An error-ridden Anzac Day feature for Fairfax’s metropolitan newspapers a week ago has prompted an incredible 300-word correction in Saturday’s papers. Dr Jonathan King, a journalist and historian who’s written extensively on World War I, painted a colourful picture of the battle of Villers-Bretonneux, which occurred 100 years ago on Anzac Day. In it, he told how Sir John Monash had delivered an impassioned speech to troops to rally them to victory on the third anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli, “fueled by those painful memories”.
But as the correction reads, that speech never happened — Monash was not involved in that particular battle, but had instead led Australian troops to a different victory: Le Hamel in July of the same year.
As well as errors about Monash, the piece described two other generals, Harold “Pompey” Elliott and William Glasgow, as leading their troops into battle on site when they had instead been in command from headquarters.
Ross McMillan, another historian, wrote for The Age today criticising Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for making a similar error in saying Monash had been involved in that battle.
King is a popular Anzac Day talking head, has written several books about the Anzacs during World War I, and wrote another piece for Fairfax, published on Anzac Day, which has also now been removed.
A Fairfax spokesman told Crikey that the errors were made by King, but did not directly respond to a question as to whether the piece was fact-checked before it ran. “We have apologised for running the piece. We have no plans to run anything further from him. The correction and apology ran in print and online, and piece has been retracted from the website,” he said. The spokesman said the correction was “checked with historians”.
On radio, he was interviewed from Villers-Bretonneux by 2GB’s Alan Jones on Anzac Day and on the ABC’s PM program by host Linda Mottram the previous evening. On the ABC he repeated, unchallenged, the story of Monash’s rousing speech to his troops. An ABC spokeswoman told Crikey there hadn’t been any complaints lodged about the interview, but it was being reviewed.
King did not respond to Crikey‘s request for comment before deadline.
I’m sure Yassmin Abdel-Magied and Emma Alberici both will be looking on to see how this is handled in the light of the outrage directed at them for stating actual correct facts (the best type of facts).
To name (only) two individuals.
Until circa 2000 the ABC was held some come regard (even by Media Watch; its lapses from grace were infrequent). It had a number of services that emulated BBC4. Nowadays, at best, those services are merely “look-alikes” to what is on offer at BBC4 and the news (along with errors of grammar and punctuation) is no better (or worse) than any other media group.
Jonathan King is a flag waving student of false history. His piece was utter bullshit. He is far to much of a populist as is Peter Fitzsimons, though he employs good and diligent researchers, so he is more accurate. I recently went to a lecture at the AWM by Aaron Pegram, a senior historian who paints a more reasoned view. King even went so far as to say it was the turning point in the war. It was not, though Monash’s later victory at Le Hamel was a tactical turning point in many ways. Fairfax should be ashamed. Apparently there was noone with even a rudimentary grasp of WW I.
I think that the study of WWI is hard work. I have read so many books and trod the soil for a week at a time trying to get an understanding. The conflict went on for years and years and changed format so many times. If you want to get any sort of understanding you really have to put your back into it.
Malcolm Turnbull is a smart man, but he’s not that smart that he could simply absorb truth from standing at a podium in the general vicinity. I’d go so far as to say that he was opening a museum named after Monash in the general local of Villers-Brettoneux and assumed that Monash was the one what done the good thing? I may be wrong, but it explains everything on his part.
I can’t explain the lack of knowledge on the part of the learned historians. Perhaps they might pick up a book?
This is an obvious stuff up, even to a casual amateur WW1 history buff like yours truly.
How they dragged Monash into the VB conflict is an odd one?
Anything to justify a useless $100 million monument to stupidity in France. Honest to god, I am so old I remember when this ANZAC day was nothing much, thanks to Howard it’s turned into a whole frigging industry.
I was revolted to see in the PO fake two up games being packaged and sold for $20
Given your advanced years, you might be aware that even towns of a few hundred people constructed their own Great War monuments all over the country – including NZ. from 1919 to circa 1921. You might also be so old as to be able to recall that an opinion that you have just offered (viz. the ANZACs having died in vain) would have started a brawl that would have lasted some hours depending upon the size of the pub – to about the mid 80s – when the topic became (considerably) less sensitive.
The “popularism” of ANZAC has nothing to do with Howard – any more than 18-20 year olds (who have never spit-polished a pair of boots much less have incurred any kind of discipline) joining RSL clubs and frequenting them as a cheap warm up for dinner and drinks prior to the taxi for the night club.
Some things just come and go. My own rough theory suggest that those born circa 1985 (and later) have not had a Nam or a Korea or anything at all; not even CMT or National Service. ANZAC Day thus provides an opportunity for some de facto “reality experience” – if only for a day.
Ross McMullin NOT Ross McMillan.
Considering the utter bullshit flag waving and feasting on the dead that is usual around Anzac commemorations, it’s a bit precious to come over all fact-checky.
It’s not about reality, it’s about malleable myth making.