An unsurprising reporting fail
Mainstream media outlets often fail to uphold fundamental journalistic principles, particularly when covering sensitive issues like China. They often rely on government officials' statements without sufficient independent verification or analysis. The tendency of media to prioritise and amplify the opinions of politicians, often without adequate supporting evidence, is criticised as poor journalism. They fail to seek and incorporate expert opinions to provide context and balance to political statements. Unverified claims of politicians, amplified by media, can negatively impact Australia's relationship with China. Media outlets can inadvertently or intentionally become tools for propaganda by uncritically accepting and disseminating the opinions of government officials.
Reporting failure
While expectations for unbiased reporting in mainstream media may vary, certain fundamental journalistic principles should be upheld when covering issues of national significance. This case study analyses how reporting on a specific event by three media outlets – three local and one international – demonstrates how these principles are ignored [1][2][3][4].
A critical examination of China-related reporting in Australia reveals areas for improvement. To further investigate this, I encourage you to independently analyse news stories on China. This independent analysis may reveal similar patterns of reporting as observed in this study.
The event
All the media reports canvassed the same basic facts. There is minimal dispute over the core facts—such as the location, type, and number of aircraft involved, as well as the release of flares and the countries concerned.
Uncontested facts
1. Chinese military jet: J-10 Chinese Air Force
2. Released flares
3. In the vicinity of an Australian navy helicopter: MH-60R Seahawk
4. From HMAS Hobart
5. In the Yellow Sea
Comments by politicians, as recorded and broadcast
The three reports chose to quote politicians.
Andrew Hastie
1. “This builds on the pattern of aggressive behaviour from the People's Liberation Army — Navy towards the Australian Defence Force (ADF) over the past few years, including the sonar attack on RAN divers in November last year”
2. “We are relieved that no ADF personnel were injured by this reckless, dangerous and foolish move. It does not build trust between our nations.”
Richard Marles
3. “Australia expects all countries, including China, to operate their militaries in a professional and safe manner.”;
4. “The PLA Air Force plane dropped flares about 300 metres in front of the Seahawk helicopter and about 60 metres above it, requiring the helicopter to take evasive action in order to not be hit by those flares”;
5. “The consequence of being hit by the flares would have been significant.”
6. "Importantly, the helicopter was unaffected, and all the crew are safe."
7. "This is a very serious incident. It was unsafe and it is completely unacceptable."
China’s Ministry of Defense
8. “Under the guise of implementing United Nations Security Council resolutions, Australian warships and aircraft deliberately approached China’s airspace to cause trouble and provocation, endangering China’s maritime and air security”
9. “As a warning, the Chinese military took necessary measures at the scene. Relevant operations are legal, compliant, professional, and safe.”
Analysis of commentary from Australian and Chinese authorities
In all the reports, non-expert opinions are given as if they were fact. While Marles and Hastie may have sought expert opinion before conducting interviews, they do not refer to these. Instead, they present their commentary as indisputable facts.
The following tables analyse their non-expert opinion to show that no evidence is brought to bear on the event. In turn, reporters could have sought expert opinion that affirmed or contradicted the politicians but chose not to. In some cases, expert opinion contradicts opinion given.
Assessment of Hastie’s opinion - “reckless"
Andrew Hastie’s use of “reckless” is completely unsubstantiated, as well as contradicted by expert documentation. Hastie had the option of introducing expert opinion, explanations of the procedures or risk assessments, but chose not to, in order to further his intent to propagandise.
Likewise, those reporting also have the option of introducing expert opinion or other evidence, but choose to propagate the non-expert opinion of the politicians. They choose not to hold politicians to account for their opinions.
Hastie’s opinion is likely to do harm to Australia’s relationship with China.
Marles' "significant consequences"
Richard Marles’ use of “consequences .. significant” is completely unsubstantiated, and likely contradicted by expert documentation. His opinion is likely to do harm to Australia’s relationship with China. Clearly, since the outcome of the incident was not any kind of harm or death, Marles' assessment of the situation is demonstrably incorrect.
Both Marles and Hastie appear to be relying on a notion of ‘trust me’ to support their opinion, not evidence or expert opinion. Hence, their comments are delinquent. The reporters, likewise, fail to introduce the kind of evidence that is needed in order for the reader to make a fair and honest judgment of the actions of the Chinese pilot. They fail to hold the politicians to account.
Relevance to Australians
For a story of relevance to Australian audiences, it is reasonable to expect that common questions would be addressed or readers/viewers directed to expert insights.
These might include: ...
Why were Australian military aircraft operating so far from Australia and in close proximity to China? ...
How were the facts of the event verified, such as through witness testimony or tribunal proceedings? ...
What is Australia’s role in enforcing UN sanctions and what risks does this entail, such as potential involvement in conflicts? ...
What were the safety protocols in place during the event, and were they adhered to by both parties? ...
If a news outlet fails to address these questions or provide expert analysis from reliable sources, the story may no longer aim to inform Australians but rather to reinforce a particular ideological stance.
The equivalent video story
In many ways, written news reports are less available to audiences, who often prefer short ‘vignettes’ to ‘bring them up to speed’. To add to the ‘sorry tale’ of the state of reporting, here is the video version of the 9News story. There is little doubt that the object of the story is to vilify China, not actually provide any news.
9News story
A blow-by-blow analysis of the video news story posted with the 9News on-line story is given below [6].
How the story is skewed
| Narration | Neutral tone | Facts |
| HMAS Hobart has been playing Australia's part in preventing North Korea from smuggling sanctioned goods across the high seas. | HMAS Hobart has been participating in efforts to prevent North Korea from transporting sanctioned goods across international waters. | This is the official reason. These sanctions are of dubious moral and legal premise and effectiveness. Emotive description |
| However, on Saturday night, there was a near disaster. | However, on Saturday night, there was a 'close call'. | The danger is contested. Probyn is not an expert on aircraft. Hyperbole |
| A Navy Seahawk helicopter conducting routine operations in international waters was intercepted by a Chinese J-10 Air Force jet. | A Navy Seahawk helicopter conducting operations in international waters encountered a Chinese J-10 Air Force jet. | The reason for the presence of the helicopter is contested. |
| 'The jet dropped flares about 300 meters in front of the Seahawk, only 60 meters away.' | The jet dropped flares about 300 meters in front of the Seahawk as a warning. | The proximity is irrelevant, as the use of flares is standard procedure. [5] |
| Quick reflexes by the Australian pilot averted disaster. | The Australian pilot averted an accident. | Anecdotal evidence only. Hyperbole. |
| Minister, I've been told that this incident was so serious it nearly took one of our choppers out of the sky. | Minister, has the seriousness of this incident been investigated? | Non-expert opinion. Hyperbole. Leading question. Colloquialisms. |
| This incident, which was both unsafe and unprofessional, has been deemed very serious. | I am seeking expert opinion on the safety of the incident. | Non-expert opinion. Hyperbole. Leading question. Colloquialisms. |
| Richard Marles says Australia has formally registered its deep concern about the incident, telling Beijing it is completely unacceptable. | ||
| "Australia will not be deterred from engaging in lawful activities and enforcing UN sanctions on North Korea. " | ||
| Although no one was hurt in this incident, China's aggression in the region is worrying Australia and its allies. | Although no one was hurt in this incident, China's activities in the region are concerning Australia and its allies. | Non-expert opinion. Emotive language |
| In November, Navy divers were injured when a Chinese warship issued sonar pulses at HMAS Toowoomba operating in the South China Sea. | In November, Navy divers were reported as injured when a Chinese warship allegedly issued sonar pulses at HMAS Toowoomba operating in the South China Sea. | Contested. |
| According to Defense sources, this could easily have been a fatal incident. | Unconfirmed reports from defense sources have suggested this could have been a fatal incident. | Sources not named, so no opportunity to verify. Therefore, it is considered dubious. Hyperbole. |
| Remember, this took place in international waters during an operation to uphold UN Security Council sanctions on North Korea. | This took place in international waters during an operation which the Defence Department reports as required to uphold UN Security Council sanctions on North Korea. The location falls within a contested area where the EEZ of Republic of Korea and China overlap. | The waters are contested - the EEZ for Republic of Korea and China overlap, acknowledged as a 'grey zone. |
| For a Chinese fighter jet to drop flares in front of one of our helicopters is beyond serious. | This incident could be considered to be serious. | Non-expert opinion. Hyperbole. |
Failures
Here’s a summary of how this story fails to meet the principles of truthful reporting:
1. “Near disaster" and "quick reflexes by the Australian pilot averted disaster" evoke a sense of imminent danger and heroism, potentially exaggerating the severity without concrete evidence of the actual risk level.
2. The subjective terms, "Unsafe and unprofessional" imply a value judgment without providing detailed context or evidence to support the claims of unprofessionalism.
3. "China's aggression in the region is worrying Australia and its allies" suggests a broad and ongoing pattern of behaviour attributed to China, which may be contested. It is essential to back such claims with specific instances and broader context.
4. "Aggression" is a strong term that assumes hostile intent without definitive proof.
5. "Preventing North Korea from smuggling sanctioned goods" requires specific details as evidence.
6. "Intercepted by a Chinese J-10 Air Force jet". "Intercepted" implies a more aggressive manoeuvre than what might have occurred. Clarification on the nature of the interception would be helpful.
7. "Flares about 300 meters in front of the Seahawk, only 60 meters away". Distances should be presented with context of standard operating procedures and expert opinion on whether such actions are common or highly unusual.
8. "This incident, which was both unsafe and unprofessional, has been deemed very serious". Providing evidence or expert opinions on why the incident is considered serious would strengthen the claim. Statements from defence analysts or citing international maritime safety protocols could add credibility.
9. "Formally registered its deep concern" Including a direct quote from the official statement or further details on the diplomatic communication would provide more substance.
10. "Could significantly impact that visit" is speculative. It would be beneficial to include expert analysis or historical examples of how such incidents have affected diplomatic visits in the past.
From this analysis, we can conclude that Andrew Probyn had no intention of presenting the news objectively, instead opting for emotive and hyperbolic language to bait the audience.
Sources
An Australian military helicopter was conducting a UN-mandated patrol over the Yellow Sea when a Chinese fighter jet fired flares directly in front of it. Australia condemned the action as "completely unacceptable" and a danger to the crew. China defended its actions, claiming the Australian aircraft was conducting "provocative" activities. This incident follows a series of confrontations between Chinese and Australian military forces in recent years, raising concerns about escalating tensions in the region..
Interception procedures defined by the Federal Aviation Authority. These state that flares are to be used to warn intruding aircraft that they should leave the area.
See Appendix D.
Typically, two fighter jets would approach from the rear. One of the two will fly around and make visual contact with you. As a pilot, you are trained in flight intercept protocols and there is only option left to dissuade the belligerent fighter jets from resorting to anything lethal.
The first step of flight intercept protocol is to acknowledge the intercept by rocking your wings. Meanwhile the pilot in the fighter jet would communicate with you over radio and expect you to heed to his queries attentively. At this stage, you are expected to acknowledge your mistake of intruding into a no-fly zone.
If the jet pilot is convinced by your apology, he will guide you out of the no-fly zone area to a nearby air base. To do that, it would go past you and take a slow turn around to divert you from the protected area.
If it turns abruptly and fires its flares, it implies that the fighter jet pilot is warning you for not obeying his instructions. This is a critical gesture, as you are supposed to follow instructions given by the fighter jet pilot immediately. Fighter jets will then divert you to the closest military airbase, where you make an urgent landing.
.
Claims
Author
Andrew Westerman
I am a retired teacher who has an interest in geopolitics and preventing a war between the US and China