Developments in technology and judgments on journalism are coming from every corner. Below, Michael looks at Twitter’s withdrawal from the voluntary EU Disinformation Code and the impending application of the Digital Services Act in the EU, while Sacha notes the release of a new Australian government consultation on AI and considers some of the higher level principles for tech regulation.
Earlier this week, there was the announcement that Bruce Lehrmann had settled his defamation action against news.com.au and Samantha Maiden, while continuing his action against Ten and Lisa Wilkinson for initial reports of Brittany Higgins’ allegations that she was raped in Parliament House, as well as the separate action against the ABC for broadcasting the National Press Club event featuring Higgins and Grace Tame.
But the biggest media story of all – in what Jason Bosland has described as ‘the biggest defamation case we’ve ever had’ – was the success of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times in defending the defamation action brought by former SAS soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith.
Yesterday, Justice Besanko delivered a summary of his findings on the Federal Court’s YouTube channel (with 10,000 of us watching live!). Besanko J found the publisher had successfully established defences against 14 separate imputations. Because the articles were published in 2018, the publisher was unable to use the new public interest defence that came into effect in Victoria and New South Wales in 2021. But in a surprising development, the publisher succeeded with the established defences of truth and contextual truth. While not requiring the publisher to reach the same standard of proof as in a criminal trial, this was still a difficult case to run because of the seriousness of the imputations, some of which suggested Roberts-Smith had been directly or indirectly involved in murder when serving in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2012. The defamation action commenced in 2018, with 110 days of public hearings and with costs so far estimated at $25,000,000.
While the Roberts-Smith case will continue to draw public debate in the months ahead – with an appeal likely – this fortnight also saw some other important wins for investigative journalism.
First there was the dismissal by the Federal Court of the appeal by Peter V’landys over the ABC’s 7.30 report on ‘wastage’ of thoroughbred racehorses, which I discuss below. And then there was the ABC Ombudsman’s report that cleared the network’s recent coronation coverage that included a 45 minute panel discussion featuring Stan Grant. The Ombudsman found the program did not breach the broadcaster’s impartiality rules. But, as Monica explores below, was there another way to cover the critical issue of Indigenous dispossession?
To read the newsletter in full, click here. Subscribe here.
