EDITORIAL ETHICS & THE NEW MEDIA - How Victims Can Shout As Loud As Unethical Journalists



For Immediate Release Jul 21, 2012


--- BEGIN Authorized Statement ---



UPDATE 09 July, 2014


A 124 page criminal warrant that was unsealed today which indicates that Editor Ben Naparstek, of the Sydney Morning Herald, may be participating in the following crimes: Ongoing Criminal Conduct, a Class "B" Felony (IOWA CODE § 706A.2); Conspiracy, a Class "D" Felony (IOWA CODE §706.1 ); Solicitation, a Class "D" Felony; Extortion (IOWA CODE § 705.1 ), a Class "D" Felony (IOWA CODE § 711.4); and Witness Tampering, an Aggravated Misdemeanor (IOWA Code§720.4), Facilitation of A Criminal Network By Attempting To Induce A Witness" commits a Class "B" Felony. IOWA CODE § 706A.2 (2013).


Although Ben Naparstek's direct actions are limited only to witness tampering, if it is established that his defamatory and fallacious article was done in concert with the conspirators named in the warrant, then Naparstek himself may be considered a principal of all indicated crimes, pursuant to US RICO laws. The warrant confirms that this author, Michael Roberts, is in fact, a victim of the criminal conspiracy, as opposed to a "murky" individual as characterized by Naparstek in his article.


DOWNLOAD Copy of Criminal Warrant



Journalist Daniel Glick was working with an impossibly young Fairfax editor named Ben Naparstek who, according to exposés published recently by two journalists, is suspected of commissioning "inaccurate attack pieces” and other serious ethics breaches, even to the point of flying biased journalists across the globe to guarantee demeaning results. In a recently leaked e-mail, one of his peers rebuked him of other unethical practices. Evidence: here, here and here.


It is alleged by Journalist Tim Andrews that editor Ben Naparstek killed a profile piece by Jana Wendt of 60-Minutes fame, on another journalist Andrew Bolt, because it wasn't a hatchet job. Tim then revealed how the exact scenario happened to him through a Naparstek hatchet job. According to tim, Naparstek flew in a London based journo who Tim had campaigned against for student union where they both attended university.


Interestingly, Fairfax Media flew author & journalist Daniel Glick from the United States of Entertainment to interview me; just like Tim’s case, I am an Aussie, in Australia and the story was for an Australian newspaper. This is despite the availability in both cases of numerous Australian journalists who did not need travel expenses. Maybe this fact evidences an ethical divide between journalists on either side of the Pacific? Either way, let’s be careful not to commit a hasty generalization which is one of many logical fallacies employed by Ben Naparstek & Daniel Glick in their recent attack piece against me [read my full response to their lies here]




  1. The article as published is not about news, and it is not about me, the story is all about journalist Daniel Glick. It is a branding exercise; this is evidenced by the fact that Daniel Glick’s name is conspicuously included in the headline for the story.

  2. Traditional ethical journalists are committed to truth and to communicating that truth to the reader. Traditionally, a journalist’s name is attributed without fanfare at the beginning or end of an article in relatively small print, but never in the headline.

  3. Controversy drives traffic to print and online newspaper articles, traffic (circulation) is essential for the newspaper to earn advertising revenue.

  4. Fairfax (the offending publisher) competes with News Limited. The latter was given the scoop on my recent battle for child custody with a convicted murderer. This resulted in numerous stories, which depicted me as a sympathetic victim; the journalists were attempting to gain assistance on behalf of my children from the Australian Government for a safe return to Australia. The News Limited journalists graciously depicted me as a sympathetic character despite my many mistakes.

  5. Daniel Glick and Ben Naparstek’s inaccurate attack piece may be partially motivated by a need to make their News Limited competitors less credible.

  6. Additionally, channel Nine’s 60-Minutes show was given the scoop on my custody battle story; the production was also very sympathetic to my family’s plight. I decided to turn down the main competitor to 60-Minutes for the story. Daniel Glick was a recent star of the competing TV show; he may have thought that he was doing them a favor in retribution for my decision to go with 60-Minutes. Whereas, the credibility of all his and Naparstek's investigations must now be scrutinized closely.

  7. On 19 April, 2011 Daniel Glick also attacked the American 60-Minutes franchise through his personal blog. (Although I cannot speak to the validity of his attack.

--- END Authorized Statement ---

The following video is the 60-Minutes segment on my fight for child custody against a murderer:

I have been asked to release certain documents which speak for themselves. They are listed herein below:


UNCUT: Full 60 Minutes TV Interview Footage with Prosecutor Ben Smith:



UNCUT: Full 60 Minutes TV Interview Footage with Prosecutor Ben Smith:

Editor Ben Naparstek Sydney Morning Herald Fairfax Media Ben Naparstek email address [email protected]