SR,

Thanks for pointing out all the 'facts' that the ABC got right. But nowhere did I suggest otherwise, so rather a futile effort on your behalf.

What I was pointing out was that the ABC hid a lot of the information that would have allowed for a better understanding of the actual story, and that they did that because they had a political agenda.

They hid, for example, the fact that the woman's parents thought it likely that she'd 'confected' the story. They hid, for example, the fact that 6 years after (!!) the supposed rape, the woman thought she would marry Porter. They hid, for example, the fact that parts of her story such as the place where he'd supposedly gotten her pissed, didn't exist at the time.

The hid all sorts of pertinent facts because they didn't fit their agenda, their narrative. It wasn't journalism, it was partisan activism. In short, it was typical ABC at its worst. It was just a more successful version of the Pell campaign.

To make it easier for you to understand...they didn't lie, they just didn't tell the whole truth. Stock standard ABC.

"What part of this should they have covered up in your opinion?"
None. That's my point. Once they decided to publish they shouldn't have covered up anything. But they did.

Of course, it would have been better not to publish until later. Remember the Shorten accusations? Probably not. But in that case the ABC and the rest of the legacy media decided to suppress the story until the authorities had completed their investigations. Only then did they report and then the emphasis was on the fact that Shorten had been found to not have a case to answer. That's the way these things should be handled. But the proprieties are only followed when the accused is a friend of the left. Otherwise its open season.

Dear SteeleRedux, i happen to KNOW the article author, quite well.

He may soon be locking people like you up for a long time.

Your moniker - "imacentristmoderate"
indicates that you would be
prepared to give a hearing to other views.
Unfortunately from your posts it appears
that you are shocked and offended to discover
that there are other views.

Dear mhaze,

Oh rubbish.

Omitting stuff, deceiving or even outright lying is how the Murdoch press operate without any criticism from you.

The ABC is not like that at all.

You conceded they did not lie in the article and that "they didn't lie", yet you were fully supportive of Porters suing them.

How does that work in your mind?

They stuck to the facts as we expected them to do which is why they didn't have a case to answer, something Porter was finally convinced of. End of story.

SR,

"outright lying is how the Murdoch press operate"

I don't read the murdoch press so I wouldn't know. Also I stopped claiming moral equivalence as an excuse when I was about 10. Don't worry you might get there as well. Note also I never said they lied. That's just your atrocious comprehension skills.

I can't help but notice that you aren't even bothering to defend the fact that your ABC left out pertinent evidence simply because it didn't suit their agenda.

"yet you were fully supportive of Porters suing them"

Well I never expressed full support. That's just your atrocious comprehension skills. I did however say I was looking forward to the fun. Forcing the ABC to admit they couldn't prove their claims even to a civil level is a poor substitute for that fun, but a nice outcome nonetheless.

Dear Foxy, If it deliberately, premeditatedly creates more poverty, creates more domestic violence & creates more child abuse, is it a human being & does it have a right to any "view" about anything at all, or even to exist?

Besides this is the miracle of a multicultural planet. As they say on SBS "the world is an amazing place".

If freedom & democracy is not to your liking?

By all means move to a communist country, instead of changing a free democratic country into a communist hell hole.

North Korea is lovely this time of year, enjoy.