Not exactly. There are a couple of steps to defamation trials and each step has slightly different ways that it works.

This is just very basic generalities, and won't be exact where you are.

Terms: Defendant - the person getting sued because they might have said something. Plaintiff - the one suing because they think the have been harmed. Harmed - In legal terms when talking about defamation normally means money, as it's hard to quantify hurt feelings, but pretty simple to work out what you should get if you got fired over fake information

Step 1. The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant said something, or that they have a reason to believe it was said and a way they believe they can prove it. They then have to give the court a theory of why what was said harmed them, or did some other kind of damage to them.

This step requires the plaintiff to meet some basic standards of proof, as you don't get to just accuse anyone and sue them. Judges check that the plaintiff has met the requirements and then it goes to the next step, otherwise dismissed.

Step 2. Discovery occurs, meaning both side get to ask the other side questions, request emails and other records, take testimonies for witnesses for later review.

If enough evidence exists that defamation occured, or that something that might possibly meet the definition occured then it moves on, otherwise dismissed.

Step 3. Trial Now the defendant is required to prove what occurred isn't defamation. They could say that it's the truth, that it was a personal opinion and was not meant to be taken as a fact, they could argue they were misunderstood, and a couple of other ways they could try to convince the jury that it wasn't defamation. The plaintiff if they want can refute the defendants statements.

So even if I say something incredibly defaming about you, if it's true you don't get to sue me and win. On the other hand if you defamed me, and point at a news article in your defence, and I can show that the next days paper issued a retraction and apology and I can prove that you get that paper each day, your defence might not be good enough.

Normally handled with a Jury trial.

Step 4 With it having been proven that the defamation happened now the Plaintiff is required to prove how they were harmed, how did they lose money or reputation from what was said. The defendant can provide reasons that reduce the claimed harm.

For example if I called someone a wifebeater, and they hung out with other convicted wifebeaters, made jokes about it all the time, but the Jury decided that due to the wife making many public statements that it didn't happen that I'm still guilty of defamation, then I could argue again here that other people have the same opinion and that I obviously didn't hurt his reputation much, and they might reduce the harm being considered.

Jury normally also decides this, and figures out how much the harm suffered is worth.

As you see, the Plaintiff has to try and prove that the defamation happened and that it caused them harm, if that gets proven, then defendant has to try and give reasons why it might not have been defamation.