When the media gets it wrong: reputation, fairness and the evidence behind the story

For BAJN.au | Brian AJ Newman, LLB | 11 November 2026

A television report can turn a private dispute into a public judgment. A person becomes a label: thief, fraudster, neighbour from hell. Viewers see the finished story. They usually cannot see the interviews left out, the documents not obtained or the questions that were never put to the person accused.

That power deserves scrutiny. So does any accusation that a media organisation has fabricated a story. If we want journalism to be accountable, our criticism must meet the standards of accuracy and fairness we demand from journalists.

Australian decisions provide concrete examples of defamatory reporting and regulatory breaches. They also show why we must distinguish a proved wrong from a suspicion, and a dramatic narrative from the evidence underneath it.

A Current Affair and Gina Edwards: a dispute became an accusation of theft

In Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (No 5) [2024] FCA 422, the Federal Court considered A Current Affair broadcasts and related articles about a dispute over a cavoodle named Oscar. Barrister Gina Edwards succeeded in her defamation claim and was awarded $150,000, including aggravated damages.

The dispute's existence did not establish that she was a thief. The Court rejected the justification and contextual truth defences. The distinction matters: conduct in a contested ownership dispute cannot simply be converted into the more serious accusation of stealing.

The judgment also contained findings adverse to Edwards. A responsible account should not erase those qualifications or portray her as beyond criticism. Her success was a determination about the publications and defences before the Court, not an endorsement of everything she had done.

The practical lesson is that a journalist must test the accusation actually conveyed to the audience. An emotionally compelling ownership dispute is not, by itself, proof of theft. Federal Court judgment, order 1(a), and reasons reproduced; contemporaneous ABC report.

60 Minutes and the Wagner family: when the story gets ahead of the checking

The Grantham flood report provides particularly strong judicial findings. In Wagner v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 284, Applegarth J found:

• The story was effectively prepared before the approach to the Wagners; the serious allegations were not fairly put: [55]–[57].

• Nine's extreme carelessness was compounded by its possession of evidence undermining the story: [84].

• The Nine defendants were “recklessly indifferent” to the truth or falsity of the defamatory imputations: [89]. Judgment, specified paragraphs.

There is an important limit. At [90], the judge expressly declined to find that the defendants intended to convey the imputations because that intention had not been specifically pleaded. Reckless indifference was found; a finding of deliberate defamation must not be invented. Judgment [90].

The appeal varied the damages orders to address overlapping liability and prevent double recovery. It did not erase the aggravated damages awards. Adding all nominal awards into a single collectible total would misdescribe the result. Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Wagner [2020] QCA 221, [83]–[86] and orders.

These findings support a forceful criticism: settling on a damaging narrative before properly testing it can inflict serious injustice. They do not justify assuming the same motive or conduct in every program.

The All-Asian Mall report: accuracy and human dignity

Accountability extends beyond individual defamation claims. ACMA's investigation of A Current Affair's 7 November 2012 “All-Asian Mall” report found breaches concerning inaccurate factual material, gratuitous emphasis on ethnic origin and material likely to provoke intense dislike and serious contempt on that ground.

ACMA's annual report records that TCN agreed to make an on-air statement and removed the segment from Nine's website. These were broadcasting-code findings, not a civil defamation damages judgment. They demonstrate why accuracy and the treatment of communities deserve attention together. ACMA Annual Report 2013–14, 89.

Dezi Freeman: scrutiny must begin with the correct facts

Freeman's earlier appearance on A Current Affair warrants careful discussion, but the chronology matters. Nine's own retrospective says he appeared in 2018, describing alleged harassment by neighbours. The Porepunkah shootings occurred on 26 August 2025, about seven years later. Two officers, Detective Leading Senior Constable Neal Thompson and Senior Constable Vadim de Waart-Hottart, were killed. A third officer was wounded. Nine's retrospective; Victoria Police annual report, Operation Summit.

It would be wrong to describe the appearance as occurring only months before the deaths, or to say three officers were killed.

The material reviewed does not establish that the 2018 report was fabricated or defamatory. Nor does it verify the exact claim that the original broadcast described Freeman as a “victim”. Nine's retrospective records the family's allegations and a reporter's recollection that Freeman seemed genuine, while also recalling his obsessive manner.

A person's later violence does not logically disprove every earlier complaint they made. Someone can experience mistreatment in one situation and commit serious wrongdoing in another. Equally, appearing sympathetic on television is no guarantee that a person's account has been adequately tested.

The relevant questions concern the original reporting: what was alleged, what independent material supported it, what the neighbours said and whether their response was fairly represented. Without the complete broadcast and supporting records, those questions should remain questions. There is no evidentiary basis here for blaming the program for the later killings.

Following the evidence rather than choosing a villain

My Laminar approach separates the people and their connection to an event, the events themselves, their impact, the responses and the outcome sought. Applied to media scrutiny, that means preserving the complete publication and mapping each disputed assertion to its source. The Laminar Principle.

A useful assessment asks:

• What exact allegation did the audience receive?

• Does the evidence support every important part of it?

• Are several reports independent, or do they repeat one person's account?

• What contradicts the preferred explanation?

• Was the affected person given a meaningful opportunity to answer?

• What harm is demonstrated, and what remains alleged?

• Was an error corrected clearly enough to reach the original audience?

These questions should apply to criticism of the media as firmly as to the reporting being criticised. A selective account of a judgment, an omitted appeal or an unsupported accusation of dishonesty can repeat the same unfairness.

Protecting people without silencing legitimate reporting

There is also a necessary counterexample. In Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Appeal) [2025] FCAFC 67, the Full Federal Court unanimously dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of the defamation proceedings. Substantial truth and contextual truth defences succeeded, although not every imputation was proved. These were civil findings, not a criminal conviction. The High Court subsequently refused special leave. Accountability includes recognising when a publisher has successfully defended its reporting. Federal Court summary; High Court disposition.

A person facing damaging publicity may need help preserving evidence, identifying errors and explaining the impact on work and family. An employer or professional body should examine the underlying material and the person's response rather than treating a television segment as a completed investigation. The lawful process depends on the particular employment relationship and governing rules.

For readers affected by a broadcast, preserve the complete recording, publication date, URL, correspondence and evidence of harm. Identify the precise correction sought. ACMA explains the broadcaster complaint pathway, but a broadcasting complaint and a defamation claim perform different functions. Obtain prompt advice from a qualified legal practitioner about legal rights and deadlines. ACMA complaint guidance.

Public-interest journalism can expose serious wrongdoing. The cases discussed here do not justify treating every adverse report as false. They support a more demanding principle: the greater the accusation and the foreseeable harm, the more important it is to check the evidence, present material answers and correct errors.

People should not have to become a convenient villain for a story to hold an audience.

General information and advocacy commentary, not legal advice. Brian AJ Newman is an employment and human rights advocate, not a legal practitioner.