Dick Smith Renegs on Journalism Award
Thread Starter
Dick Smith does not pay out on Journalism Award
BUSINESSMAN Dick Smith has decided none of the entries for his $50,000 prize for best investigative report on the Seasprite helicopter debacle is good enough and will donate the cash to charity.
Fellow businessman Gary Johnston offered another $50,000, making what would have been perhaps the richest ever prize for Australian journalism.
That attracted entries from seven journalists or groups of journalists.
Mr Smith has written to entrants advising that his judges had acknowledged their hard work but concluded none had adequately addressed all the issues raised in his initial challenge.
"I will be forwarding the cheque to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Broken Hill branch and Gary Johnston will be forwarding his cheque to the Steve Waugh Foundation," he said.
Under a contract signed in 1997, the navy was to acquire 11 Kaman Seasprites, each equipped with an advanced radar, datalinks and combat system, allowing it to serve as the eyes of a warship 50km away.
They were scheduled to enter service around 2001-02 but ran into significant problems with integration of combat systems and development of the automated flight control system.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon cancelled the contract a year ago with the Government recouping a small part of the $1 billion project cost.
So incensed was Mr Smith about this failed deal that he launched a personal crusade to find out more, declaring the fiasco was hidden by a "cone of silence" which the media had failed to penetrate.
The next installment in the Seasprite saga will be release of the long-awaited Australian National Audit Office report on the project.
Source:- The Australian
Any chance the journos involved studied the case, wrote honest reports, but as they didn't gel with Dicks pre-concieved notions, none recieved the publically promised prize?
Fellow businessman Gary Johnston offered another $50,000, making what would have been perhaps the richest ever prize for Australian journalism.
That attracted entries from seven journalists or groups of journalists.
Mr Smith has written to entrants advising that his judges had acknowledged their hard work but concluded none had adequately addressed all the issues raised in his initial challenge.
"I will be forwarding the cheque to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Broken Hill branch and Gary Johnston will be forwarding his cheque to the Steve Waugh Foundation," he said.
Under a contract signed in 1997, the navy was to acquire 11 Kaman Seasprites, each equipped with an advanced radar, datalinks and combat system, allowing it to serve as the eyes of a warship 50km away.
They were scheduled to enter service around 2001-02 but ran into significant problems with integration of combat systems and development of the automated flight control system.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon cancelled the contract a year ago with the Government recouping a small part of the $1 billion project cost.
So incensed was Mr Smith about this failed deal that he launched a personal crusade to find out more, declaring the fiasco was hidden by a "cone of silence" which the media had failed to penetrate.
The next installment in the Seasprite saga will be release of the long-awaited Australian National Audit Office report on the project.
Source:- The Australian
Any chance the journos involved studied the case, wrote honest reports, but as they didn't gel with Dicks pre-concieved notions, none recieved the publically promised prize?
Last edited by Wizofoz; 12th Apr 2009 at 03:15.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizofoz wonders
"Any chance the journos involved studied the case, wrote honest reports, but as they didn't gel with Dicks pre-concieved notions, none recieved the publically promised prize?"
I doubt it Wiz. Many Australian journalists are so used to lazy sloppy incomplete journalism that even when they are given the opportunity and time to do a proper job they are unable to rise to the occasion.
"Any chance the journos involved studied the case, wrote honest reports, but as they didn't gel with Dicks pre-concieved notions, none recieved the publically promised prize?"
I doubt it Wiz. Many Australian journalists are so used to lazy sloppy incomplete journalism that even when they are given the opportunity and time to do a proper job they are unable to rise to the occasion.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodon'im.
Bast*rds can't get anything right... EVER
They deserve to be shown they're not godallmighty.
RFDS deserves it more.
They can satisfy themselves that they contributed.
Bast*rds can't get anything right... EVER
They deserve to be shown they're not godallmighty.
RFDS deserves it more.
They can satisfy themselves that they contributed.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tin Shed corner Bourke and Swanston
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, yes one of the journo's probably did deserve the prize and dicky should probably be canned for the retraction of the prize money. Although it is good to see that the money was donated though to a good cause, even though this probably would have happened anyway. 
"Reneg" is hardly the fair word. The announcement made it very clear that the independent judges would decide if the money went to an entrant or the RFDS.
This is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately not one entrant was able to come up with a comprehensive article that covered the main issues that were required in the announcement.
There is still a chance that a book will be written covering the whole issue. I hope so otherwise we have learnt nothing and the errors will be repeated again.
This is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately not one entrant was able to come up with a comprehensive article that covered the main issues that were required in the announcement.
There is still a chance that a book will be written covering the whole issue. I hope so otherwise we have learnt nothing and the errors will be repeated again.
Thread Starter
Dick,
Could you please name the three independant judges who decided no entrant was good enough.
The press has reported YOU made that decision, which would be at varience to your statement of offer.
Is this accurate, or was the decision actually made independently?
Could you outline what verifiable facts, rather than conjecture or opinion, were missing from the articles that made them not worthy of the prize?
Could you please name the three independant judges who decided no entrant was good enough.
The press has reported YOU made that decision, which would be at varience to your statement of offer.
Is this accurate, or was the decision actually made independently?
Could you outline what verifiable facts, rather than conjecture or opinion, were missing from the articles that made them not worthy of the prize?
Look at the 4th paragraph of "The Australian" article you have posted at the start of this thread.
Also look at the 20th June press release under "$50,000 Seasprite Offer" on my DICKSMITHFLYER site.
I will phone the judges on Tuesday and see if they are happy to have their names released.
I will also post on Tuesday the relevant comments made by the judges as to why they believed the entrants did not deserve to be given the award.
The opening paragraph of "The Australian" article is incorrect. I was not involved in making the decision and would have been very happy for the money to have gone to a journalist. The cost was the same to me either way. I did not reneg on anything. Look forward to your correction
And don't believe everything you read in the media - from my experience errors are often made as in this case.
Also look at the 20th June press release under "$50,000 Seasprite Offer" on my DICKSMITHFLYER site.
I will phone the judges on Tuesday and see if they are happy to have their names released.
I will also post on Tuesday the relevant comments made by the judges as to why they believed the entrants did not deserve to be given the award.
The opening paragraph of "The Australian" article is incorrect. I was not involved in making the decision and would have been very happy for the money to have gone to a journalist. The cost was the same to me either way. I did not reneg on anything. Look forward to your correction
And don't believe everything you read in the media - from my experience errors are often made as in this case.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 12th Apr 2009 at 02:06.
Thread Starter
So you very publicaly made this offer, very publically announced it would not be awarded, whilst NOT ensuring you could actually name the judges who made this decision?
How exactley do you propose to make this process transparent if the judges DON'T agree to be identified?
Ironic that this was all about transperency and accountability in government, whilst you seem to have ensured the process of judging this contest (Which gained you a large amount of publicity for one of your cause celebri whilst gaining the journalists who entered nothing) a secret.
Editted to add-
I'm happy for the mods to change the title of the thread to the one now heading my opening paragraph, but perhaps you could clarify one more thing-
You say it makes no difference to you whether or not the $50 000 went to a journalist or to charity. I take it that a donation to the RFDS would be tax deductable, whilst a prize to a journalist would not be. Might this be relevent considering your threat to "Minimise" your tax in light of the Sea Sprite contract? Can you guarentee that neither you OR the other busness man who offered the prize will gain the financial incentive of a tax deduction now that the "Independent" panel you selected has chosen to donate the money to charity?
How exactley do you propose to make this process transparent if the judges DON'T agree to be identified?
Ironic that this was all about transperency and accountability in government, whilst you seem to have ensured the process of judging this contest (Which gained you a large amount of publicity for one of your cause celebri whilst gaining the journalists who entered nothing) a secret.
Editted to add-
I'm happy for the mods to change the title of the thread to the one now heading my opening paragraph, but perhaps you could clarify one more thing-
You say it makes no difference to you whether or not the $50 000 went to a journalist or to charity. I take it that a donation to the RFDS would be tax deductable, whilst a prize to a journalist would not be. Might this be relevent considering your threat to "Minimise" your tax in light of the Sea Sprite contract? Can you guarentee that neither you OR the other busness man who offered the prize will gain the financial incentive of a tax deduction now that the "Independent" panel you selected has chosen to donate the money to charity?
Last edited by Wizofoz; 12th Apr 2009 at 03:50.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Bit Harsh
I am no apologist for Dick, but let's wait and see what transpires. To accuse the bloke of chicanery on this ocassion is a bit unfair. He made the offer and, according to him, the product didn't warrant the reward through independent adjudication. He's undertaken to ask the judges if they have any objections to their names being released, which is entirely proper.
Just my opinion, but the observation about making a tax-deductable donation to the RFDS and actually awarding a taxable prize is drawing a rather long bow. For a bloke who regularly gives away $1m, I doubt that the level of savings on tax for a 50K donation would have even entered his head. Dick drives me mad on ocassion, but I do not believe that the man is that venal.
Finally, just check out the quality of 'aviation journalism' in this country. It didn't surprise me in the least that submissions from 'aviation writers,' who regularly attempt to pass off dross as knowledgeable comment, had their entries punted over the back fence.
Just my opinion, but the observation about making a tax-deductable donation to the RFDS and actually awarding a taxable prize is drawing a rather long bow. For a bloke who regularly gives away $1m, I doubt that the level of savings on tax for a 50K donation would have even entered his head. Dick drives me mad on ocassion, but I do not believe that the man is that venal.
Finally, just check out the quality of 'aviation journalism' in this country. It didn't surprise me in the least that submissions from 'aviation writers,' who regularly attempt to pass off dross as knowledgeable comment, had their entries punted over the back fence.
Thread Starter
Howabout,
I am certainly not accusing Dick of deliberate deception. I am suggesting, however, that not for the first time Mr Smith is so convinced that his own pre-conceptions and beliefs are unquestionable that he does concieve the necessity to back up his actions with evidence and tranparency.
What has happened is that Dick expressed a very strong opinion, then offered a very large cash inducement to journalists to write an article about the subject of that opinion.
It should be obvious to anyone that this would leave an accusation of inducing bias on the table, and anyone wanting to be taken seriously should make damn sure this perception was dispelled. Apointing an unknown "Independent" panel tp judge the work who, for all we know, could be made up of Dicks family, employees, business associates or just individuals Dick believes will judge things according to HIS view of the situation just doesn't cut it.I would be very suprised if the journalists involved did not have a valid legal recourse should they choose to pursue the matter.
Dick made the statement that the prize vs donation "Made no difference.". Again, if you want to make such statements, they better be true! The fact that one offers the possibility of Dick and Mr Johnston paying less tax (something ELSE he has publically commented on) and one doesn't, clearly DOES "Make a difference".
Dick wants people held accountable. If he is going to make public accusations, inducements and judgements on peoples work, he must be willing to face the same type of accountability.
I am certainly not accusing Dick of deliberate deception. I am suggesting, however, that not for the first time Mr Smith is so convinced that his own pre-conceptions and beliefs are unquestionable that he does concieve the necessity to back up his actions with evidence and tranparency.
What has happened is that Dick expressed a very strong opinion, then offered a very large cash inducement to journalists to write an article about the subject of that opinion.
It should be obvious to anyone that this would leave an accusation of inducing bias on the table, and anyone wanting to be taken seriously should make damn sure this perception was dispelled. Apointing an unknown "Independent" panel tp judge the work who, for all we know, could be made up of Dicks family, employees, business associates or just individuals Dick believes will judge things according to HIS view of the situation just doesn't cut it.I would be very suprised if the journalists involved did not have a valid legal recourse should they choose to pursue the matter.
Dick made the statement that the prize vs donation "Made no difference.". Again, if you want to make such statements, they better be true! The fact that one offers the possibility of Dick and Mr Johnston paying less tax (something ELSE he has publically commented on) and one doesn't, clearly DOES "Make a difference".
Dick wants people held accountable. If he is going to make public accusations, inducements and judgements on peoples work, he must be willing to face the same type of accountability.
The Archilbald Prize for art has NOT been awarded from time to time as it was judged that the quality of the entrants did not meet the standards..
Go Dick for not rewarding mediocrity.
Most of the aviation and defence articles published in Oz are simply a "cut and paste" from other sources....no journalism there.
Go Dick for not rewarding mediocrity.
Most of the aviation and defence articles published in Oz are simply a "cut and paste" from other sources....no journalism there.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benevolence:- Kindness, Generosity, Goodwill.
A big ‘ONYA’ to Mr. Smith for his donation to the RFDS.
For the Journo’s to claim the prize, a goal had to be met. It seems no goals were scored. The Seasprite saga remains largely unexposed as a hugely expensive folly that has drained far more resources from this country, than any tax claim Mr. Smith may make.
On a lighter note, perhaps Dick would consider running for P.M. as a ‘Benevolent Dictator’ and run these high priced ‘Hollow Men’ out of town.
I guarantee you 1 vote.
A big ‘ONYA’ to Mr. Smith for his donation to the RFDS.
For the Journo’s to claim the prize, a goal had to be met. It seems no goals were scored. The Seasprite saga remains largely unexposed as a hugely expensive folly that has drained far more resources from this country, than any tax claim Mr. Smith may make.
On a lighter note, perhaps Dick would consider running for P.M. as a ‘Benevolent Dictator’ and run these high priced ‘Hollow Men’ out of town.
I guarantee you 1 vote.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on Australian journalistic standards, I'm not at all surprised the prize was not awarded to a journalist. It cost Dick Smith the same either way - how can anyone suggest he reneged or acted less than honorably?
Mr Smith, thank you sincerely for your generous donation to the RFDS, a far more worthy cause!
Mr Smith, thank you sincerely for your generous donation to the RFDS, a far more worthy cause!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get The Facts First On Dick
Wis, Wis Wis,
Dick has made the offer that he would ask the judges. Let's wait and afford the man the same consideration that we would like to be afforded ourselves in a similar situation. Let's not cloud the issue, just because we disagre with Dick over things like NAS. This is a different issue.
As regards your quote:
This can be taken one of two ways. Either Dick wanted a pre-conceived outcome and was so pissed-off with the result, which didn't go his way, that he decided no award would be given; and then shrouded the outcome in the opinion of 'independent judges.'
Or, the submissions were sub-par crap and the judges decided accordingly.
Frankly, I'll go with number two.
Dick has made the offer that he would ask the judges. Let's wait and afford the man the same consideration that we would like to be afforded ourselves in a similar situation. Let's not cloud the issue, just because we disagre with Dick over things like NAS. This is a different issue.
As regards your quote:
What has happened is that Dick expressed a very strong opinion, then offered a very large cash inducement to journalists to write an article about the subject of that opinion.
Or, the submissions were sub-par crap and the judges decided accordingly.
Frankly, I'll go with number two.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant see why you continue to harp on about this Dick.
The answers to your question are all known - why the project started, where it got screwed up, why it dragged on and finally why it got scrubbed.
Yes it was an ill conceived screw up! yes it was started for all the wrong reasons! ie - lets try and help a private company win a large overseas contract - to do this we decided the govt (read taxpayers) should buy 10 OPVs so we can show that we support the private company - even though we don't need 10 OPVs.
As part of that stupid idea, the helo FPS was drawn up - aimed at having a helicopter that could fit on an OPV. Only problem is the Malaysians didn't buy our OPVs, thankfully we didn't either - but the damn stupid seasprite project continued on.
There were dumb assessments made that it would have common components to the seahawk (but in reality it didn't), that integrating a number of 1990's technology into 1950's frames (that didn't work).
DMO and Government continued down the dumb path, but Navy wouldn't accept them, the fight and legal contractual arrangements dragged on for years. In the end someone not as stupid as others put an end to it.
Sad thing is that this happens far too often.
So rather then dragging it out - why dont you do some of your own research and do some of your own work and investigate the entire DMO process - rather then saying no one cares because they wouldnt accept your money to write a story that you so dearly want.
Besides, if you do know something or really do want to change the world - why didnt you submit something to the Mortimer Review" of DMO released - 24 September 2008. There was your opportunity.................
and no - I wasnt involved or a fan of the seasprite.
The answers to your question are all known - why the project started, where it got screwed up, why it dragged on and finally why it got scrubbed.
Yes it was an ill conceived screw up! yes it was started for all the wrong reasons! ie - lets try and help a private company win a large overseas contract - to do this we decided the govt (read taxpayers) should buy 10 OPVs so we can show that we support the private company - even though we don't need 10 OPVs.
As part of that stupid idea, the helo FPS was drawn up - aimed at having a helicopter that could fit on an OPV. Only problem is the Malaysians didn't buy our OPVs, thankfully we didn't either - but the damn stupid seasprite project continued on.
There were dumb assessments made that it would have common components to the seahawk (but in reality it didn't), that integrating a number of 1990's technology into 1950's frames (that didn't work).
DMO and Government continued down the dumb path, but Navy wouldn't accept them, the fight and legal contractual arrangements dragged on for years. In the end someone not as stupid as others put an end to it.
Sad thing is that this happens far too often.
So rather then dragging it out - why dont you do some of your own research and do some of your own work and investigate the entire DMO process - rather then saying no one cares because they wouldnt accept your money to write a story that you so dearly want.
Besides, if you do know something or really do want to change the world - why didnt you submit something to the Mortimer Review" of DMO released - 24 September 2008. There was your opportunity.................
and no - I wasnt involved or a fan of the seasprite.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz, at least others see your point. They just aren't posting here 
And yes, the motive of tilting at that enormous windmill, government spending, is admirable.
And yes, the motive of tilting at that enormous windmill, government spending, is admirable.
interesting really, the Kiwis,Gypos and Poles are very happy with their Seasprites. Hang on they bought the off the shelf model with the latest proven gear. Have you noticed that nearly all Oz defence programs work when we don't f$#k with the spec...
C-17
C-130 [all models]
BBJ
F-18F
M-1 tank
Mirage 111
F-111 [until we messed with a few things but overall good]
F/A-18A/B
Hawk
Macchi 326
CH-47C/D
UH-1
Caribou
plus a few more..
look at the track record of home grown specs..
Sabre [great machine but it was obsolete when delivered]
Collins sub
Jindalee
FFG update
Wamira
Seasprite
Wedgetail E-737 [years late and who knows if it will really perform]
the jury is out on Tiger ARH and MRH-90..
a small country like this buying small numbers of everything needs to buy off the shelf..
C-17
C-130 [all models]
BBJ
F-18F
M-1 tank
Mirage 111
F-111 [until we messed with a few things but overall good]
F/A-18A/B
Hawk
Macchi 326
CH-47C/D
UH-1
Caribou
plus a few more..
look at the track record of home grown specs..
Sabre [great machine but it was obsolete when delivered]
Collins sub
Jindalee
FFG update
Wamira
Seasprite
Wedgetail E-737 [years late and who knows if it will really perform]
the jury is out on Tiger ARH and MRH-90..
a small country like this buying small numbers of everything needs to buy off the shelf..
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering THIS media article from 2002 and the fact the $1 billion obviously bungled fiasco cost every Australian tax payer an average of $250, I'm not surprised questions are being asked and Government should be required to explain.