It was hard to believe some of the rumours circulating in Defence and political circles which implicated,in some instances,decorated war heroes. We urged our journalists to exercise caution.Glenn Campbell
It is hard to think of a moreThe Age andSydney Morning Herald have published in their 364 years of combined history. Suggesting even a small minority of Australians serving in the most difficult of conditions had killed innocent civilians would inevitably draw strong reactions from readers and the wider public.
When investigative reporters Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters suggested looking into potential SAS misconduct in Afghanistan in 2017,senior editors expressed the same concerns many of you had when you first heard the allegations. How can we be sure these alleged crimes occured? Were the actions of soldiers justifiable “in the fog of war”? Should we judge brave soldiers fighting in unimaginably tough conditions - particularly when the Afgan conflict had gone too long and our troops were suffering from dehumanising mission creep?
It was,frankly,hard to believe some of the rumours circulating in Defence and political circles which implicated,in some instances,decorated war heroes. We urged our journalists to exercise caution. We knew it was likely we would be sued if we published any of the allegations.
A turning point for senior editors was when McKenzie played back confidential,anonymised interviews with SAS whistleblowers. It was clear listening to their testimony that they had no time for “fog of war” arguments. We take the rules of combat incredibly seriously,they explained proudly,because to do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty. The whistleblowers were variously emotional,matter of fact,sad and angry,but they all made the same point:a few rogue soldiers had taken the law into their own hands.
McKenzie,a multiple Walkley Award winner,and Masters,the veteran investigative journalist,author and only member of the Australian media to be embedded with the SASR,slowly went about their work. They asked more questions,checked more facts and spoke to more people on the ground. By the time they had finished,McKenzie and Masters had interviewed dozens of witnesses and veterans over hundreds and hundreds of hours.
In some ways they went through a similar journey of understanding to the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force,Paul Brereton,whose report found credible evidence 19 Australian special forces soldiers committed up to 39 murders of innocent Afghans.
"When what the inquiry has found is taken collectively,the answer to the question,'Is there substance to rumours of war crimes by elements of the Special Operations Task Group'must sadly be,'Yes,there is',"Justice Brereton said last week.
The Herald andThe Age are similarly disappointed there turned out to be substance to the rumours. The alleged crimes “amount to a betrayal of all Australians who are rightly proud of the bravery and professionalism of the overwhelming majority of our armed forces”,the Herald published after the release of the report on Thursday. “Good men and women deployed in conflict zones are now in even greater danger due to the risk of retaliation. And the moral authority of an entire nation has been diminished.”
But we do not regret covering this issue. Public interest journalism is not a popularity contest and sometimes the most important stories are contentious and uncomfortable. Many of our readers were understandably ill at ease about our early coverage,including allegations Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith was among the soldiers alleged to have committed crimes. Our well-funded media rivals,Kerry Stokes’ Seven West Media and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation,muddied the waters rather than cover the story properly. We still face substantial legal action over the Roberts-Smith reporting.
We respect anyone’s right to criticise or question our journalism,particularly our subscribers who pay for our newsrooms. We aim to be mastheads that encourage a plurality of sensible views. And we do not seek to conflate the challenges we faced with the bravery of the SAS whistleblowers and families of Afgan families who risked far more to tell their stories. But over the course of the past three years we hope you believe we have made the case that investigating war crimes in Afghanistan was in the public interest - this is the key test after all.
Investigative journalism has always been at the heart of the Herald. It is long,complicated and expensive work made more difficult by antiquated defamation,secrecy and freedom of information laws that run counter to proper standards of transparency and accountability. But we firmly believe it is worth it.
At Friday’s Walkley Awards,Kate McClymont and Jacqueline Maley were recognised for of allegations of sexual harassment involving former High Court Judge Dyson Heydon. Nick McKenzie,Joel Tozer and Sumeyya Ilanbey’s investigation (also involving60 Minutes) into Victorian Labor branch stacking was also a winner. It has been our investigations that undercovered misconduct at casino group Crown Resorts,corruption at Casey Council in Melbourne’s south-east,gross failures at NSW hospitals,breakdowns in Victoria’s hotel quarantine system and the scandal that is NSW workplace insurer icare.
Each of these investigations represent significant investments in straitened times for most newsrooms that can take some time to have a real impact. Last week, when a former senior executive from construction giant Leighton Holdings was arrested for alleged involvement in a $1 billion international graft scandal. The arrest came more than four years after McKenzie and Richard Baker broke the story in its Unaoil series. We think it was worth it. Hopefully you do too.
Thank you for your support. Without the contribution of subscribers our public interest journalism would not be possible.
James Chessell,Executive Editor (The Sydney Morning Herald,The Age,Brisbane Times,WAtoday)
Michael Bachelard,Investigations Editor,The Age