The OTHER Lawsuit Involving the Murdochs

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The OTHER Lawsuit Involving the Murdochs"

Podcast: On the Media
Host: Brooke Gladstone and Micah Loewinger
Episode Title: The OTHER Lawsuit Involving the Murdochs
Release Date: March 1, 2023

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "The OTHER Lawsuit Involving the Murdochs," On the Media delves into the intricacies of defamation lawsuits surrounding the Murdoch family, particularly focusing on Lachlan Murdoch's legal actions against the Australian news website Crikey. The discussion provides listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the legal battles, their implications for media freedom, and the future of the Murdoch media empire.

---

Dominion Voting's Lawsuit Against Fox News

The episode begins with an overview of the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News. David Folkenflik introduces the topic:

“Dominion Voting is suing Fox for defamation over the cable channels, what they describe as bogus allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election.”
[00:10]

Folkenflik highlights recent allegations that Fox News hosts knowingly propagated unfounded conspiracy theories about Dominion Voting machines. This lawsuit not only scrutinizes Fox's role in spreading misinformation but also ties into broader narratives about media responsibility and the impact on democratic processes.

---

Lachlan Murdoch's Defamation Suit Against Crikey

The focus then shifts to a parallel but distinct legal battle involving Lachlan Murdoch, a prominent figure in the Murdoch media dynasty. Lachlan Murdoch has initiated defamation proceedings against Crikey, an Australian independent news and politics website. Bernard Keane, the writer behind the Crikey article in question, provides detailed insights:

“Crikey... published an article on June 29... labeled the Murdochs as the unindicted co-conspirators of the deadly US Capitol riots.”
[01:41]

Lachlan Murdoch's legal team asserts that Crikey's allegations falsely implicate him in the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results. This lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the Murdochs' efforts to defend their reputation and counteract negative publicity.

---

Impact on the Fox Empire and Media Landscape

Lachlan Cartwright, editor at large of the Daily Beast, discusses the broader implications of these lawsuits:

“With these two suits, we're getting a peek into the future of the Fox empire.”
[01:32]

He emphasizes that these legal actions could signal a shift in how media conglomerates like Fox News respond to defamation claims, potentially setting precedents that affect journalistic practices and media accountability.

Bernard Keane adds context about the Australian media environment:

“Most of the Aussie media market is controlled by the Murdochs... around 70% of major newspapers.”
[03:17]

This concentration of media ownership underscores the significance of Lachlan Murdoch's actions against Crikey, as it challenges the dominant narrative within a tightly controlled media landscape.

---

Australian Libel Laws and the Public Interest Defense

A critical aspect of the lawsuit involves Australia's stringent libel laws, which traditionally favor plaintiffs—the individuals or entities being defamed. However, recent legal reforms introduced a public interest defense, which Crikey is leveraging in their defense strategy.

“The laws changed last July and it introduced a public interest offense... publications can now make the case that articles were in the public interest.”
[03:53]

Bernard Keane explains that although this defense was primarily designed to protect investigative journalism, it poses a significant challenge for Murdoch's defamation case. He notes:

“This article was an opinion piece... Murdoch will have a bit more of a leg to stand on but he also needs to prove that there was serious harm.”
[03:53]

The introduction of the public interest defense aims to balance the scales, allowing media organizations to publish controversial or investigative content without an overwhelming fear of legal repercussions, provided the content serves the public good.

---

Crikey's Strategic Response and Public Reaction

In response to the lawsuit, Crikey strategically reinstated the contentious article after initially removing it following Murdoch's legal threats. This move amplified public attention and arguably benefited Crikey by:

“They’ve added about 5,000 subs to their publication since this lawsuit.”
[04:41]

Bernard Keane points out the "Streisand effect" at play, where attempts to censor or suppress information lead to greater public awareness and interest.

“Krikey put the story back up... very much wanting the public to read.”
[04:50]

This approach not only challenges Lachlan Murdoch's claims but also reinforces Crikey's commitment to independent journalism and accountability.

---

Potential Outcomes and Future Implications

The legal proceedings in Australia could have far-reaching consequences beyond this specific case. Bernard Keane speculates on the broader impact:

“This could actually raise the bar for defendants and improve the prospects for plaintiffs.”
[07:43]

He suggests that a favorable outcome for Crikey might pave the way for more robust protections for journalists and could influence similar cases globally, including the Dominion vs. Fox lawsuit in the United States.

Lachlan Cartwright raises concerns about the potential consolidation of media power:

“If he was to take Crikey out, that would be a good outcome for him. But I think the Australian ecosystem, the Australian media landscape would be all the poorer for that.”
[07:43]

This sentiment underscores the delicate balance between protecting reputations and ensuring a diverse and free press.

---

Conclusion

The episode "The OTHER Lawsuit Involving the Murdochs" offers a deep dive into the complex interplay between media power, legal accountability, and journalistic freedom. Through detailed discussions and expert insights, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of how defamation lawsuits can reshape media landscapes and influence the future of free speech and transparency in both the United States and Australia.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• David Folkenflik:
  “Dominion Voting is suing Fox for defamation over the cable channels, what they describe as bogus allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election.”
  [00:10]

• Bernard Keane:
  “Crikey... published an article on June 29... labeled the Murdochs as the unindicted co-conspirators of the deadly US Capitol riots.”
  [01:41]

• Lachlan Cartwright:
  “With these two suits, we're getting a peek into the future of the Fox empire.”
  [01:32]

• Bernard Keane:
  “This could actually raise the bar for defendants and improve the prospects for plaintiffs.”
  [07:43]

---

Attributions:

• David Folkenflik – NPR's media correspondent
• Lachlan Cartwright – Editor at large of the Daily Beast
• Bernard Keane – Writer for Crikey
• Ira Flatow – Host of Science Friday (mentioned in outro)

For a deeper exploration of these lawsuits and their implications, tune in to the On the Media episode released on March 1, 2023.

Transcript

[David Folkenflik]

On this week's show, which we're working on right now, available Friday, we'll be digging into the current status of Dominion Voting's lawsuit against Fox News.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Dominion Voting is suing Fox for defamation over the cable channels, what they describe as bogus allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election.

[David Folkenflik]

The newest revelations allege that Fox News stars knew full well that the conspiracy theories about Dominion Voting machines were groundless, but they went on the air with them anyway. There's a lot more history, though, and the future, which we'll be probing this weekend. So check it out. For now, however, by way of a primer of sorts, we'll replay an interview that NPR media correspondent David Falkenflik did when he was filling in for me last fall. It's related to the ongoing lawsuit in that Dominion's legal team draw a direct line from the heated rhetoric of Fox hosts to the January 6, 2021, violent break in at the U.S. capitol. And that forms the basis of an entirely different defamation suit filed roughly 10,000 miles away from the scene of the crime, brought not against the Murdochs, but by a Murdoch media boss.

[Lachlan Murdoch]

Lachlan Murdoch has launched defamation proceedings against the publishers of news website Crikey. Let's go. Murdoch's lawyers claim Crikey wrongly suggested the Fox News boss was involved in the plot with Donald to overturn the 2020 election result.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Lachlan Cartwright is the editor at large of the Daily Beast, where he covers power, crime, celebrity and justice. And he says that with these two suits, we're getting a peek into the future of the Fox empire.

[Bernard Keane]

Crikey, which is sort of a scrappy Australian independent news and politics and opinion website, published an article on June 29. In that piece, the writer Bernard Keane labeled the Murdochs as the unindicted co conspirators of the deadly US Capitol riots. And that really triggered Lachlan Murdoch. He sent a number of legal letters via his solicitor in Australia. The article was actually pulled down from the website and they were discussing an apology and Crikey then decided to put the article back up and basically challenge Lachlan to sue them. They took out a advertisement in the New York Times and in the Canberra Times newspaper in Australia. And the next day, Laughlin filed quite an extraordinary suit. You know, he's incredibly thin skinned. His father would never bring a matter like this.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

For many Americans, this will be the first time they're hearing the word crikey. You're an Aussie. What does the word crikey mean?

[Bernard Keane]

I mean, you Know you think of Steve Irwin and you think of sort of the surprise of saying the word Crikey.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Oh crikey.

[Bernard Keane]

You know, it's a very Aussie lingo and the site itself was born out of a bloke by the name of Stephen Main who you know, always had the Murdochs in his crosshairs.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Well but he was a Murdoch guy, right? Like he had been an editor and then became a burr under the saddle.

[Bernard Keane]

He turns and he really did pioneer this kind of, you know, scrappy independent journalism in Australia. Bearing in mind that most of the Aussie media market is controlled by the Murdochs.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Like something like 70% of major newspapers, right?

[Bernard Keane]

Correct. Around this 70%. You know there's only really two newspaper cities which are Sydney and Melbourne. Every other city only has one newspaper and it's controlled by the Murdochs.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Aside from the insight this provides into the Murdoch, the differences between generations, this case also is one of the first major tests of some new laws involving libel in Australia. Libel laws there, unlike in the US tend to favor the plaintiff and that is the people who are suing media outlets. Back in August, Krikey's editor in chief Peter Frey told me that he wants to use this as a test case. What does he mean by that?

[Bernard Keane]

The laws changed last July and it introduced a public interest offence. So publications can now make the case that or articles that are being called into the question were in the public interest. And this is a major part of Crikey's defence that it was in the public interest to have this discussion about Fox and the Murdochs involvement in the events of January 6th. Now you've got to remember this public interest defence really was brought in to help protect investigative journalism. This article was an opinion piece so Murdoch will have a bit more of a leg to stand on but he also needs to prove that there was serious harm. I think the other thing to bear in mind is that not many people had seen this article until the lawsuit. So there's an element of the Streisand effect here as well.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Well, I mean Krikey put the story back up, right, and started drawing a lot more attention to it and then surrounded it with a series of sort of public minded commentary to draw more attention to it. Very much wanting the public to read.

[Bernard Keane]

Also to drum up subscriptions to their publication. I've heard that They've added about 5,000 subs to their publication since this lawsuit.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Folks working for Lachlan in both Australia and the US have said to me enough is enough. You know, like These guys go after him and, you know, just beat up on him like a punching bag. There's no reason for him to sit by. He's certainly not looking to profit from it. I believe in previous cases where there was some money paid by crikey for harm under the even more restrictive libel and defamation laws at the time that, you know, he gave it to charity. He's not looking to get wealthy from it. They took down some stories and he's happy with that as an outcome. But. But in this case, if they're gonna be showing such bravado around it, you know, forget it. Like, is he supposed to just take it? What do you say to that?

[Bernard Keane]

This isn't an oil magnate or a pharmaceutical billionaire. This is someone who owns and operates a media organization. Actually a vast international media organization is about to inherit it. You know, when his father passes to the big newsroom in the sky, it appears. But I think one of the triggering things for him is the fact that this is all playing out as he is in the country. He moved the family back because of his children and some blowback that they were getting about what had been broadcast on Fox. And so I think that's an important factor here that he doesn't want to keep hearing this stuff and it being.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Written about here in the US There are cases going on. One is starting to really proceed in Delaware of defamation against Fox involving Dominion voting systems. I mean, one of the most mind bending elements is that lawyers and spokespeople for Fox are even now invoking freedom of speech principles.

[Bernard Keane]

Well, I think it's quite ironic, isn't it, that you have these matters playing out pretty much the same time. You know, Lachlan will potentially take the stand. And if he does, some of those matters may be raised. This is why in this instance he may win the battle but lose the war. Because matters that are going to affect the Dominion trial may come out in the Aussie trial.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

What have you learned from people familiar with Lachlan's thinking about what he sees as Crikey's preoccupation with him and his family?

[Bernard Keane]

He's always had issues with Crikey. I think there's been a number of apologies over the years and a correction. He feels that Crikey is a bad actor. I think in much the way that Peter Till felt that Gawker was a bad actor. And he feels that Crikey is a bully and that the publication unfairly targets him and his family. And I think this has been building for some time.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Peter Thiel of course, you know, major Silicon Valley investor, ensured that, as it turned out, that Gawker was sued out of existence. Do you think that he'd be happy to see Crikey meet a similar fate?

[Bernard Keane]

I think that an outcome here where Crikey never wrote about Lachlan Murdoch ever again would be a good outcome for him. I know that he's in touch with other prominent Australians who have had issues with Crikey in the past, similar to how Peter Thiel was in touch with other prominent people in Silicon Valley who had issues with Gorka. So I think that, you know, if he was to take Crikey out, that would be a good outcome for him. But I think the Australian ecosystem, the Australian media landscape would be all the poorer for that. And then adding another layer of irony here, mate, is the fact that this could actually raise the bar for defendants and improve the prospects for plaintiffs. And who is the major media organisation in Australia that could be sued? Well, it's News Corp. It's the Murdoch newspapers.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Lachlan, thanks so much.

[Bernard Keane]

Cheers, mate.

[Lachlan Cartwright]

Lachlan Cartwright is the editor at large of the Daily Beast and a regular contributor to the publication's media newsletter, Confider.

[David Folkenflik]

David Folkenflick is NPR's media correspondent. Tune in this Friday when he'll be joining us again to help us parse the latest jaw dropping revelations in the case against fox. See you then.

[Ira Flatow]

I'm Ira Flato, host of Science Friday. For over 30 years, our team has been reporting high quality news about science, technology and medicine. News you won't get anywhere else. And now that political news is 24 7, our audience is turning to us to know about the really important stuff in their lives. Cancer, climate change, genetic engineering, childhood diseases. Our sponsors know the value of science and health news. For more sponsorship information, visit sponsorship. Wnyc. Org.