So he won.

Joe Hockey’s victory in his defamation case against Fairfax spares the treasurer another unpleasant afternoon of colleagues questioning his judgment anonymously through the pages of various newspapers. The cheery government backgrounders who do seem to enjoy the opportunity of a periodic free kick at Hockey will likely give their fast-texting thumbs a day of rest.

It will be interesting to see if the media takes a generosity cue from politics in this instance.

Will Fairfax’s commercial competitors be able to resist another pointless outbreak of the culture wars we’ve seen raging in thunderous incoherence over the past week or so? Or will readers and viewers be treated to another bout of politics and the media talking incessantly about themselves and each other? Enough about you. More about us. No, really. More about us.

Let’s try to avoid adding fuel to that fire by stepping through the events of Tuesday afternoon carefully.

Hockey was, of course, perfectly entitled to pursue a defamation action against a publisher who he believed had damaged his reputation.

The treasurer won this particular case because Fairfax pushed the limits of free speech in advertising its story last May.

Tuesday’s ruling by justice Richard White relates to a poster published by the Sydney Morning Herald and two promotional tweets by the Age – not to the stories themselves. (Note to editors: don’t over-egg those promos.) It will be interesting to see how Fairfax responds to this particular ruling. An appeal has been flagged, but not yet confirmed.

Joe Hockey is not the first politician to sue, and he won’t be the last. But it’s important to point out that parliamentarians are the most privileged class in the country when it comes to rights of reply.

When ordinary citizens are defamed, their only option is to seek redress through the courts – if they can afford it, of course.

Parliamentarians, by contrast, are powerful people with considerable resources and multiple rights of reply. Politicians can call a press conference to set the record straight. These days press conferences are even broadcast live. They can also make comprehensive statements to the parliament, where they are afforded the protection of privilege.

This richness of alternative options tends to make politicians look a bit foolish when they front the courts to claim grave injury and hurt feelings.

Winning the case against Fairfax absolutely makes Hockey look less foolish than the alternative scenario but, in my view, only marginally less foolish.

The other thing to remember is that the story was pursuing a highly pertinent issue in Australian politics: political fundraising, and the crossover between money and influence.

We in the media shouldn’t stand up to defend our right to get things wrong. If we do, we really have jumped the shark. But we should, without exception, stand up for the integrity of investigative journalism. The best of it pushes boundaries – that’s part of our community mandate.

Given political fundraising practices and influence are matters of legitimate public interest, rather than carp at one another in self-interested fashion, Australian media organisations need to stand up as one to argue for a legal framework which effectively balances the public’s right to know with the right of powerful people to defend their reputation.