An apparent opinion piece and related social media posts, published by Crikey.com.au in June, headlined: “Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. And Murdoch is its unprosecuted conspirator” – analyzing the January 6 uprising by supporters of defeated presidential candidate Donald Trump. In legal letters published by Crikey, Lachlan Murdoch’s lawyers claim the posts contain “outrageous allegations of criminal conduct and conspiracy” and make a number of “highly defamatory and false allegations about him”. Written by Crikey’s political editor Bernard Keane, the June 29 article mentions the name Murdoch twice: in the headline and in the final paragraphs. The article deals heavily with former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchison’s testimony to the US House Select Committee on the January 6 attack. Hutchison did not mention Murdoch in her testimony. Having discussed Trump’s continued peddling of the “big lie” that he won the 2020 US presidential election – he lost 306 electoral votes to 232 and the popular vote by 7 million votes – Keane argues that “the most powerful media company to the world” continues to “sell the lie of a stolen election and play down the rebellion that Trump created.” Keane argued that former US President Richard Nixon was infamously the “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Watergate scandal and drew an analogy that “the Murdochs and the killer Fox News poisonous commentators are the unindicted co-conspirators” in the events of January 6. The piece does not name Lachlan Murdoch individually. In letters sent to Crikey and published by the independent news website on Monday evening, lawyers for Lachlan Murdoch, eldest son of patriarch Rupert and chief executive of Fox Corporation, argued he was personally identifiable by the article and defamed. They claim the publication of the article was “malicious” and “manifestly indefensible”. “The allegations are false and calculated to damage Mr Murdoch, both personally and professionally, and should not have been published,” an initial statement of concern said. Among the 14 charges alleged in the article are: “Mr. Murdoch: unlawfully conspired with Donald Trump to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. … unlawfully conspired with Donald Trump to incite a mob with murderous intent to march at the capitol. … was a co-conspirator in a conspiracy with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election result that costs lives. has conspired with Donald Trump to commit the crime of treason against the United States of America to overturn the result of the 2020 election; … he should be charged with the crime of traitor to the United States…” A further nine imputations were allegedly made via a Facebook post and a tweet. Through her lawyers, Crikey responded that the article did not mention Lachlan Murdoch at all and that the threatened defamation action was “certain to fail”. “There can be no credible argument that the article conveys … for example, that your client was involved in a conspiracy to incite a mob with murderous intent or that he knew how heavily armed the rioters would be,” Crikey said. “Any such imputation rests upon a wholly strained and distorted interpretation of the words of the article.” In response to the original complaint, Crikey initially agreed to remove the piece from its website and deleted a related tweet and Facebook post – but after failing to reach an agreement, brought the piece back live. In lengthy legal correspondence, published by Crikey, the news site refused to apologise, but offered not to republish the original article, pay Murdoch’s reasonable legal fees and publish an “editorial statement” clarifying its position and arguing that the article does not convey the imputations claimed by Murdoch. Subscribe to Guardian Australia’s Morning Mail Our Australian morning news email breaks down the key national and international stories of the day and why they matter Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The proposed statement repeated the disputed paragraphs about the Murdoch family and detailed the full list of defamatory allegations alleged by Murdoch. The proposed statement said Crikey did not agree that the original article made the allegations: “There is no evidence that Mr Murdoch did any of the things described above. Crikey doesn’t say that [Murdoch] did any of them.” “Crikey believes that Mr. Murdoch bears some responsibility for the events of January 6 because of the actions of Fox News, the network he leads. However, Crikey does not believe that he was actively involved in the events of that day, as the things described above suggest.” A motion to publish the editorial was rejected by Murdoch’s lawyers. “It should be obvious … that the reference to Mr Murdoch in the article was unfair and should not have been made. An available conclusion is that Crikey continues to seek to increase his readership by making baseless ‘headline’ claims about my client,” the lawyers said. “This conclusion is open given the previous false articles that have appeared on the Crisey website about Mr Murdoch and the absurdity of including his name in the article.” Crikey’s open letter, published as an advertisement in the New York Times and Canberra Times, said “we at Crikey strongly support freedom of opinion and public interest journalism”. “We want to defend these allegations in court. You have made it clear in your solicitor’s letters that you intend to go to court to resolve this alleged defamation. “We await your brief so we can test this important public interest freedom journalism issue in a courtroom.” One of Cricy’s legal letters quoted Murdoch himself in the 2014 Keith Murdoch Oration (Keith Murdoch was his grandfather), when he argued that “a free media should not depend on anyone for favors” and that the censorship in any form “erodes our freedom to know, to be informed and to make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy”. Crikey’s editor-in-chief Peter Fray told the Guardian his organization supports Keane’s reporting and that defamation laws are being used in Australia to silence the media and stifle legitimate and vital debate. “We have to ask: what’s going on here?” Frey said. “What’s happening is these laws are being used to stop a legitimate news analysis linking Fox’s actions to what happened in Washington on January 6th, that’s what’s happening.” A spokesman for Murdoch declined to comment. In letters released by Cricey, Murdoch’s lawyers rejected Cricey’s claims that the piece was in the public interest, saying the article was not “a legitimate exercise of freedom of the press and freedom of speech” on an issue of “critical importance.” of public importance”. Since it was removed within about 40 minutes of providing the notice of concern, we infer that Crikey fully understands this. In fact, it was an example of Crikey reporting on one issue (the Trump evidence to the House Select Committee) and trying to drag Mr. Murdoch into the quagmire of allegations about the former President and question him by association.” They go on to say that Murdoch “does not seek to dictate stories” and “has only raised complaints when the falsehoods are blatant. Nor was he unreasonable or intimidating.” The letter said Murdoch “wishes to resolve the matter with Crikey as he has successfully done so in the past … the only issue between the parties is the delivery of a genuine apology”. Crikey and the Murdochs have form. In April last year, Crikey retracted an article written by the site’s founder, Stephen Mayne, which made a series of allegations about Lachlan Murdoch’s time on the Channel Ten board. The article was found to contain a number of errors and Crikey agreed to “keep the current apology on the home page for 14 days”. In September 2020, Crikey was also forced to apologize for comparing Murdoch to an organized crime boss.
title: “Crikey Small Independent News Site Challenges Lachlan Murdoch To Sue Him For Defamation Lachlan Murdoch " ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-06” author: “Edmund Moser”
An apparent opinion piece and related social media posts, published by Crikey.com.au in June, headlined: “Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. And Murdoch is its unprosecuted conspirator” – analyzing the January 6 uprising by supporters of defeated presidential candidate Donald Trump. In legal letters published by Crikey, Lachlan Murdoch’s lawyers claim the posts contain “outrageous allegations of criminal conduct and conspiracy” and make a number of “highly defamatory and false allegations about him”. Written by Crikey’s political editor Bernard Keane, the June 29 article mentions the name Murdoch twice: in the headline and in the final paragraphs. The article deals heavily with former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchison’s testimony to the US House Select Committee on the January 6 attack. Hutchison did not mention Murdoch in her testimony. Having discussed Trump’s continued peddling of the “big lie” that he won the 2020 US presidential election – he lost 306 electoral votes to 232 and the popular vote by 7 million votes – Keane argues that “the most powerful media company to the world” continues to “sell the lie of a stolen election and play down the rebellion that Trump created.” Keane argued that former US President Richard Nixon was infamously the “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Watergate scandal and drew an analogy that “the Murdochs and the killer Fox News poisonous commentators are the unindicted co-conspirators” in the events of January 6. The piece does not name Lachlan Murdoch individually. In letters sent to Crikey and published by the independent news website on Monday evening, lawyers for Lachlan Murdoch, eldest son of patriarch Rupert and chief executive of Fox Corporation, argued he was personally identifiable by the article and defamed. They claim the publication of the article was “malicious” and “manifestly indefensible”. “The allegations are false and calculated to damage Mr Murdoch, both personally and professionally, and should not have been published,” an initial statement of concern said. Among the 14 charges alleged in the article are: “Mr. Murdoch: unlawfully conspired with Donald Trump to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. … unlawfully conspired with Donald Trump to incite a mob with murderous intent to march at the capitol. … was a co-conspirator in a conspiracy with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election result that costs lives. has conspired with Donald Trump to commit the crime of treason against the United States of America to overturn the result of the 2020 election; … he should be charged with the crime of traitor to the United States…” A further nine imputations were allegedly made via a Facebook post and a tweet. Through her lawyers, Crikey responded that the article did not mention Lachlan Murdoch at all and that the threatened defamation action was “certain to fail”. “There can be no credible argument that the article conveys … for example, that your client was involved in a conspiracy to incite a mob with murderous intent or that he knew how heavily armed the rioters would be,” Crikey said. “Any such imputation rests upon a wholly strained and distorted interpretation of the words of the article.” In response to the original complaint, Crikey initially agreed to remove the piece from its website and deleted a related tweet and Facebook post – but after failing to reach an agreement, brought the piece back live. In lengthy legal correspondence, published by Crikey, the news site refused to apologise, but offered not to republish the original article, pay Murdoch’s reasonable legal fees and publish an “editorial statement” clarifying its position and arguing that the article does not convey the imputations claimed by Murdoch. Subscribe to Guardian Australia’s Morning Mail Our Australian morning news email breaks down the key national and international stories of the day and why they matter Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The proposed statement repeated the disputed paragraphs about the Murdoch family and detailed the full list of defamatory allegations alleged by Murdoch. The proposed statement said Crikey did not agree that the original article made the allegations: “There is no evidence that Mr Murdoch did any of the things described above. Crikey doesn’t say that [Murdoch] did any of them.” “Crikey believes that Mr. Murdoch bears some responsibility for the events of January 6 because of the actions of Fox News, the network he leads. However, Crikey does not believe that he was actively involved in the events of that day, as the things described above suggest.” A motion to publish the editorial was rejected by Murdoch’s lawyers. “It should be obvious … that the reference to Mr Murdoch in the article was unfair and should not have been made. An available conclusion is that Crikey continues to seek to increase his readership by making baseless ‘headline’ claims about my client,” the lawyers said. “This conclusion is open given the previous false articles that have appeared on the Crisey website about Mr Murdoch and the absurdity of including his name in the article.” Crikey’s open letter, published as an advertisement in the New York Times and Canberra Times, said “we at Crikey strongly support freedom of opinion and public interest journalism”. “We want to defend these allegations in court. You have made it clear in your solicitor’s letters that you intend to go to court to resolve this alleged defamation. “We await your brief so we can test this important public interest freedom journalism issue in a courtroom.” One of Cricy’s legal letters quoted Murdoch himself in the 2014 Keith Murdoch Oration (Keith Murdoch was his grandfather), when he argued that “a free media should not depend on anyone for favors” and that the censorship in any form “erodes our freedom to know, to be informed and to make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy”. Crikey’s editor-in-chief Peter Fray told the Guardian his organization supports Keane’s reporting and that defamation laws are being used in Australia to silence the media and stifle legitimate and vital debate. “We have to ask: what’s going on here?” Frey said. “What’s happening is these laws are being used to stop a legitimate news analysis linking Fox’s actions to what happened in Washington on January 6th, that’s what’s happening.” A spokesman for Murdoch declined to comment. In letters released by Cricey, Murdoch’s lawyers rejected Cricey’s claims that the piece was in the public interest, saying the article was not “a legitimate exercise of freedom of the press and freedom of speech” on an issue of “critical importance.” of public importance”. Since it was removed within about 40 minutes of providing the notice of concern, we infer that Crikey fully understands this. In fact, it was an example of Crikey reporting on an issue (the Trump evidence to the House committee) and trying to drag Mr Murdoch into the quagmire of allegations about the former President and question him as a contributor.” They go on to say that Murdoch “does not seek to dictate stories” and “has only raised complaints when the falsehoods are blatant. Nor was he unreasonable or intimidating.” The letter said Murdoch “wishes to resolve the matter with Crikey, as he has successfully done so in the past … the only issue between the parties is the delivery of a genuine apology”. Crikey and the Murdochs have form. In April last year, Crikey retracted an article written by the site’s founder, Stephen Mayne, which made a series of allegations about Lachlan Murdoch’s time on the Channel Ten board. The article was found to contain a number of errors and Crikey agreed to “keep the current apology on the home page for 14 days”. In September 2020, Crikey was also forced to apologize for comparing Murdoch to an organized crime boss.
