It was called the “trial of the century”: decorated soldier Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation suit against some of the giants of Australian journalism, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Canberra Times. But what are the implications for news producers?
The case has far-reaching impacts, far beyond simply the branding of Roberts-Smith as a war criminal.
Rather, the decision has cemented the importance of public interest journalism in Australia, and just why such journalism is so important.
What did the judge find?
The defamation trial between Roberts-Smith and the media outlets began in 2021 and wrapped up in July 2022. The findings were released on June 1 2023 by Justice Anthony Besanko, who found that the media outlets’ allegations of war crimes – including murder – and bullying were “substantially true”. Roberts-Smith’s defamation case was dismissed.
The full findings were released on June 5 2023 and revealed that Roberts-Smith may be guilty of criminal offences too, for sending threatening, anonymous letters to a former colleague from the SAS.
What have been some of the reactions to the judgement?
The case has been front page news in Australia and has even made headlines around the world, on CNN and the BBC, for example.
It has prompted much analysis about Australia’s defamation laws.
What does this mean for public interest journalism?
The case has been defining one for public interest journalism in Australia, revealing just how vital journalistic investigation is. It proves that public interest journalism still serves a purpose, holding the powerful and wealthy to account for their actions.
It also highlighted to an engrossed public the high stakes of defamation law in Australia, and how those laws can be used to potentially stifle good journalism. As noted in The Guardian, “the outcome of this defamation case illustrates why media freedom requires greater recognition within Australian media law.”
But respected journalist Hugh Riminton, also writing for The Guardian, believes “Ben Roberts-Smith’s personally disastrous defamation case is not the complete victory it seems for Australian journalism”. The “sheer financial scale” of battling a defamation case, as well as the often drawn-out length of the case, could be enough to put journalists off their work – in other words, to self-censor and stop telling the public interest stories that communities need to know.
Here is a wrap of some of the media coverage and opinions from various outlets about what it means for public interest journalism.
The Age/Sydney Morning Herald
The Nine newspapers were sued by Roberts-Smith, so their coverage on the day of the verdict was comprehensive and swift. Notably, the papers carried the same articles, including a photo essay of the trial, along with a written account of the verdict.
Canberra Times
Mark Kenny, writing in the Canberra Times and quoting PIJI, pointed out the importance of public interest journalism, but also argued that the ruling will encourage journalists to continue to work on this form of investigation. A ruling in favour of Roberts-Smith would have done precisely the opposite.
The Herald Sun
The Herald Sun’s initial coverage of the verdict highlighted the scale of the case. Content draws from other News Corp sources as well, including a video borrowed from Sky News featuring Peta Credlin’s view on the case. The outlet also featured a story highlighting the key findings from the full verdict.
Guardian Australia
Guardian Australia followed the case closely throughout, even running a podcast series providing background information for the readers. Their story, published on the day of the verdict, is extensive and provides a summary of the entire trial and the major allegations made.
The Australian
The Australian took a number of angles to the verdict, including this consideration of the media rivalry between Seven and Nine, which played a part in the case. The Australian also carried this dramatic explainer article, and this opinion piece canvassing the meaning of the trial for other soldiers.
ABC
The ABC’s coverage included videos and written pieces. Using its television capabilities to full effect, the ABC News website carries a video of journalist Nick McKenzie speaking on ABC program 7.30 about the judgement. An audio piece looks at the legal fees associated with the case, while another video looks at problems with Australia’s defamation laws. The national broadcaster also featured a timeline for those looking to catch up on the case.