But his eldest son, it seems, is cut from a different cloth. Lachlan Murdoch is headed to the Federal Court in Sydney, launching a defamation action this week over a news article, not about his esteemed Australian media empire, but instead Fox News’ report on the feverish testimony on the Trump presidency and the insurgent storm in the US of January 6 Capitol. In what is being described as a David and Goliath clash between the billionaire and Crikey, a small Australian independent news website, Murdoch’s 40-page statement of claim alleges that Crikey falsely disputed that he had illegally conspired with former US President Donald Trump to “incited a mob with murderous intent” to march on the US Capitol on January 6 and that he should be charged as a traitor. Murdoch, chief executive and executive chairman of Fox Corporation in the US, is already embroiled in a monumental $1.6 billion US defamation lawsuit – on the other side of the table – defending claims by Dominion Voting Systems that Fox News promoted false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 US presidential election in relation to Dominion’s voting machines. But the Australian lawsuit has opened up the possibility that Fox’s reporting on the Trump presidency and its aftermath, and the company’s ties to Trump himself, could be aired publicly in forensic detail in a court 9,000 miles away. By launching this lawsuit, Murdoch has requested that his own organization’s actions and reporting be scrutinized, a potentially high-risk strategy that will not be entirely under his control. It left some asking, “What game is being played here?” No doubt it’s an extremely high-risk strategy for Crikey too, which faces a financial windfall if the case is lost. On Friday, the site opened a GoFundMe page seeking donations for his legal fees, telling readers “Lachlan Murdoch has unleashed his legal and financial powers against us.”
Sue where he thinks his chances are better
The subject is an analysis piece written in June this year by Crikey’s political editor Bernard Keane. The article does not name Lachlan Murdoch individually at any point and is largely not about the Murdoch family, its empire or its news businesses. It deals with evidence former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson gave to a US House Select Committee on the January 6 insurgent attack on the US Capitol building. Hutchinson did not name Murdoch in her evidence. The alleged defamation of Keane does not occur until the last two paragraphs of the piece. Having discussed Trump’s persistent publication of what commentators have called the “big lie” that he won the 2020 US presidential election – he lost by 306 electoral votes to 232 and the popular vote by 7 million votes – Keane argues that “ the world’s most powerful media company” continues to “peddle the lie of a stolen election and downplay the insurgency created by Trump.” Keane then draws an analogy between former US President Richard Nixon – the infamous “unindicted conspirator” in the Watergate scandal – with the Murdochs, arguing that “and the murderous poisonous Fox News commentators are the unprosecuted plus – conspirators”. to the events of January 6. It’s a powerful line, and the pursuit of such an analogy is noteworthy (if perhaps worthy of greater exposition than two unexplored paragraphs at the end of an article). But one editor put the phrase “unindicted conspirator” in the headline. Murdoch’s people saw it. A five-page letter of concern was rejected within 24 hours. After weeks of increasingly intemperate legal letters back and forth, Crikey began firing at Murdoch by taking out advertisements – in the New York Times and the Canberra Times – literally inviting him to sue and posting all the legal correspondence on his website. Legal sources told the Guardian that the Crikey bombing has left Murdoch feeling he had no choice but to sue and is determined to do so. And so it came to this, the steps of the Federal Court in Sydney, in the jurisdiction of New South Wales, the famed “defamation capital of the world” – a shock earned so much because it is regarded as the most claimant-friendly anywhere. The alleged role of Murdoch’s media in helping to ignite the uprising that led to January 6 has been widely studied in the US and elsewhere, but he is apparently suing in Australia because he believes his chances are better there. Murdoch’s statement of claim states that he is seeking damages because, through the publication and republishing of the article, “he has been seriously injured in character, … and has suffered and will continue to suffer serious injury, distress and embarrassment”. It also seeks aggravated damages, alleging that Crikey had published the parties’ legal correspondence as a strategy for self-promotion and commercial gain, while “falsely suggesting that Murdoch was unreasonable in his conduct towards them in resolving the dispute. in cases where he repeatedly told them that an apology was the only further step that needed to be taken to resolve the matter.” He has one of Sydney’s most high-profile defamation lawyers, sharp-elbowed Sue Chrysanthou SC, representing him. Weekend registration in Australia Crikey says Murdoch’s allegations are “fabricated” and his response is “bullying” and “abuse of media power”. The publisher has retained Michael Bradley. The CEO of Marque Lawyers doesn’t have a distinguished history in defamation law, but he is an experienced lawyer (if occasionally irreverent, he describes himself on his own website as a “shameless self-promoter”). Correspondence revealed this week by Crikey shows he is clearly up for the fight. Crikey paints this not only as a battle for his own existence – “the best way to support independent media is to become a member,” pleaded Private Media publisher Eric Beecher’s co-founder, but also as a wider battle for free journalism itself. “We didn’t start this senseless fight with Lachlan Murdoch. We may not be as big, rich, powerful or influential as him, but we have a common interest: we are a news company that believes in publishing public interest journalism, not suppression.”
The defense of the “public interest”.
Dr Andrew Dodd, director of the Center for Advanced Journalism, told the Guardian that a legal showdown between the minnow and the monolith has looked “increasingly inevitable for some time”. Dodd, who has worked for both the Murdoch-owned News Corp and Crikey newspapers, says Crikey’s editorial position has become more forcefully left-wing and he has increasingly come to see his role as a fearless and independent media organization that owns influential institutions such as Fox and Fox and News Corp on account. When Crikey kicks it in the shins in the irreverent way he does, it’s a trigger for News CorpAndrew Dodd Beecher, in particular, has fought for decades against the acute concentration of media ownership in Australia (65% of national and municipal dailies are owned by Murdoch). “This is a defining issue for [Beecher]” says Dodd. “It is wrong to characterize this as a mere commercial exercise. There is a marketing element – Crikey taking on the Murdochs – but that’s a marriage of deep principle and a commercial decision.” Dodd argues that there is an irony in Lachlan Murdoch wanting to claim he was identified in Keane’s article (when the only reference was to the “Murdochs”, which many believed referred mainly to Rupert) but not to address criticism within the piece – that Fox’s coverage, and continued support for the lie of a stolen election, played a role in fueling the discontent that inspired the January 6 uprising. “What game is being played here? He wants to beat his chest and say “I’m in charge”. Well, if he does that, he’ll also have to man up and be held accountable for the editorial output of his news organization, which has a lot to answer for – despite what he might say – in its coverage of the lead-up to this. which happened on January 6th. “Lachlan was too weak, unable to take a tenth of the criticism his organization receives every day.” 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. Dodd also argues that Murdoch Jr’s actions reflect a “fragile culture … deeply rooted in the psyche of News Corp.” “The News doesn’t like a pesky little player like Crikey, it’s against News Corp’s monopolistic idea that little players have no legitimacy. And when Crikey kicks it in the shins in the irreverent way he does, that’s a trigger for News Corp.” Others with knowledge of the companies and their history have described Crikey’s strategy as “bold” and potentially disastrous. Picking a fight with the Murdochs will no doubt have driven subscriptions, but a loss could end that or hurt the company enough to change it beyond repair. Crisey and Lachlan Murdoch are in form. It is the fourth time in five years that Lachlan Murdoch has threatened to sue Cricey: in April last year, Cricey had to apologize at the top of his homepage for 14 days after a piece about Murdoch appeared to contain a series of mistakes. A year earlier, Crisey was forced to…
