Media should name names

The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) says that it is 'more than just a university'.  Oh, ain't that the truth.  That's ADFA as in the Defence military kindergarten, not the Australian Dried Fruits Association.  But I'm sure they'd understand if you got the two confused.

The Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are really good at defending us; which is useful, because my only expectation of them is to ensure we don’t turn into a country that is anyway different to how it is now. I want them to fight wars in foreign lands, rather than wait until the enemy rocks up here. I want them to stop the bad people among the legitimate refugees from traipsing illegally onto our shores from god knows where, and I want them to kick the arse of any terrorist who plans to obliterate us from the inside. And as far as defending all things Australian, I think they are doing a tops job.

I am very comfortable and confident that the ADF know how to handle any shituation that involves war, intelligence, national security, machine guns, bad people and other defence type matters. That said, I have no confidence whatsoever that they can handle incidents involving women.

The latest Defence scandal involves an 18-year-old student at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA).  The girl, known as Kate, went to the media after the Defence head honchos allegedly ignored her complaint that she had unknowlingly been filmed with a webcam while having sex with another student, while another six male students watched in another room.  Yes, Kate broke the rules by fraternising with the opposite sex, which is banned at the academy.  But that's not the key issue.

How naïve of the Defence heads to believe that dismissing this complaint would be the end of the matter.  What the hell is wrong with these men?  They need to stick to playing with their guns and tanks and not involve themselves in negotiations with any members of the opposite sex, ever.  Because it always seems to turn out badly.  And now a former naval officer has come out, claiming she was raped in her sleep by a fellow officer, and I hope many more people come forward, as difficult as that may be for them.  The ADF has had this coming for a very long time. 

And then we have the media.  Whenever something controversial is going on, particularly when it involves a government department, you can bet your bottom dollar that a journalist will be censored by their news organisation if they upset the applecart. In this case, the requirement is to not upset the highest echelons of the Defence Department, in fear of losing key contacts, and thus the journalist will end up covering trade fairs and dog shows, rather than getting any big scoops from key sources inside the government.

So the while the media whinge endlessly about their impartiality, and how it’s their sole purpose to expose the truth and keep the public informed, in reality, it’s a lot muddier than that. The media and government exist in a complex symbiotic relationship. It’s a two-way mechanism – needing each other, but also needing to keep the other at arm's length. You think it’s just as simple as writing a story and exposing the truth? Get real. We only get a sanitised version of the truth; a version that generally won’t result in any of the top brass going out to pasture on a controversial note.

But doesn’t the public have a right to know who's raping women in the armed forces? Sure we do, but we aren’t going to get the whole truth. The media always claim they protect the identities of bad people because of defamation laws, but I want to know why, even after court proceedings, the media does not, or is not allowed to, name names? Isn’t this hypocritical, given they claim their role is to inform the public?

And I think it would be pretty easy to identify who put it on Skype.  Surely the public is entitled to demand that the media expose the truth.  Expose the jackass who raped (it might be under ACT law) Kate, the others who watched on Skype, and the top brass, and/or government members who decided to cover it up.

Protect the source (Kate), but expose the predators. I don't want the identity of these men protected. I want their faces on the front of all national newspapers, so they can deal with the fallout. Surely the Defence Department would think again about their leniency in cracking down on rapists if there was even the possibility that the faces of these dropkicks would go viral.

Any excuse that is rolled out in defence of protecting their identity is based on an outcome I'd be happy to see - like they won't get work anywhere (cry me a river), or they'll be rejected by women (sounds like a community service to me), or the top brass have had a honourable career (they did, until now).  I don't care what happens to these people, I just want them exposed for who they are.  I really, really would like to see them exposed for who they are.

And let's be clear; the media do not give a stuff about protecting identities of people like Kate; all they care about is ratings and circulation figures, and you only get these through big stories, which you only get by retaining the rapport with the higher echelons in government departments and other business and industry leaders. They sure as shit do not care about protecting society, specifically ADFA women, from men who rape.

These ADFA guys are a small bunch of really rotten eggs among the good eggs in the defence forces. I think we should ship the rotten ones off to the hot spots right now - no training, no guns, no armour, no chance in hell of getting out of there. Perhaps the Defence Department needs a female Pal Sec to act as Defence Women's Relations Liaison, or something to that effect. We could get an outrageously annoying feminist in the role and watch the boys squirm.  Germaine 'name and shame rapists' Greer comes immediately to mind for some reason.  No-one can emasculate quite like Germaine.