Our nation’s biggest broadcasters either became the story or obscured it through salacious headlines. Will they learn from the Lehrmann saga?
Yesterday, Bruce Lehrmann lost his defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, with the broadcaster’s truth defence succeeding. In the Federal Court, Justice Michael Lee found on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann had raped Brittany Higgins. Before delivering his verdict Lee remarked, “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.”
The provocative line was a fitting conclusion to a trial infected by scandal. The matter showcased the mainstream media’s departure from reality. This was not the fourth estate, but a parasite feeding on a host. Now, that host is a rapist awaiting a significant costs order and a committal hearing for an unrelated set of rape charges in June.
This defamation trial is just one of 17 court cases and inquiries stemming from the allegation made by Higgins, many of which several mainstream media outlets were party to. News Corp and the ABC paid Lehrmann to settle. Seven is alleged to have funded his lifestyle in the pursuit of securing the Spotlight interview. The Australian had at least 55 phone calls with Walter Sofronoff KC, the person presiding over the inquiry into Lehrmann’s criminal prosecution. The ACT’s anti-corruption watchdog is now assessing Sofronoff’s conduct regarding his communication with the media during this period.
Network Ten and Wilkinson may have won, but Justice Lee was searing in his criticism of their conduct in airing the original rape allegation. His judgment found that Ten “fell short of the standard for substantial truth” and that the network “resolved to publish the exclusive story from the start and were committed to doing the minimum requisite to avoid litigation”.
Our nation’s most powerful publishers swiftly boarded the Lehrmann bandwagon, and rode it far from the relevant facts.
Their bloodlust lost sight of the beating heart of the story, Brittany Higgins. The Australian public expected to be informed and assisted in navigating these complex court proceedings. Instead, they were met with coverage of Lehrmann’s karaoke song choices and neighbourhood disputes. This obsession meant figures like former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach were not positioned as key witnesses to readers but used as tabloid fodder.
While Bruce Lehrmann was a scandal-ridden plaintiff to be salivated over, Higgins was treated not as a human but as a political problem to be managed and silenced. The worst headlines pivoted from the active shaming of her for everything from the brand of coat she wears, “bombshell”-style claims falsely positioning that she “hooked up” with Lehrmann, and the use of her dating life to distort the credible allegations she put forward in 2021, to the gleeful loathing of Lehrmann with headlines like “Shrieking’ babes, booze and angry neighbours as political staffer’s parties during the day for third weekday in a row” and “Lehrmann undone by his love for ‘80s rock ballads’”.
Even the publications most committed to the respectful reporting of Brittany Higgins’ story significantly devolved in recent weeks to relishing in the shiny narrative to be spun, the Bruce headline to be won. Almost collectively, the media lost sight of the fact that the allegation, and the years-long proceedings that followed, destroyed real people’s lives. When every masthead engages in this conduct, what kind of accountability should we expect?
I have little faith in the Murdoch mastheads, and the mainstream media more broadly, to see this as an opportunity to change. What I do know is that audiences are seeing through the spin, and that when the mainstream outlets fail to equip them with the information they need — people will seek out new voices they trust.
In the aftermath of Lehrmann, many of these publishers will never regain the shreds of integrity they were clutching to. Make no mistake, the future Australian media landscape is digital, values-driven journalism committed to reshaping the way news is accessed and understood. It is independent commentary that elevates transparency, not rapists. The only foreseeable outcome in all of this is that unless these archaic conglomerates make significant changes to their business models and reform their self-serving agendas driven by division, they will not survive.
Lehrmann may not have won his defamation case against Network Ten this week, but he proved just how lost legacy media is.
Do you think the Australian media will actually learn any lessons from the Lehrmann saga? Or will it be business as usual? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
