The French Submarines Saga & The Australian Press
Growing up, I used to look up to journalists and newspapers. I remember religiously saving my pocket money to buy paper copies of Le Monde, and cutting press articles on specific topics that I wanted to further research. I was keeping them in a folder, writing a chronology of proven facts, and trying to form an opinion based on it. The quality of the press was something I was taking for granted. Don’t get me wrong, I knew that I needed to read different publications to distinguish facts from opinions and get rid of belief and prejudice, but I never doubted the fact that if I were to read as many articles as I could, I would get a pretty good picture of my chosen topic.
Moving to Australia, I discovered a different type of media: aggressivity was the norm, scatological, racist or even sexist comments were published without any second thought, and narrative was paramount. Why let facts get in the way of a good story, right? Worse: this didn’t seem to bother anyone. Opinions were routinely presented as facts and never really questioned or challenged. This, in my view, isn’t the sign of a healthy democracy. I haven’t seen any journalist held to account for their biased articles yet, so why would they stop?
For me, things came to a head over the last few weeks with the cancelation of the French submarines’ contract. Simply put, I am starting to understand a lot better how the Australian press reports facts. Or rather, doesn’t report them. It is laziness? Is it French bashing? I don’t know. But one thing I know for sure is that the lack of integrity is simply staggering. Nothing illustrates this point better than the French submarines’ saga.
Before I start, I would like to say that I am not a defence expert. I will not discuss the decision to cancel the French submarines’ order as I am not qualified to do so. It simply wouldn’t be my place. This post is about how this cancelation was covered by the Australian media and how facts were and continue to be routinely ignored to push a populist and false narrative. I am really struggling to understand what purpose this propaganda really serves. Actually, does it even serve a purpose? Maybe it’s just laziness, or plain stupidity.
Let me explain.
First, it was reported everywhere that the submarines were inadequate because they had diesel propulsion, as opposed to nuclear. Conventional propulsion wasn’t the taste of the day anymore. The Australian media conveniently forgot to mention the following important fact: the French submarines WERE nuclear. It was the Australians who asked the French to revert to conventional propulsion back in 2016. So much for accuracy, right?
To make matters even worse, lots of articles also mentioned that the contract had been poorly managed, that there were cost overruns and delays, and that the French were in denial -evidently, they should have seen the cancellation coming. Now, let’s have a look at what the Australian Defence Secretary told to a Senate estimate hearing mid-September. Here it is:
“They have been terminated because our requirements have changed, not because of the poor performance by either Naval Group or Lockhead Martin Australia”.
It sort of kills the narrative, doesn’t it? But hey, who the hell cares? Why bother with facts? Everybody knows that we French are arrogant, right? Surely that’s why it’s their fault. Serves them well.
Because, you see, the narrative had to be protected at all costs. When the French President, Emmanuel Macron, implied that he had been lied to, the Australian newspapers had to up their game. They needed to counter Macron’s statement at any costs. As a result, a private text message was leaked to the press.
Assuming that the leaked text is genuine (which remains to be proven), I must admit that I remain shocked that the press published it. Since when is it acceptable to publish private correspondence? Doesn’t it breach the law? Well, apparently not. And who cares anyway? What has integrity got to do with it?
Come to think of it, leaking private text messages and correspondence is a national sport in Australia. Everybody leaks everything. Disgruntled employees, work rivals, bullies, whistle blowers and activists all leak nuggets to journalists. The press happily gives them a platform. Whether the information is right or wrong is beside the point. It is often scandalous. It sells and gives a good distraction. Often, because of the leak, the public can’t see the forest for the trees. Who needs proper facts and analysis when you can leak a dirty text, right? You can hide behind a smokescreen of sensationalism. As long as it fits the narrative, obviously. But hey, I digress.
Now let’s have a look at the text itself. Here is a newsflash for you: it doesn’t prove anything. Don’t take my word for it, just read it for yourself:
“Should I expect good or bad news for our joint submarines ambitions?”
This question doesn’t exactly prove that the contract was about to be canned, right? But then again, who cares about accuracy?
I would like to point something out: the French could have leaked the response to the text. They didn’t. At least someone showed some decency.
Furthermore, it has been written everywhere that President Macron was behaving the way he did because of domestic elections in 2022. I skimmed through the French press every day and barely saw an article about the cancellation of the submarines contract. Here is the harsh truth for my Aussie friends: the cancelation of the contract will not have any impact on the French election. It is simply not part of the ongoing debate. Obviously, this goes against the narrative and won’t be written.
Unfortunately, the saga didn’t stop here. I genuinely wish it did. But there was more. In order to put more pressure on the French ambassador in Australia, one of the Australian leading newspapers went after his wife. Yep, you read that right. They snooped on her LinkedIn profile and wrote an unwarranted piece on her. The message couldn’t be any clearer, could it? Let me make it simple for you: it was a threat. It needed to be understood as follows: we’ll go after your family if you don’t comply — just fit with the narrative, mate!
This was nothing short of disgusting.
Mind you, I was not surprised. They did the same for me just because of who I was married to. They thought it was fair game.
We women are the weak link, the soft spot of powerful men who don’t comply with the narrative. When facts don’t fit the Australian boys club, going after their family is just a bit of fun. The journalists will even justify it by saying it’s in the public interest. I will talk about the consequences of this staggering lack of integrity when I am ready. Spoiler alert: it will make for confronting reading.
The Australian press has missed a great opportunity to explain the facts rationally and educate the public. Instead, it indulged in cheap populism and French bashing. My Australian friends deserve so much better than this. I sincerely hope that they will see through the misleading articles and do their own research. Make no mistake: the consequences of the French submarines’ saga will not disappear overnight.
Because here is what Europe thinks now: a partnership with Australia isn’t worth the paper it is written on. As a French woman living in Australia, I think that this is a sorry state of affairs. And yes, I feel sad about it.
