Crikey: small independent news website challenges Lachlan Murdoch to sue it for defamation issues challenge in newspaper ads, including in the New York Times, after Murdoch issues legal threat over article

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 over an alleged defamation.

In dispute is an apparent opinion piece, and associated social media posts, published by in June headlined: “Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator” – analysing the 6 January insurrection by supporters of defeated presidential candidate Donald Trump. In legal letters published by Crikey, lawyers for Lachlan Murdoch argue the publications contain “scandalous allegations of criminal conduct and conspiracy” and carry a number of “highly defamatory and false imputations about him”.

Written by Crikey’s politics editor, Bernard Keane, the 29 June piece mentions the Murdoch name twice: in the headline and in the closing paragraphs.

The article is largely concerned with the evidence of former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson to the US House select committee on the January 6 attack. Hutchinson 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 college votes to 232, and the popular ballot by 7m votes – Keane argues “the world’s most powerful media company” continues “to peddle the lie of the stolen election and play down the insurrection Trump created”.

Keane argued former US president Richard Nixon was infamously the “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Watergate scandal and drew an analogy that “the Murdochs and their slew of poisonous Fox News commentators are the unindicted co-conspirators” in the events of 6 January.

The piece does not name Lachlan Murdoch individually.

In the letters sent to Crikey, and published by the independent news site Monday afternoon, lawyers for Lachlan Murdoch, patriarch Rupert’s eldest son and chief executive of Fox Corporation, argued he was personally identifiable by the article and he was defamed. They allege the publication of the article was “malicious” and “manifestly indefensible”.

“The imputations are false and are calculated to harm Mr Murdoch, both personally and professionally, and should not have been published,” an initial notice of concern said.

Among 14 imputations the article is alleged to carry are: “Mr Murdoch: illegally conspired with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election result; … 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 2020 election result which costs people their lives; has conspired with Donald Trump to commit the offence of treason against the United States of America to overturn the 2020 election outcome; … should be indicted with the offence of being a traitor to the United States …”

A further nine imputations are alleged to have been made through 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 engaged in a conspiracy to incite a mob with murderous intent, or that he was aware of how heavily armed the attendees would be at the insurrection,” Crikey said. “Any such imputation relies on a thoroughly 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 agreement has since reinstated the piece live.

In extensive legal correspondence, published by Crikey, the news website refused to apologise but offered to not republish the original article, pay Murdoch’s reasonable legal fees and publish an “editorial statement” clarifying its position and arguing the article did not convey the imputations alleged by Murdoch.

The proposed statement repeated the contested paragraphs regarding the Murdoch family and detailed the full list of defamatory imputations claimed by Murdoch. The proposed statement said that Crikey does not agree that the original article makes the imputations alleged: “There is no evidence that Mr Murdoch did any of the things described above. Crikey does not say that [Murdoch] did any of them.”

“Crikey does believe 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 would suggest.”

The offer to publish the editorial statement was rejected by lawyers for Murdoch.

“It must 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 making unfounded ‘headline’ 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 senselessness of the inclusion of his name in the article.”

Crikey’s open letter, published as an ad in the New York Times and the Canberra Times, said “we at Crikey strongly support freedom of opinion and public interest journalism”.

“We want to defend those allegations in court. You have made it clear in your lawyer’s letters you intend to take court action to resolve this alleged defamation.

“We await your writ so that we can test this important issue of freedom of public interest journalism in a courtroom.”

One of Crikey’s legal letters cited Murdoch’s own words in his 2014 Keith Murdoch Oration (Keith Murdoch was his grandfather), when he argued “a free media must be dependent on no one for favours” and that 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 organisation stood by Keane’s reporting and that defamation laws were being used in Australia to silence the media and stifle legitimate and vital debate.

“We need to ask: what is going on here?” Fray said. “What’s going on is these laws are being used to stop a legitimate piece of news analysis linking the actions of Fox with what happened in Washington DC on January 6, that’s what’s going on.”

A spokesperson for Murdoch declined to comment.

In letters published by Crikey, lawyers for Murdoch rejected Crikey’s claims that the piece was in the public interest saying “the article was not ‘a legitimate exercise of press freedom and freedom of speech’ about a matter of ‘critical public importance’. Given it was removed within about 40 minutes of the provision of the concerns notice, we infer that Crikey fully comprehends this. In fact, it was an example of Crikey reporting on a topic (the evidence about Trump in the house select committee) and seeking to draw Mr Murdoch into the quagmire of allegations about the former President and impugn him by association”.

They go on to say that Murdoch “is not seeking to dictate stories” and “has only raised complaints when the falsities are egregious. Nor has he been unreasonable or intimidatory”.

The letter said Murdoch “does wish to resolve the matter with Crikey as he has successfully done so in the past … the only issue between the parties is the provision of a genuine apology”.

Crikey and the Murdochs have form.

In April last year, Crikey withdrew an article written by the site’s founder, Stephen Mayne, which made a series of claims about Lachlan Murdoch’s time on the board of Channel Ten. The article was found to have contained a series of mistakes, and Crikey agreed to “keep the current apology on the homepage for 14 days”.

In September 2020, Crikey was also forced to apologise for comparing Murdoch to an organised crime boss.


Ben Doherty

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Lachlan Murdoch files defamation action against Australian independent news outlet Crikey
Claim lodged by co-chairman of News Corp names news website, politics editor Bernard Keane and editor-in-chief Peter Fray as respondents

Amanda Meade

23, Aug, 2022 @10:41 AM

Article image
Lachlan Murdoch alleges Crikey hired marketing firm to turn legal threat into subscription drive
News Corp co-chair’s lawyer tells federal court she intends to show Crikey did not republish article for public interest reasons

Amanda Meade

30, Nov, 2022 @6:29 AM

Article image
Lachlan Murdoch accuses Australian news site Crikey of using legal threat to attract subscriptions
Lawyers for Murdoch say an ad in the New York Times sought to ‘humiliate’ the Fox Corporation chief executive

Amanda Meade

24, Aug, 2022 @3:26 AM

Article image
Lachlan Murdoch adds Private Media chairman and CEO to Crikey lawsuit
Federal court ruling expanding defamation case to include Eric Beecher and Will Hayward set to significantly delay trial

Amanda Meade

30, Jan, 2023 @7:54 AM

Article image
Lachlan Murdoch defamation case: Crikey article was ‘self-evidently hyperbolic’, publisher argues
Private Media says in court documents that ‘no one’ would read the words of the Crikey article literally

Amanda Meade

22, Sep, 2022 @2:46 AM

Article image
What’s in the public interest? Murdoch v Crikey trial could test new defamation defence
Lachlan Murdoch says independent Australian publisher can’t rely on defence after it connected media baron to evidence at hearing into January 6 riots

Amanda Meade

10, Oct, 2022 @8:03 AM

Article image
What sort of country are we? That’s the question implicit in Lachlan Murdoch v Crikey | Richard Ackland
For Australian media, this case is important – it asks whether anyone is free to publish in the public interest a hyperbolic remark about a wealthy media baron

Richard Ackland

09, Dec, 2022 @2:00 PM

Article image
Crikey kicks off fortnight of apologising to Lachlan Murdoch and Christine Holgate | The Weekly Beast
Online publisher launches two front-page apologies for serious mistake in Stephen Mayne column. Plus: News Corp top brass at SMH birthday bash

Amanda Meade

23, Apr, 2021 @2:31 AM

Article image
Executive decision: Lachlan Murdoch turns back on media inquiry to reopen Fox News | The Weekly Beast
News Corp co-chairman declines Senate communications committee invitation. Plus: Daily Telegraph names and shames ‘index case’

Amanda Meade

03, Sep, 2021 @3:21 AM

Article image
Lachlan Murdoch asked to appear at parliamentary inquiry into YouTube’s suspension of Sky News Australia
Hearing to examine temporary ban for breaching Covid misinformation policies with chair hoping to grill Murdoch on ‘standards of journalism and accurate reporting’

Amanda Meade

01, Sep, 2021 @5:30 PM