They emphasised the role played by Australian Astronomers and telescopes - vital in capturing the planetary "blip" on the stellar lensing event. This is good.

What was less good was their headline "Earth-like planet found".

You know my thoughts on this sort of stupid and sensationalist headline. The planet isn't even remotely Earthlike. A surface temperature of -220 C ! Europa has a surface temperature of -162 C, and its surface ice layers are at least 20 km thick however you calculate it. Pluto is -230 C and Charon -220 C (different temperatures due to volatile behaviour as recently reported)

This new planet would be about 1.7 times the radius and surface gravity of Earth, with 1.7 times the volatile inventory, measured in thickness. So (if it were warmer) it would have oceans 6 km deep, but mountain ranges would only rise to peaks 1 km above this level, so it would be largely a water world, with a few isolated island chains (akin to our high Himalaya and Andes). Atmospheric pressure would be 1.7 times Earth's if it were not all frozen!

Since it's so cold, it would be an ice Giant Pluto-like planet with a 4-6 km icy crust over a volcanic and tectonically active rocky surface, with a thin "Europan" ocean. We know very little about it so conceivably, it could be a giant Plutino - thicker oceans and less rock.

It "ought" to be too cold for a nitrogen atmosphere, like Titan has, but it is again just conceivable that a powerful greenhouse effect in its thick atmosphere could keep an atmosphere going, but there's no way there would be liquid water oceans to the surface, unless there's a violent and persistent volcanic area (e.g. Yellowstone, Io) in which case a liquid water lake would exist, probably behaving as do lava lakes on Earth.

Whatever the atmosphere, its sun would be a dim and distant speck of brilliance. Distance alone would diminish the starlight by a factor of 9 compared to the Earth. The smaller (58% radius) redder (surface temperature 3500K vs our sol @ 5800K) star would also give off dramatically less energy by a factor of around 530, giving a total energy output 1/4500 of the Earth - around 0.3 Watts per square metre. (consider a 15W lightbulb (the sort you have in a fridge or a microwave) lighting a standard sized room...

Geothermal energy would be 1.7 times that of the Earth (if the planet is a similar age - a factor not reported in the press release). This is still only 0.12 Watts per sq m, so starlight dominates for surface temperature but subsurface conditions are dominated by volcanic and geothermal heat.

A fascinating planet, with likely subsurface oceans, and life(!), but NOT Earthlike, IMHO...