Thread by @J_B_C16

Perhaps. But also about Australian media's slipshod reporting standards for anything that can be stuck with a 'Chinese influence' label.

Let's look at the actual judgment and history of this case...

https://twitter.com/billbirtles/status/1356377466906968064

'...Rares first threw out their defence.. concerned about “sweeping and imprecise particulars”, “hearsay”, “speculation” and “circular inferential reasoning”.. Some parts.. were “embarrassing because they were conclusory and had no content of substance”'

theaustralian.com.au/business/legal…

'In August 2019, a full bench of the Federal Court unanimously rejected an appeal against Rares’ ruling. ... the particulars of the truth defence drawn up by the ABC and Nine had “many problems” including “vague allegations”, “vague words” and was “untenable”.'

'In Oct [2019].. Rares again threw it out and said their first attempt had “sought to justify serious allegations against Dr Chau that they had not properly investigated. Nor had they attempted to collect any admissible evidence in support of... those very serious allegations.”'

As to the tabling in Australia's Parliament, just hours after the judgment was issued, of an FBI case file re the bribery allegations against Chau Chak Wing - under Parliamentary privilege, that shield against defamation suit for saying, well, whatever... theguardian.com/australia-news…

'the FBI case file had already been examined by Rares on October 10, 2019, and it had failed to persuade the judge it was of sufficient value to justify another re-pleading of the truth defence.
... “I really can see why the US didn’t charge Mr Chau if this is all you’ve got…”'

'An extensive report of Wilson’s statement about this document appeared on the front page of @theage on Wednesday written by Nick McKenzie @Ageinvestigates and @CUhlmann. No mention was made of the fact that its value had already been assessed by Rares.'

'the ABC, Nine and McKenzie... have also been hit with a permanent injunction that prevents the re-broadcast of the defamatory parts of the Four Corners program.
Rares found that Four Corners had broadcast untrue, indefensible imputations...'
theaustralian.com.au/business/legal…

Apart from taxpayers footing the bill for the ABC's costs in defending this sort of junk journalism, this concerns how Australia's body politic deals with Chinese power going forwards. As the situation gets darker, not brighter, we need responsible reporting on #foreigninfluence.

That means *not* weaving together every apparent shadow of CCP influence and then, when our own judicial system finds holes in the story, crying foul on twitter, playing games in Parliament and writing selective reports abou how things got here.

Not a great scorecard so far.