The Defence Weblog is publishing this assertion to doc a sample of conduct by EOS Protection Methods USA, Inc. and its mother or father firm, Electro Optic Methods (ASX: EOS), that we contemplate a direct affront to press freedom and unbiased defence journalism.
On April 21, 2026, Electro Optic Methods printed a press launch asserting the demonstration of its Slinger distant weapon system as a part of the U.S. Military’s Sling Blade counter-UAS platform in the course of the Summit Strike stay hearth train. The Defence Weblog reported on this occasion primarily based completely on that publicly launched materials.
Of their correspondence, EOS Protection Methods USA advised that cuashub.com is linked to The Defence Weblog. That declare is fake.
– ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW –
Key contradiction
Regardless of eradicating the press launch from their web site, EOS left all associated posts and references stay on their social media channels — the place the identical data stays publicly accessible to at the present time.
This selective deletion suggests an try to quietly erase the supply materials whereas avoiding the visibility {that a} public retraction would convey.
C-UAS Hub is a wholly unbiased publication. They produced their very own reporting primarily based on the identical EOS press launch, by means of their very own editorial course of, with no connection to The Defence Weblog — no shared content material, no citations, no coordination of any sort. Their article accommodates no hyperlink to our web site, no reference to our identify, and no point out of our creator.
Moreover, as of the publication of this assertion, the C-UAS Hub article stays on-line. EOS has not requested its elimination. This raises an apparent query: if the priority was genuinely about factual accuracy, why was solely The Defence Weblog focused — and never the opposite unbiased outlet reporting the identical data from the identical supply?
Following publication, an EOS Defence Methods USA consultant contacted us — to not request elimination, however to submit a factual correction. We accepted that correction instantly and up to date the article in good religion. The article was revised to mirror exactly the language the corporate’s personal consultant requested.
Days later, a second consultant — the Director of Contracts at EOS Protection Methods USA — contacted The Defence Weblog demanding the article be eliminated completely, stating it had been printed “with out correct authorization” and with out “consent of the suitable events.” No authorized foundation was offered. No categorised or proprietary data was recognized.
On the similar time, the official LinkedIn account of EOS Protection Methods USA, Inc. had publicly commented on our Editor-in-Chief’s publish overlaying the identical article (On April 21) : “Thanks for this protection.”
We declined to take away the article on these phrases. Following our formal response — which included documented proof of their very own press launch, their very own LinkedIn remark, and their very own correction request — EOS Protection Methods USA reframed their place. We agreed to take away the article as an expert courtesy, provided that the supply materials contained inaccuracies that originated with EOS itself.
April 21
2026
Publication
EOS Australia publishes a press launch. The Defence Weblog stories primarily based on that publicly obtainable materials.
Days
later
Public endorsement
Official EOS Protection Methods USA LinkedIn account publicly feedback on The Defence Weblog’s publish.
“Thanks for this protection!”
April 21
2026
Correction request
An EOS consultant submits a factual correction request — not a elimination request. The Defence Weblog accepts and updates the article accordingly.
Shortly
after
Elimination demand
EOS Protection Methods USA Director of Contracts calls for full elimination, claiming the article was printed “with out correct authorization.” No authorized foundation offered.
April 25
2026
Decision
Following full documentation of proof, EOS reframes its place. The Defence Weblog removes the article as a courtesy. A proper organisational apology is requested — and declined.
In November 2020, EOS Protection Methods USA made an an identical method to The Defence Weblog — demanding the elimination of an article, claiming pictures have been used “with out permission” and that data was “not correct.” We complied on the time. No apology was provided then both.
The sample is evident: EOS publishes or authorises public communications, unbiased retailers report on them, and EOS Protection Methods USA subsequently contacts these retailers implying improper conduct. We additionally notice that one other unbiased publication — cuashub.com — reported on the identical press launch completely independently, with no connection to The Defence Weblog. They have been equally accused of errors originating from EOS’ personal supply materials.
Our place
We formally requested a written organisational apology from EOS Protection Methods USA acknowledging that the unique elimination request was improperly framed and that The Defence Weblog acted with full journalistic integrity all through. That request was declined.
We’re subsequently publishing this assertion on the report. The Defence Weblog doesn’t require authorisation from any firm to report on publicly launched data. We right errors when they’re recognized — as we did on this case, promptly and in good religion. We don’t settle for false implications of wrongdoing, and we won’t achieve this in silence.
Unbiased defence journalism is just not a courtesy prolonged on the pleasure of company communications departments. It’s a proper — one we’ll proceed to train.
Editor’s notice
This assertion will likely be up to date if EOS Protection Methods USA or Electro Optic Methods responds formally. The Defence Weblog stays open to receiving a written organisational apology and can mirror any such improvement transparently.
