the ABC acknowledges that the reporter’s statement that “Women already make up about 13 per cent of the permanent Defence Force ranks, but those 7000 soldiers, sailors and air crew are limited to support roles” is inaccurate. The ABC understands that women in the ADF are not limited to support roles and do serve in direct and indirect combat functions in combat units.
Third, the ABC acknowledges your concern with the editing of your comments in the report’s conclusion and agrees that your point regarding the capture of female diggers on the battlefield was misrepresented. I am advised by ABC News management that this occurred during tight deadline editing that required the story to be cut down to fit its allotted running time. The ABC regrets that this resulted in your comments being broadcast out of context and sincerely apologises for its lapse of editorial standards. http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm
You can be assured that your concerns have been brought to the attention of the producer of the program and ABC News management. These breaches of the Corporation’s Editorial Policies have been discussed with the reporter and producer and will be reported to the ABC Board.
It is of course not possible, within the time constraints of such a brief report, to include all of the issues raised in your interview and correspondence. The 7.30 Report endeavoured to encapsulate the major points on the matter through the presentation of a range of principal relevant perspectives. For example, on your point regarding the link between operational capability and employment policy, the Defence Personnel Minister, Greg Combet, made these points in the report: “This is about assessing at the end of the day, anyone's physical capability to fulfil a particular role within the ADF” and “It's extremely important that we send a signal to women that their role is valued within the Australian Defence Force and their opportunity to participate in occupations is considered on appropriate grounds.”
The program would have preferred to include the perspective of a female digger in the report and spent several hours of its limited production time attempting to locate serving and retired female personnel to interview, through contact with the ADF and the Department of Defence. I am advised by ABC News management that repeated requests were made with the ADF media unit for comment throughout the day, but no response was received.
I am advised by ABC news management that the program intends to broadcast an on-air correction tomorrow tonight, time permitting, or as soon as reasonably possible. The online transcript of the report has been amended, with an editor’s note explaining the errors. Those errors have also been posted on the ABC News corrections page. http://abc.net.au/news/corrections/
Thank you for allowing the ABC the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Kieran Doyle
Investigation Officer
Audience and Consumer Affairs "
The detail of the ADA's complaint to the ABC (on 10 September 2009) concerning this program can be read here. It took the ABC nearly seven weeks to process the ADA's complaint.