Hands up those who think the reputation of commercial television Network Ten has been enhanced by the judgment in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case? Any takers for commercial TV news and current affairs generally? I thought not.

The smiling face of commercial TV presenter, Lisa Wilkinson, following the findings by Justice Lee, would have you believe her actions through this saga were morally anchored and entirely without fault. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Rather, the damning findings of Justice Lee, delivered on Monday this week, included trenchant and unflattering criticism of Ms Wilkinson – currently off-air but still employed by Network Ten on a huge salary – and the network that employs her.

In handing down his findings in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case against Wilkinson and Network Ten, Justice Lee stated Wilkinson had ‘demonstrated a lack of candour’ in the witness box. Golly! A TV journo displaying ‘a lack of candour’.

Not only was Justice Lee highly critical of the manner in which Wilkinson had gone about preparation for the Brittany Higgins story on The Project, he also reserved particular scorn for Ten’s in-house legal counsel Ms Tasha Smithies – whom he said had advised Wilkinson to give a highly contentious #MeToo Logie Award speech in mid-June 2022 which resulted in a series of serious consequences for justice.

The moral equivalence in The Project story appears to have been based on the notion (held by Wilkinson) that the Brittany Higgins ‘story’ could usefully combine the following: Wilkinson’s desire for a public stage on the #MeToo issue, and to be seen to be supportive of Ms Higgins‘s version of events (notwithstanding pending legal action in relation to them), TV ratings for the show that employed her and, doubtless, public profile and publicity for Ms Wilkinson herself.

Justice Lee flatly rejected Wilkinson’s claims that she had conducted herself ‘reasonably’ as a journalist. At the time these reports went to air on Network Ten, Ms Wilkinson was working on her ‘instincts’ and we know that, at the time Network Ten put the story to air, there was no legal basis for the inferences made in it.

Back to what Justice Lee described as an ‘omnishambles’. In the hustle of public affairsTV, decisions are made quickly, claims are sometimes left unchecked and ‘careful’ editing can give viewers impressions which are frequently incorrect.

Justice Lee’s finding that a rape had occurred in no way vindicates the reporting of these matters at the time they were aired – by Wilkinson and her employer.

While ABC news and current affairs appears to be in terminal decline, commercial television is in trouble.

The repetitious sludge that appears under the banner of news and current affairs is reason enough for young people to dump the medium that baby boomers grew up with. Young people want to be informed about the world around them, but they precisely don’t want the junk aired day after day by sanctimonious reporters who believe they should be arbiters of what is right and wrong.

With their focus firmly on advertising revenue and not much else, network bosses have tried to ignore their declining audiences for news and current affairs hoping instead that their idiotic entertainment shows will rescue them.

It’s often said that a crisis for one player in an industry is a crisis for the industry. The reputations of all commercial networks are under pressure and no amount of fancy lighting or expensive clothing will fix the problem.

Highly paid television identities such as Wilkinson apparently believe they, above all others, have the right to say whatever they like about whomever they like without being challenged or made to apologise for inaccuracies. Wilkinson’s flagrant campaigning and cheerleading for the #MeToo movement is an example of her wishing to be seen as a campaigner for women even when sensitive court proceedings are pending.

Justice Lee’s remarks about Ten’s in-house legal counsel left no one in doubt about what he thought of her advice regarding Wilkinson’s intended #MeToo Logies speech.

It wasn’t that long ago that Ms Wilkinson was inadvertently recorded making offensive comments about Voice No campaigner, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. This sordid episode provided us an insight into the personality and motivations of Wilkinson.

She believes her position in the world of commercial television provides her with a platform to share her views on people and events – wittingly or unwittingly – at the murky intersection between politics and media. Let us not forget that Justice Lee made it clear that Ms Higgins’s rape allegations were used to create the myth of a political cover-up designed specifically to damage the then Morrison government and certain of its ministers.

That voters repudiate the political discourse in Australia is hardly a surprise when the couriers of such information are people who like to ‘play’ behind the scenes in a way that can only be described as manipulative and censorious. That Canberra thrives on a treadmill of gossip and scheming does not make it right or acceptable.

Is it little wonder that media consumers find the contemporary electronic media landscape perplexing and frustrating? Whose interests are being served when a story is presented to them? Why is that person being attacked and for what motivation? Who is gaining and who is losing from the reporting?

The so-called ‘Higgins affair’ will doubtless be the subject of analysis, academic papers, lectures, a podcast and perhaps even a Netflix production. Who would know?

Whatever becomes of this sordid saga, it is to be hoped that retellers of the story highlight the sorry, manipulative involvement of senior on-air and production staff at Network Ten and Network Seven, the deviousness of the two primary antagonists – Lehrmann and Higgins – and the efforts of shadowy figures behind the scenes who were seeking to push events this way or that. Here I refer especially to Higgins’ now partner, David Sharaz, and other intermediaries. Their dubious roles should not go unnoticed.