Journalism

Sniping a VC winner with ambush journalism

3278978D-B844-41C6-91AE-875FA97D5422.jpeg

How ridiculous could Fairfax Media be to attack and smear Benjamin Roberts-Smith VC – a decorated Victoria Cross winner – as a war criminal, a “callous, inhumane” murderer and a bully? Winning a VC is nigh on impossible without heroics which change the course of a battle with complete disregard of self preservation.

Since 1861, 3,502 Congressional Medals of Honor have been granted to US military personnel. The VC has seen 1,358 winners since 1856 to soldiers of Her Majesty. That isn’t to say a VC is twice as hard to get. It’s to say it takes someone doing pretty special deeds to win either.

Here is what Roberts-Smith won his VC for:

“For the most conspicuous gallantry in action in circumstances of extreme peril as a Patrol Second-in-Command with the Special Operations Task Group on Operation SLIPPER.

Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith enlisted in the Australian Regular Army in 1996. After completing the requisite courses, he was posted to the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, where he saw active service in East Timor. In January 2003, he successfully completed the Australian Special Air Service Regiment selection course.

During his tenure with the Regiment, he deployed on Operation VALIANT, SLATE, SLIPPER, CATALYST and SLIPPER II. Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his actions in Afghanistan in 2006.

On the 11th June 2010, a troop of the Special Operations Task Group conducted a helicopter assault into Tizak, Kandahar province, in order to capture or kill a senior Taliban commander.

Immediately upon the helicopter insertion, the troop was engaged by machine gun and rocket propelled grenade fire from multiple, dominating positions. Two soldiers were wounded in action and the troop was pinned down by fire from three machine guns in an elevated fortified position to the south of the village. Under the cover of close air support, suppressive small arms and machine gun fire, Corporal Roberts-Smith and his patrol manoeuvred to within 70 metres of the enemy position in order to neutralise the enemy machine gun positions and regain the initiative.

Upon commencement of the assault, the patrol drew very heavy, intense, effective and sustained fire from the enemy position. Corporal Roberts-Smith and his patrol members fought towards the enemy position until, at a range of 40 metres, the weight of fire prevented further movement forward. At this point, he identified the opportunity to exploit some cover provided by a small structure.

As he approached the structure, Corporal Roberts-Smith identified an insurgent grenadier in the throes of engaging his patrol. Corporal Roberts-Smith instinctively engaged the insurgent at point-blank range resulting in the death of the insurgent. With the members of his patrol still pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he exposed his own position in order to draw fire away from his patrol, which enabled them to bring fire to bear against the enemy. His actions enabled his Patrol Commander to throw a grenade and silence one of the machine guns. Seizing the advantage, and demonstrating extreme devotion to duty and the most conspicuous gallantry, Corporal Roberts-Smith, with a total disregard for his own safety, stormed the enemy position killing the two remaining machine gunners.

His act of valour enabled his patrol to break-in to the enemy position and to lift the weight of fire from the remainder of the troop who had been pinned down by the machine gun fire. On seizing the fortified gun position, Corporal Roberts-Smith then took the initiative again and continued to assault enemy positions in depth during which he and another patrol member engaged and killed further enemy. His acts of selfless valour directly enabled his troop to go on and clear the village of Tizak of Taliban. This decisive engagement subsequently caused the remainder of the Taliban in Shah Wali Kot district to retreat from the area.

Corporal Roberts-Smith’s most conspicuous gallantry in a circumstance of extreme peril was instrumental to the seizure of the initiative and the success of the troop against a numerically superior enemy force. His valour was an inspiration to the soldiers with whom he fought alongside and is in keeping with the finest traditions of the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.“

Having spent time with a veteran in recent weeks, it is clear the majority of us have never had to face live fire in war. We aren’t across the mental and physical stresses of being in battle and seeing mates killed or severely wounded. Soldiers and veterans quite rightly don’t take kindly to people they’ve put their lives on the line for  calling into question their dedication and service of country.  Even letters CM has read from WW2 veterans show the pressures they faced. Does the SMH know some 46% of people that serve in the military come out with some variant of PTSD? Why not show some dignity rather than sift through trash to besmirch a hero?

Fairfax Media taking potshots at the bravest of the brave looks daft. Is it any wonder Benjamin Roberts-Smith is fixing his legal bayonet to skewer those who tried to impugn his valor? He made a point of his fighting was to ensure freedom of the press but equally they have to be responsible for reporting accurately.

The Sydney Morning Herald just took a potato peeler to a gun fight. Having said that, the VC special forces veteran could probably force the paper into surrender with an unpainted pinky finger. Roberts-Smith would be the first to admit he killed in battle then again as General Patton once said, “you don’t win wars by dying for your country but making the other son-of-a-bitch die for his!

CNN’s tale of contradictory titles

965C3C9D-C91B-407C-9155-05A8B928C1FE.jpeg

In the same article – CNN make the inference that this Colorado couple are “now fighting to keep her from being deported” yet after opening the article it is titled  “Colorado couple wins battle” What a disgracefully misleading piece which we’ll discover was all to do with obtaining sufficient documentation with respect to legal custody rather than racist immigration officials executing this administration’s draconian rule.

10BAF690-802A-4FCC-B303-3534FCE61233.jpeg

The inference was to take a potshot at the Trump administration for being insensitive jackbooted alt-right nutjobs when the reality is that the laws and processes that would have been required to get the child’s adoption approved would apply to everyone.

In any event she was “approved” hence making the dramatics of attacking the system a total falsehood. She had initially been rejected because according to CNN:

In its August 8 denial, the immigration agency said the couple “failed to demonstrate” that they had “legal custody” of Angela for two years before filing the petition for citizenship, Angela Becerra said.

Who would honestly censure a government agency that wanted to prevent any risk of child trafficking by demanding such proof? So typical of the garbage reporting we face today and why CNN is suffering in the ratings war. Stop insulting people’s intelligence if you want credibility, which amazingly leads to ratings!

Fair facts about Fairfax

2B03F9D5-E4A0-445B-8DF6-A240FFFEEBD1.jpeg

Freedom of the press. A beautiful thing. By all means, the 177-yo Sydney Morning Hearld (SMH) executed full autonomy over what it published. In the end, the public didn’t buy it. For the staff to seek the union to block the Nine Network’s takeover of Fairfax Media smacks of the identical numb-skulled action that has brought them to this predicament. If the paper decided to listen to what the audience wanted to read (the mood) as opposed to telling them they “don’t get it” it might have retained its independence. Take a look at the pictograph above – 20 anti Trump articles in one day. Overkill?

Last year the SMH had to take two massive rounds of lay-offs inside of 12 months because the product wasn’t reaching. The SMH staff took a vote to strike because their evil overlords put profit ahead of people. Welcome to the free market. When one journalist at the SMH became a scab (because he admitted the paper’s journalism was the  problem) he was vilified by his fellow workers. Instead of opening their minds that they maybe the root cause, they protested. Finger on the pulse?

It certainly makes a strong case for how the diminishing readership base (i.e. the free market) viewed the content. Not very highly. It is why The Guardian now asks its readers for charity so it can stay alive? Could it be that media jobs don’t exist to serve the journalists needs but that of their audience? The Fairfax scribes might reflect on the fact that the taxpayer funded ABC – which produces identical product – was not the friendly ally it believed it was but the mortal enemy who ended it. As an audience, if we’re not offered a differentiated product where the same content  is free to consume, who would pay for the one that costs?

Yet the sale of Fairfax was obvious. Digging a bit deeper into the stats of the ABC reveals its biased left leaning journalism has dwindling popularity. Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 it is clear that TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Good to see taxpayer dollars openly championed with enhanced levels of mediocrity. Yet the ABC screams for more funding.

Throwing more money won’t fix the problems. The ABC’s wage bill is 50% of revenue while its multicultural sister station SBS runs on 31% of revenue for salaries. Why hasn’t the ABC got superior economies of scale? On a global basis, the UK’s BBC spends 22.7% of its revenues on salaries. How can Nine Network survive on advertising revenues? Could it be audience numbers allow advertisers to make rational decisions to tap them?

Criticise Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian for right wing media bias but at the very least he serves a market who is willing to pay for the content. Simple. It is no difference overseas. Fox has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. Don’t belt Fox viewers for following “Faux News” but question what is it about their offering that they’re missing? At what point do the likes of Fairfax or Time Warner realize the problem lies within.

In Fairfax’s case we have the answer – market forces.

WaPo writer channels Kathy Griffin

IMG_9190.JPG

What on earth inspires people to write such things after the shooting at a Congressional baseball practice in Virginia? How does someone who tweets such vile and thoughtless texts ever pass the editorial sniff test of a newspaper like WaPo where Malcolm Harris is an occasional writer? Will we see an apology via a televised press conference where Harris will claim it was comedy and that now his life is ruined?

I note that WaPo is using “Democracy dies in darkness” on its banner – perhaps it should be “journalistic integrity dies in daylight”.

New York Times – true to its word

IMG_0479.PNG

Whether it The Guardian passing the begging bowl or New York Times offering its uncompromising journalism for 60% off media has changed. The biggest problem with bragging about oneself is that the ultimate judge and jury are paying readers. The New York Times stuck to its word and ended its 60% off campaign is ad. Fear not it is still running with the 50% off campaign (below).

IMG_0496.PNG

It seems that Fairfax Holdings is going through another round of cuts in Australia after trimming 120 staff almost one year to the date.

If these media giants wrote articles which drew in paying customers encouraging them to open their wallets perhaps 50% off specials or begging wouldn’t be required. They are stuck in the mindset of not willing to reflect that maybe their journalism is the problem.