The article is written unmistakably from the angle of the cynic.

Q:
Is this article legitimate balanced in its presentation of criticism of Four Corners program.
There are other questions .
.
A:
Can an investigative program remain impartial when its investigative hypothesis itself rests upon a particular interpretation of the underlying political and environmental controversy?

That is much more difficult than simply asking whether opposing voices were interviewed.

The ABC’s own policy says objectivity requires journalists to test their own hypotheses against alternative evidence, and specifically asks whether they have considered evidence contrary to the dominant view.

So a serious critique of Timber Turmoil would examine what evidence the program selected, what evidence it rejected, how uncertainty was presented, and whether its language sometimes converted disputed propositions into established facts.

Bottom line:
the article contains a legitimate critique of Four Corners’ framing and investigative emphasis. But its stronger accusations of activist capture, deliberate smearing and abandonment of journalistic independence aren’t established by the evidence in the article. The ABC Ombudsman’s subsequent finding of no breach is a significant counterweight that the article would need to confront.

So..is it back to square one?