BADFORPEOPLE

Posts Tagged ‘Ben Naparstek’

ETHICS WARNING: Edelman Australia PR Hires Controversial Editor Ben Naparstek as Content and Digital Director.

In Advertising Ethical Breaches, Professional Ethics on July 8, 2017 at 12:04 am

Edelman Australia’s Recruiting of Ben Naparstek as Online Content and Digital Director is Bad for Australian Consumers

Edelman Australia PR's Ben Naparstek Investigated by Licensed Private Detective.

Ben Naparstek of Edelman Australia PR has been a person of interest to a licensed private investigator, after the discovery of major violations of journalistic ethics.

Ben Naparstek of SBS has been a person of interest to a licensed private investigator, after the discovery of major violations of journalistic ethics.

Edelman Australia’s latest executive recruit, Ben Naparstek, has been praised for his meteoric surge through the Australian Press industry at a youthful age. Nonetheless, a serious look beyond the excitement exposes a murky history that demands more scrutiny. As a vocal Fifth Estate commentator and licensed private investigator, it is my opinion that Mr. Naparstek’s activities should be observed very carefully. I am concerned that the job description of  “Content and Digital Director”, as it is customarily used, is no more than a disguise for his not so obvious specialty,which is “PAGEVIEW BAITING “.

In the four years that I have been paying attention to Ben Naparstek’s work, I have noticed that he makes ample use of ‘editorial license’ to generate astounding headlines. These twisted truths are in my view questionable appeals to emotion used to bring people to his web-based content or “storytelling”, to quote Steve Spurr the CEO of Edelman Australia [ref]. How it works: The moment Mr. Naparstek has skillfully seized his online audience, his business monetize those “page

How it works: The moment Mr. Naparstek has seized his online audience, his employers monetize those page views; either through advertising banner impressions or “Pay-Per-Click” display advertisements. In my assessment, such cunning ploys fly in the face of generally accepted journalistic principles. It appears that Ben’s new job title is devoid of references to “editor” or “journalist” and clearly conveys a sales, marketing and “spin” title. Because of this, Naparstek is now more likely to be under the watch of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC.gov.au), which holds far more disciplinary authority than his previous watchdog, the Australian Press Council and its peer review process.

How To Report Ben Naparstek to ACCC for Misleading or Unconscionable Conduct.

The ACCC is Australia’s peak consumer protection and competition agency. The ACCC is an independent statutory government authority serving the public interest. Most of the ACCC’s enforcement work is performed within the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the Act).

I have no beef with Edelman Australia, besides their hiring of Ben Naparstek. Nonetheless, I would certainly invite Australian consumers to carefully study the “public relations” or advertising activities of Ben Naparstek and Edelman Australia. If you believe that their actions can be reasonably considered to be in violation of Australian Consumer Laws, you can file a complaint by way of the following link:

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/complaints-problems/make-a-consumer-complaint

Respectfully submitted by,
Michael Roberts
Licensed Private Investigator & Journalist

BAD NEWS: SBS Hires Controversial Editor Ben Naparstek After Funding Cuts

In Poor Journalistic Ethics on July 27, 2015 at 7:59 pm

SBS’s Appointment of Ben Naparstek as Online Editor is Bad for Australia

SBS' Ben Naparstek scrutinized by licensed private investigator

Ben Naparstek of SBS is a subject of intense scrutiny by licensed private investigator, after disclosure of serious breaches in editorial ethics.

SBS’s new editor, Ben Naparstek, has been praised for his meteoric rise through Australian media at a very young age. Notwithstanding, a brief look through the fanfare reveals a murky past that demands more scrutiny. As a vocal 5th Estate journalist and licensed private investigator, it is my considered opinion that young Mr. Naparstek is unworthy of the accolades he has received, for the simple reason that the title of “Editor”, as it is customarily used, is nothing more than a disguise for his not so obvious specialty, namely,  “PAGEVIEW JOURNALISM“.

In the two years that I have been observing Naparstek closely, I have seen that he uses his editorial license to generate sensational headlines. These twisted truths are tantamount to bait-and-switch tactics, used to bring readers to his online “stories”. Once the audience has been captured, his employers monetize those “page views”, either through advertising banner impressions and/or “Pay-Per-Click” display ads. Such insidious tactics would not fit with, or benefit SBS’s traditional funding model. However, Malcolm Turnbull, the Federal Communications Minister, recently revealed that SBS has asked to have its advertising restrictions lifted following millions in funding cuts. This should be cause for great concern to the Australian public, who would otherwise expect unbiased and honest journalism from ABC and SBS ($BS ?). Even more so with the likes of Ben Naparstek at the helm of online Editorial content for SBS.com.au.

Editorial Ethics Alert: Ben Naparstek Of Fairfax Media

Editorial Ethics Alert: Ben Naparstek of SBS is scrutinized by journalist & Licensed Private Investigator Michael Roberts

Here are a few excerpts on the story about Turnbull from November last year:

Mr Turnbull said the government will introduce legislation to parliament in 2015 to amend the SBS Act 1991 that would allow the broadcaster to change its advertising arrangements.”

and

A legislative change to allow SBS to generate further revenue by changing its advertising arrangements will bring the total savings returned to the budget to $53.7 million or 3.7 per cent,” he said.​”

REF: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/19/government-announces-308-million-funding-cut-sbs-abc

Tell Your Story:

If you have been a victim of fallacious journalism or “hatchet-jobs”, we want to hear from you. You have a right-of-reply, we’ll help you get it.

ETHICS ALERT: Journalist & Editor Ben Naparstek of Fairfax Media BUSTED! (Good Weekend Magazine Sydney Morning Herald & The Age)

In Internet defamation, Poor Journalistic Ethics on June 23, 2013 at 10:24 am

Disgraced Journalist & Editor Ben Naparstek of Fairfax Media Busted by Private Investigator. Ben is now affectionately called “Dalek” [Ref]

Search for Ben Naparstek’s other ethics whistleblowers

SBS' Ben Naparstek scrutinized by licensed private investigator

Ben Naparstek of SBS is a subject of intense scrutiny by licensed private investigator, after disclosure of serious breaches in editorial ethics.

Are you considering submitting to an interview with a Fairfax journalist who is working for Ben Naparstek?  Well, think twice.. Naparstek is Editor of the magazine Good Weekend which is inserted weekly into The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

UPDATE 09 July, 2014

A 124 page criminal warrant that was unsealed today which indicates Editor Ben Naparstek of Sydney Morning Herald may be participating in the following crimes in the USA: 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).

Download a copy of the warrant here.

Editorial Ethics Alert: Ben Naparstek Of Fairfax Media

PI exposes Ben Naparstek of Fairfax Media for serious ethical breaches

You might like to read this exposé which explains how one family suffered catastrophic damage to reputation, business, and personal relationships as a result of fallacious journalism on the part of a hatchet job journalist, flown into Australia by Ben Naparstek to do his dirty work. The brief account explains how the ‘journalist’ Daniel Glick and his Editor Ben Naparstek used numerous categories of logical fallacies, such as strawman, appeal to ignorance and ad hominem, to set up their victim, Michael Roberts (pictured right), and deceive their readers.  Presumably this was an attempt to embarrass competing  journalists from News Ltd,  who had been given the scoop and written sympathetic articles about the family. here, here, here, and the 60-Minutes story here.

It began with a dishonest pretext with the initial interview request to Roberts, who’s ex-wife attempted to murder him and is now serving a life sentence for murdering another man. Glick feigned a brotherhood type experience by explaining that his wife left him and his children to pursue a lesbian relationship. It is unknown if this pretext is true or false, but it was a deplorable pretext used to ingratiate himself with the Roberts’ family. Glick even ate Michael’s daughter’s birthday cake…

Many of the facts used by Naparstek and Glick were in and of themselves benign, but by peppering their final story with a convoluted web of lies and twisted half-truths leaves reasonable readers unable to draw accurate conclusions (argument through verbosity).

Journalist Tim Andrews recently alleged that Ben Naparstek killed a story by Jana Wendt, (of 60-Minutes Fame), on another journalist Andrew Bolt. Apparently the story was killed because it wasn’t a hatchet job. Tim Andrews then revealed how the exact same thing happened to him; Ben Naparstek apparently flew in a London based journalist named Rachel Hills, for whom Tim had dedicated a few weeks of his life to make sure that she wouldn’t get elected to the student union when they were at uni together… This would make it understandable as to why Ben Naparstek commissioned Rachel to write a profile piece on Tim. (read full account)

Interestingly, Ben Naparstek and Fairfax Media flew disgraced author & journalist Daniel Glick from the United States of Entertainment to interview Roberts; just like Tim’s case, Roberts is 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 Naparstek & Glick in their recent attack piece against Roberts.


counter on blogger