Roberts-Smith pravi, da je neuspešna sodna zadeva stala Kerry Stokes več kot 30 milijonov dolarjev.
Avstralski vojni veteran Ben Roberts-Smith je v nedavnem intervjuju za medije dejal, da je njegova neuspešna tožba za klevetanje proti Nine Newspapers milijarderju Kerryju Stokesu stala več kot 30 milijonov AUD. Civilna zadeva se je končala z odločbo zveznega sodišča, da so obtožbe glede Roberts-Smithove vpletenosti v smrt štirih zapornikov v Afganistanu v bistvu resnične. Roberts-Smith, ki trenutno čaka na sojenje zaradi petih obtožb umora zaradi vojnih zločinov, povezanih z njegovo službo v Afganistanu med letoma 2009 in 2012, je zanikal kakršnokoli kršitev in trdil, da je strogo upošteval pravila angažmaja. Ni obžaloval svojih vojaških dejanj, trdil je, da je ravnal pravilno, da bi zaščitil svoje tovariše. Obtožba se bo začela decembra, Roberts-Smith pa se bo pritožil.
War veteran Ben Roberts-Smith disclosed that his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against Nine Newspapers cost billionaire Kerry Stokes upwards of $30 million. The revelation came during a two-and-a-half-hour interview with 2GB radio, conducted while Roberts-Smith awaits trial on war crime charges. He stated he does not regret any aspect of his military service and maintains that he strictly followed rules of engagement. Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient, has been charged with five counts of war crime murder. Prosecutors allege he killed unarmed Afghan nationals who were not participating in hostilities during his deployments with the Special Air Service Regiment in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. The victims were either shot directly by Roberts-Smith or by soldiers acting under his command. His criminal case is scheduled to return to court in December. During the interview with host Ben Fordham, Roberts-Smith denied all wrongdoing. He asserted that he would fight the allegations and charges in their entirety. When asked if he would change anything about his career, even non-criminal aspects, he replied that he would not change a single thing. He claimed he knew he did the right thing and was prepared to die for his country each time he entered combat zones. He emphasized that he worked to keep his comrades alive without ever breaking engagement protocols. The financial disclosure regarding Stokes relates to the civil proceedings that concluded with a Federal Court ruling. The court found it substantially true, on the balance of probabilities, that Roberts-Smith was responsible for or complicit in the deaths of four detainees in Afghanistan. Roberts-Smith described himself as naive regarding the civil court system. He noted that Stokes supported him from the start of the legal battle, including by covering legal fees. While Roberts-Smith could not provide an exact total, he estimated the expenditure exceeded thirty million dollars. He clarified that he could not discuss specific details of the ongoing criminal proceedings but wished to present certain facts to the public. He urged listeners to form their own opinions, referring to them as punters. Roberts-Smith raised concerns about the fairness of his upcoming criminal trial, which he acknowledged might be delayed by more than five years. He questioned how judges could select twelve jurors who had not already formed an opinion due to extensive media coverage. He asked rhetorically how one finds individuals without pre-existing positions and whether a fair trial is possible under such circumstances. Despite these doubts, he expressed comfort with the prospect of ordinary citizens hearing the case. He believed the defense could explain military complexities to the jury, allowing them to identify flaws in the prosecution's evidence. The interview marked Roberts-Smith's first major media appearance since his arrest at Sydney Airport six months prior. He criticized the public nature of his detention at the airport. He cited high levels of support from the general public. Roberts-Smith recently attended an event marking the 25th anniversary of the Afghanistan war in October. He has remained on bail throughout the period leading up to his trial. The media outlet conducting the interview, 2GB, is owned by Tapt Media. Roberts-Smith’s statements contrast with the findings of the earlier civil suit, though he continues to deny criminal liability. The legal team for the prosecution has not responded to his comments regarding juror selection. The next step in the legal process involves the resumption of court proceedings in December.
Avstralski vojni veteran Ben Roberts-Smith je v nedavnem intervjuju za medije dejal, da je njegova neuspešna tožba za klevetanje proti Nine Newspapers milijarderju Kerryju Stokesu stala več kot 30 milijonov AUD. Civilna zadeva se je končala z odločbo zveznega sodišča, da so obtožbe glede Roberts-Smithove vpletenosti v smrt štirih zapornikov v Afganistanu v bistvu resnične. Roberts-Smith, ki trenutno čaka na sojenje zaradi petih obtožb umora zaradi vojnih zločinov, povezanih z njegovo službo v Afganistanu med letoma 2009 in 2012, je zanikal kakršnokoli kršitev in trdil, da je strogo upošteval pravila angažmaja. Ni obžaloval svojih vojaških dejanj, trdil je, da je ravnal pravilno, da bi zaščitil svoje tovariše. Obtožba se bo začela decembra, Roberts-Smith pa se bo pritožil.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja uravnoteženo poročilo o zelo občutljivem nacionalnem vprašanju, ki vključuje vojaško odgovornost in pravno državo. Citira obtoženca in hkrati navaja dejanske okoliščine predhodne civilne sodne izgube in konkretne kazenske obtožbe. Ni očitnih znakov
Zakaj dejstva (95): Highly accurate and well-sourced. It provides specific details (charges, dates, costs, quotes) that align with the general premise of Articles 0 and 1. It clearly attributes claims to the subject ('said', 'revealed') and cites the specific media outlet (2GB/Tapt Media), ensuring high fidelity to the
Zakaj objektivnost (95): Extremely balanced. It presents the defendant's strong denials and personal feelings alongside the specific legal charges and the prosecutor's allegations. The language is dispassionate, using terms like 'alleged' and 'charged' rather than accusatory or exculpatory adjectives.
The AgeNeodvisenSredinaDejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznanObjektivnost 90
Avstralski vojaški vodja Ben Roberts-Smith je sodeloval v dveh obsežnih intervjujih glede svojega pravnega položaja, kar je bilo njegovo prvo javno komentarje od aretacije pred približno šestimi meseci. Aretiran je bil zaradi obtožb, povezanih z resnimi obtožbami o vojnih zločinih, ki izhajajo iz njegove vojaške zgodovine. Članek poudarja te pogovore kot pomembne dogodke v pomembnem primeru, ki vključuje mednarodno kazensko pravo in vojaško odgovornost. V besedilu ni bilo nobenih posebnih podrobnosti o vsebini intervjuja ali novih dokazov.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Zagotavljeno besedilo je sestavljeno predvsem iz metapodatkov, naslovov in splošnih elementov spletne strani, ne pa iz vsebinskega besedila. Medtem ko naslov uporablja pridevko "eksplozivna", kar nakazuje na senzacionalnost, ni zadostne pripovedne vsebine, da bi določili jasno ideološko nagnjenost, specifično
Zakaj dejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznan
Zakaj objektivnost (90): The limited text present uses standard journalistic phrasing ('breaks silence', 'explosive'). While 'explosive' is slightly sensationalist, the overall tone remains neutral and lacks any visible bias or editorializing.
Avstralski vojaški voditelj Ben Roberts-Smith je sodeloval v dveh obsežnih intervjujih glede svojega pravnega položaja. Te razprave potekajo približno šest mesecev po njegovi aretaciji, ki je nastala zaradi resnih obtožb o vojnih zločinih. V članku je poudarjeno, da je to prvič, odkar je bil pridržan, javno spregovoril o teh posebnih obtožbah.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Zagotavljeno besedilo je zelo kratko in je sestavljeno samo iz naslova in enega uvodnega stavka. Navedel je dejstvo zaslišanj in časovni okvir njegove aretacije, vendar ni dal nobene vsebinske vsebine, citatov ali okvirja, ki bi kazali politično nagnjenost. Brez dostopa,
Zakaj dejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznan
Zakaj objektivnost (90): Maintains a neutral, objective tone. The use of the word 'explosive' is common in tabloid/feature journalism headlines but does not significantly skew the presentation of the facts.
Kako je poročala vsaka stran
Isti dogodek, razvrščen po političnem nagibu medijev, ki so o njem poročali.
progresivno
sredina
konservativno
★
Kako je poročala vsaka stran
Podprite neodvisne novice z zavedanjem pristranskosti in odklenite družbeni utrip, glasovanje skupnosti in vse druge funkcije za podpornike.
Australia
![[Ruth Pollard] Svet dvorja Kim Jong-un](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.lexpress.fr%2Fresizer%2Fv2%2FD3IZXNO2UZBUJCJO5MQX3ULULY.JPG%3Fauth%3Dbeff8911aaab2c90e32f72660a59443e940bb324f6d27fad58bf6040702def37%26smart%3Dtrue%26width%3D5028%26height%3D3352&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)