The Daily Mail is defending defamation action brought by Molan, 39, who says she was falsely portrayed as a racist when an article accused her of refusing to apologise for saying "hooka looka mooka hooka fooka" on 2GB in May 2020.

Molan has denied in court she was racially mocking Polynesian names. She made an on-air statement shortly after the article's publication saying she would never "intentionally offend anybody or hurt anyone's feelings" and was very sorry "if I've done that".

As the online news website works to prove the truth of its article, barrister Bruce McClintock SC contrasted Molan's actions with those of Love, after the Seven reporter joked about a cat in an Asian restaurant.

Love quickly withdrew the joke and apologised while Molan's statement had "nothing that could be called contrition", Mr McClintock told the Federal Court on Thursday.

He said Molan's lack of insight about the effect of her mocking was "tellingly revealed" when she compared it to being "teased in the playground or by her co-hosts".

"To make a joke about people's names - a racially-based joke about people's names - is really quite disgraceful," Mr McClintock said.

Even if the court sided with Ms Molan's case, only nominal damages could be awarded "because to do anything else would be to sanction such behaviour," the barrister added.

Citing several sources, the Daily Mail says the subject of the "hooka looka" joke was Manly back-rower Haumole Olakau'atu.

Molan says she was making light of her colleagues' mixing up the end of players' names.

Her barrister contested the reference to Love as having little relevance to the matter at hand and being made after evidence in the case was closed.

Justice Robert Bromwich accepted he would take it no higher than illustrative of the Daily Mail's contention Molan had not apologised.

Molan denies she "refused" to apologise, an assessment the Daily Mail appears to have made based on the broadcaster not replying to a reporter's SMS 30 minutes before publication.

"(Her) failure to respond to this communication, particularly in light of the inadequate notice, does not come close to a refusal to apologise," Kieran Smark SC said in written submissions.

Mr Smark said the website's June 2020 article had been cast in a fashion that the ordinary reader couldn't tell fact from opinion and was pointed towards a conclusion that Molan callously refused to apologise.

"The prominence of 'refusal to apologise' is very great - it's the punch in the headline," he said.

Also during the May 30 broadcast, Molan addressed the recent death of George Floyd and how as "a white Australian" she couldn't "ever put myself in a situation where I would know what it would be like for people over there, and for people here who experience it".

That live commentary was "entirely consistent with her evidence that she is sympathetic to the eradication of racism," Mr Smark said.

In trying to decide if the article portrayed Molan as a racist and whether the "hooka looka" comment amounts to casual racism, much of the court's time on Thursday was dedicated to the ordinary definition of racism.

"I'm not sure you can get higher levels of white privilege than an old white male judge," Justice Bromwich quipped.

"I'm quite challenged about how to approach this."

He has reserved his decision.

Australian Associated Press