In other words, the ABC paid its own costs, plus mediation costs, plus related costs. Or, rather, the taxpayer did. However, the most important part of Anderson’s announcements turns on what the ABC regards as the standard that a journalist, writing a story about an alleged rape of a girl aged 16 by a boy aged 17 more than three decades ago, is required to meet.
Part of the ABC-Porter settlement entails that the ABC place an editor’s note on Milligan’s story, which remains on ABC Online. It reads in part: “The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil.”
In other words, the ABC acknowledges that Milligan’s serious accusations could not pass the test of “beyond reasonable doubt” (the criminal law standard) or on “the balance of probabilities” (the civil law standard). But, according to Anderson, it was OK to publish this material even though it failed to meet the evidentiary standard that applies in criminal or even civil law. A low bar, indeed.
So it has come to this. The ABC stands by the importance of Milligan’s article, along with what it terms her “independent and brave reporting on matters about which Australians have a right to be informed”, despite the fact such evidence would not have prevailed in a case by a local council against a dog owner.
