The flogs of war
Paul Keating says it is the worst reporting he has ever seen. Not known for his own sense of understatement, he is appalled by the hyperbole. “Today’s Sydney Morning Herald and Age front page stories on Australia’s supposed war risk with China represents the most egregious and provocative news presentation of any newspaper I have witnessed in over 50 years of active public life,” he said in a statement. “It is way worse than the illustrated sampans shown to be coming from China in the build up to the war in Vietnam in the 1960s.”
He said the series was wantonly biased and inflammatory. The paper’s international editor was a provocateur and a warmonger. The “extent of the bias and news abuse” was unparalleled in modern Australian journalism. “Locking five people up in a room for a day asking for an articulation of their views or biases on China’s attitude to Australia – does not represent either revelation or responsible journalism.”
The series is called “Red Alert” – presumably because the Chinese are “Reds”. It uses the front pages of what were once the country’s most trusted papers to warn of war within three years. The case is put for national service and for hosting nuclear weapons.
The series warns that within 72 hours of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Australia’s mainland would be under attack for the first time since World War II. Chinese missiles would “pummel” the country, accompanied by “devastating” cyberattacks on airports and energy grids. Pine Gap would be bombed, as would naval and military bases. The country could be hemmed in with sea mines.
“Urgency must replace complacency,” the newspapers say. “The recent decades of tranquillity were not the norm in human affairs, but an aberration. Australia’s holiday from history is over.”
There is an important conversation to be had about China’s ambition and Australia’s military preparedness, but not the oiled-up fantasies of Nine’s swordsmen reporters. The newspaper group has given over page after page to this boy’s own adventure, diminishing the chances of a serious or mature debate.
What it amounts to is a pirated Defence Strategic Review, cobbled together between five experts, rushed out in advance of the real one soon to be released by Richard Marles. The series says this is a virtue – the warnings and the embellishment are free from government timidity.
Really, it is the desperate gasp of a once-great media company. It trades sense for impact. It mistakes fear for fearlessness. In sweaty, rippling prose, it pushes Australia closer again to the precipice of war. It does so for the same reason that little boys play with plastic soldiers: because sometimes it’s fun to pretend.