The allegations by Sarah Monahan of indecent assault at the hands of her Hey Dad! co-star, Robert Hughes, on the set of the top-rating sit-com some 20 years ago has some commentators condemning the handling of the episode by Channel Nine's A Current Affair. Some have called it 'trial by media'.

Just as many have condemned Monahan, questioning her judgment and motivation in deciding to 'go public' before making an official, police complaint.

I think they're wrong.

There are two clear issues here - the most important one is unequal power, the other is the 'role of the media'. In this instance they are inextricably linked as cause and effect: an unequal power equation gave rise to the media redressing the imbalance. It was appropriate.

James D Wolfenson the former President of the World Bank was quoted in the Washington Post in 1999 as saying "…if there is no searchlight on corruption and inequitable practices, you cannot build public consensus to bring about change."

A Current Affair was shining the searchlight - exposing the allegations and thereby fulfilling its 'fourth estate' function.

No searchlight had previously shone on Sarah's claims as to what occurred on the Hey Dad! set. There should have been.

According to the testimony of Monahan during the A Current Affair interview: as a ten-year-old, she had complained to adults working with her about Hughes' "inappropriate touching". She then claims that she was offered the chance "to leave", if she didn't feel comfortable.

What? Punish her for speaking out?

Monahan was a child. She was the family breadwinner and desperately needed the work. Ten-year-old children don't have too many job prospects. She had no power - and, if what she alleges is true, the clear message was to put up or get out and adults, with a clear duty of care, let Monahan down. So, why then should she have any confidence in the authorities?

For as Beatty and Beal point out in their book on Australian media law that the law: "…disproportionately protects the interests of corporations and the wealthy who have the resources to vigorously, even aggressively, protect their interests before the courts".

Neither could her behaviour help but be influenced by other sexual abuse cases - some of far greater magnitude than even her claims.

Given the lop-sided power equation, Monahan hedged her bets this time and used the media to make it impossible for the allegations to be downplayed. It seems like a sound tactic when your back's up against a wall. The media gave Monahan an audible voice.

Robert Hughes would, of course, see it differently. But really, Monahan made the allegations against him years ago. Scrutiny of his behaviour should have occurred then. He's had a long reprieve before having to face his accuser, in any forum at all.

As for A Current Affair: it practices a type of journalism called 'foot in the door', often sensationalising stories - it's the 'house style' - and this story was no exception. However, in A Current Affair's defence, it did make an effort to balance its reporting, even despatching a journalist to Singapore to seek comment from Hughes.

Was Hughes ambushed? Maybe. But if he was, it was no more of an ambush than what Monahan alleges she suffered at Hughes' hands, and besides, there's no nice way of confronting someone with these sorts of allegations whatever the house style.

And I'm willing to bet, should Hughes have collected himself sufficiently by now, Channel Nine would be only too pleased to entertain his considered, on-air reply. Gary Reilly, the executive producer of Hey Dad!, got to give his views even before Monahan was interviewed.

Trial by media? I don't think so.

When responsible authorities or those with a duty of care neglect to act appropriately to allegations when made, a proper function of the media is to invoke its role as the fourth estate and expose those allegations to the scrutiny of the public sphere.

The fact that Sarah claims no investigation was carried out when she originally complained justifies the route she chose to take and justifies A Current Affair's decision to air the story.

Together they have ensured a thorough police investigation will occur. Not before time.

Susan Merrell is a freelance journalist