A small independent news website in Australia is taking on the Murdoch empire, buying a full-page ad in the New York Times inviting Lachlan Murdoch to sue them for alleged defamation.
At issue is an apparent opinion piece and associated social media posts, published by Crikey.com.au in June, headlined: “Trump is a bewildered traitor. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator,” analyzing the January 6 uprising by supporters of defeated presidential candidate Donald Trump In legal letters published by Crikey, Lachlan Murdoch’s lawyers argue that the posts contain “outrageous allegations of criminal conduct and conspiracy” and contain a number of “false allegations and highly defamatory about him.”
Written by Crikey’s politics editor Bernard Keane, the June 29 piece mentions Murdoch’s name twice: in the headline and in the closing paragraphs.
The article largely refers to 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 his testimony.
After discussing Trump’s continued peddling of the “big lie” that won the 2020 US presidential election: he lost the electoral college 306 votes to 232, and the popular vote by 7 million votes , Keane argues that “the most powerful media company in the world” continues “to peddle the lie of a stolen election and downplay the insurgency 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 their host of poisonous Fox News 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 site on Monday afternoon, lawyers for Lachlan Murdoch, eldest son of patriarch Rupert and chief executive of Fox Corporation, argued the article was personally identifiable and defamatory . They allege that the publication of the article was “malicious” and “manifestly indefensible”.
“The allegations are false and calculated to harm Mr Murdoch, both personally and professionally, and should not have been published,” an initial notice of concern said.
Among the 14 charges the article is said to contain are: “Mr Murdoch: Illegally conspired with Donald Trump to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election; … illegally conspired with Donald Trump to incite a mob with murderous intent to march on the Capitol; … was a co-conspirator in a plot with Donald Trump to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election costing people their lives; has conspired with Donald Trump to commit the crime of treason against the United States of America to nullify the result of the 2020 election; … he should be charged with the crime of being a traitor to the United States … “
A further nine allegations are alleged to have been made via a Facebook post and a tweet.
Through its lawyers, Crikey responded that the article does not mention Lachlan Murdoch at all and that the threatened defamation action is “bound 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 was aware of how heavily armed those attending the insurrection,” Crikey. said “Any such imputation is based on a completely strained and contorted interpretation of the words of the article.”
In response to the initial 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, has since reinstated the piece live.
In extensive legal correspondence, published by Crikey, the news website refused to apologise, but offered not to republish the original article, pay Murdoch’s reasonable legal fees and issue an “editorial statement ” that clarified its position and argued that the article did not convey the imputations alleged by Murdoch.
Sign up for Guardian Australia’s Morning Mail
Our Australian morning news email breaks down the day’s key national and international stories and why they matter
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertisements and content funded by third 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 claimed 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 does not say that [Murdoch] has done none.”
“Crikey believes that Mr Murdoch bears some responsibility for the events of January 6 due to 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 they suggest the things described above.”
The offer to publish the editorial statement 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 occurred. An available inference is that Crikey persists in seeking to increase its readership by baseless ‘holder’ allegations about my client,” the lawyers said. “This inference is open given the previous false articles that have appeared on the Crikey website about Mr Murdoch and the absurdity of the inclusion of his name in the article.”
Crikey’s open letter, published as an advertisement in the New York Times and Canberra Times, said “at Crikey we strongly support freedom of opinion and public interest journalism”.
“We intend to defend these allegations in court. You have made it clear in letters to your attorney that you intend to take legal action to resolve this alleged defamation.
“We look forward to your brief so we can try this important issue of the freedom of public interest journalism in a courtroom.”
One of Crikey’s legal letters quoted Murdoch’s own words in his 2014 Keith Murdoch speech (Keith Murdoch was his grandfather), when he argued that “a free media should not depend on anyone for favours” and that censorship in any form “erodes our freedom to know, be informed and make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy”.
Crikey editor-in-chief Peter Fray told The Guardian his organization stood by Keane’s reports and that defamation laws were being used in Australia to silence the media and stifle legitimate and vital debate .
“We have to ask ourselves: What is going on here?” said Fray. “What’s happening is that these laws are being used to stop a legitimate news analysis that links Fox’s actions to what happened in Washington DC on January 6th, that’s what’s happening.”
A spokesman for Murdoch declined to comment.
In letters published by Crikey, Murdoch’s lawyers rejected Crikey’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 expression’ on a matter of ‘critical public importance’. Given that it was removed within about 40 minutes of the notice of concern being submitted, we infer that Crikey fully understands this. Indeed, it was an example of Crikey reporting on a subject (the evidence about Trump to the House Select Committee) and that he tried to drag Mr Murdoch into the quagmire of allegations about the former president and impeach 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 has he been unreasonable or intimidating.”
The letter said Murdoch “wishes to resolve the matter with Crikey as he has successfully done in the past… the only issue between the parties is the issue of a genuine apology”.
Crikey and the Murdochs have form.
In April last year, Crikey took down an article written by the site’s founder, Stephen Mayne, which made a series of claims about Lachlan Murdoch’s time on the Channel Ten board. The article was found to contain a number of errors and Crikey agreed to “maintain 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.