Crikey

Lachlan Murdoch has filed a defamation suit against Crikey. We look forward to testing what open and public debate means in Australia.

We believe that coverage of the events of January 6 at the US Capitol, and the role of Fox News in those events, is absolutely legitimate. You can join us through our 50% off sale using promo code LETTERS. We are determined to fight for the integrity and importance of diverse independent media in Australian democracy.

Claim lodged by co-chairman of News Corp names news website, politics editor Bernard Keane and editor-in-chief Peter Fray as respondents.

[Lachlan Murdoch](https://www.theguardian.com/media/lachlan-murdoch) at all and that the threatened defamation action “is bound to fail”. Crikey’s offer to publish the editorial statement was rejected by lawyers for Murdoch who also said Murdoch “does wish to resolve the matter with Crikey as he has successfully done so in the past … Crikey does not say that [Murdoch] did any of them.” And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator” – analysing the insurrection by supporters of the defeated presidential candidate. Hutchinson did not mention Murdoch in her testimony. Lawyers for Murdoch told Crikey its article was not “a legitimate exercise of press freedom and freedom of speech” about a matter of “critical public importance”.

The News Corp co-chairman has filed defamation proceedings against Crikey, a day after the online news outlet challenged the billionaire media mogul to sue ...

[Michaela Whitbourn](/by/michaela-whitbourn-hvf5w)is a legal affairs reporter at The Sydney Morning Herald.Connect via Under the old law, the cap ceased to apply at all if aggravated damages were in play. The Murdoch family was mentioned briefly in the final paragraph, he said. The lawsuit was filed against Private Media, publisher of Crikey, Keane and Fray. Michael Bradley from Marque Lawyers has acted on behalf of Crikey in recent weeks. “Nixon was famously the ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in Watergate. would have any meaningful prospects of succeeding against our clients”. The article, headlined “Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. It was republished last week, triggering moves to file proceedings. Murdoch’s lawyers allege in court documents that the article was republished by Crikey on August 15 on the “pretext” that it was a response to “recent media reports”, and accuse Crikey of contacting The Sydney Morning Herald before the latter published an August 14 article about legal letters between the parties. The latter is aimed at weeding out trivial claims before a trial. In a statement of claim, Murdoch’s lawyers note the article was free to read rather than being limited to subscribers, and allege Crikey was “seeking to humiliate and harm” Murdoch by placing the advertisement in The New York Times.

News Corp co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch has filed defamation proceedings against Crikey over an article that he says connected him to the 2021 US Capitol ...

[Viral Post Generator](https://viralpostgenerator.com/)). [Share](mailto:?subject= Defence dumps woke ban&body=https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/max-opray/2022/08/24/murdoch-sues-crikey#post-4) [Share](mailto:?subject=Labor approves carbon capture sites&body=https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/max-opray/2022/08/24/murdoch-sues-crikey#post-3) [Share](mailto:?subject=Morrison equivocates on inquiry&body=https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/max-opray/2022/08/24/murdoch-sues-crikey#post-2) [Cheek Media](https://www.cheekmedia.com.au/post/what-the-f-is-the-new-public-interest-defence-in-defamation-law)). Palus had denied she was drunk, claiming “I only had one Pimm’s and one rosé. [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/24/biggest-seismic-testing-for-oil-and-gas-at-odds-with-australias-net-zero-push-activists-say)). - “I will appropriately assist any genuine process to learn the lessons from the pandemic. [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/24/speaker-rejects-greens-push-to-refer-scott-morrison-to-privileges-committee)). [The Politics](https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2022/08/23/minister-undermining-and-resources)); [Crikey](https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/08/23/crikeys-lachlan-murdoch-move-ripples-globally/)); [Crikey](https://www.crikey.com.au/topic/lachlan-murdoch-letters/));

Crikey stands by its reporting on January 6 despite Lachlan Murdoch's defamation lawsuit. And our readers do too.

I hope this plays out in public so the rest of Australia — and indeed the world — gets to see the Murdoch media for what they are. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. The Murdoch media’s control of so much of what passes as news in this country disgusts me. Here in the US we see daily incitement to violence on Fox News, most egregiously by Tucker Carlson whose racist rants about “replacement theory” have aided and abetted hate across a wide swathe of America. Now the case is going ahead I’m imagining any number of friendly fire casualties among the Murdoch side at the political, corporate and ladies-who-lunch set. When the “Murdoch” name is used, “Rupert” is who most people would assume the reference is about. James Vicars writes: I congratulate you on your publication of the correspondence in which Lachlan Murdoch plays the victim to your supposed defamation of him. The reach and scale of the Murdoch media has subverted our democracy. The Murdoch media seek to be a law unto themselves, which is most effective when they are not the subject of the discussion and their machinations are not exposed as such. It is not defamation to seek the truth or enlighten the public to facts or circumstances — particularly when it is of compelling public interest in a free democracy. John W Plummer writes: I believe that as a media organisation it is not only your right but your duty to shed light on events of public interest. [On the Lachlan Murdoch letters](https://www.crikey.com.au/topic/lachlan-murdoch-letters/)

Independent news outlet Crikey has kicked off a push for new subscribers and is considering a crowdfunding campaign as it confronts a defamation battle with ...

[Zoe Samios](/by/zoe-samios-p4yvph)is a media and telecommunications reporter at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Connect via The new laws include a public interest-style defence aimed at protecting investigative journalism and a requirement for a prospective plaintiff to show a publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. Crikey also ran an open letter in The New York Times outlining its desire to defend the matter in court. [published months of legal correspondence](/link/follow-20170101-p5bbqh) on Monday between it and Murdoch’s lawyers over the June 29 article. In documents filed in court, Murdoch’s lawyers say the article defamed their client by wrongly suggesting he “was a co-conspirator in a plot with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election result which costs people their lives”, among other claims. [Federal Court proceedings filed this week by Murdoch](/link/follow-20170101-p5bc3g), the co-chairman of media giant News Corp and chief executive of US-based Fox Corporation.

Media mogul Lachlan Murdoch is taking defamation action against the Australian operators of Crikey news.

Please click below to help InDaily continue to uncover the facts. Your contribution goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. The state needs more than one voice to guide it forward and you can help with a donation of any size to InDaily. In a highly unusual step, the local publication took out an ad in The New York Times on Monday calling on the US-based Murdoch to make good on legal threats over an article about the US Capitol riots and News Corporation’s coverage of former president Donald Trump. ‘‘We are determined to fight for the integrity and importance of diverse independent media in Australian democracy.’’ [Private Media chairman Eric Beecher](https://twitter.com/crikey_news/status/1561835642010705921) said in a letter to Murdoch posted on social media.

Lawyers for Murdoch say an ad in the New York Times sought to 'humiliate' the Fox Corporation chief executive.

The offer was rejected by lawyers for Murdoch who also said Murdoch “does wish to resolve the matter with Crikey as he has successfully done so in the past … Private Media “has never attempted to speak to Murdoch before any publication”. The claim references all the articles, the open letter, tweets and Facebook posts from Private Media executives and journalists, including those by political editor Bernard Keane who wrote the article, which have been published. Murdoch is seeking damages because through the publication and republication of the article “Murdoch has been gravely injured in his character, his personal reputation and his professional reputation as a business person and company director, and has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial hurt, distress and embarrassment.” The statement of claim alleges that the placement of the NYT advertisement was “seeking to humiliate” Murdoch, the executive chairman and chief executive of Fox Corporation. Lawyers for Murdoch say the article falsely alleged, among other imputations, that Murdoch “illegally conspired with Trump to overturn the presidential election result” and “knowingly entered into a criminal conspiracy with Donald Trump and a large number of Fox News commentators to overturn the 2020 election result”.

Fox News boss sues Crikey over article linking the Murdoch family to the January 6 Capitol riots in the US.

Crikey’s article, written by its politics editor Bernard Keane and published in June, did not name the younger Murdoch directly. “We believe that coverage of the events of January 6 at the US Capitol, and the role of Fox News in those events, is absolutely legitimate.” Meanwhile, in the US, Fox News is fighting its own defamation lawsuits from two US election technology companies over its coverage of the country’s presidential election in 2020. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator”, the article said in its final paragraph that the “Murdochs and their slew of poisonous Fox News commentators” contributed to the assault on the US Capitol. Fox News boss Lachlan Murdoch has sued the Australian media outlet Crikey, accusing the independent news site of defaming him in an opinion piece about the Fox News boss sues small Australian news site over article linking the Murdoch family to the January 6 Capitol riots in the US.

Media mogul Lachlan Murdoch has claimed a Crikey article made baseless, defamatory suggestions that he conspired with Donald...

They're always bleating about freedom of speech and how the defamation laws are too harsh," he said. We welcome it," the firm wrote. Last night, Lachlan Murdoch finally issued his writ. Mr Murdoch said he had not been approached for comment prior to the June 29 article and subsequent related pieces published on the Crikey website, and had only complained to Private Media four times in a five-year period. According to court documents, the article was defamatory by falsely claiming Mr Murdoch entered into an illegal criminal conspiracy with Trump to overturn the US 2020 presidential election and to incite a mob with murderous intent to march on the Capitol. He claims Private Media acted with malice and engaged in a "disingenuous promotional campaign" to increase its subscribers by making false claims he had intimidated and threatened the firm over the article.

News Corp boss Lachlan Murdoch has claimed a Crikey article made baseless, defamatory suggestions that he conspired with Donald Trump to overthrow the US ...

Please click below to help InDaily continue to uncover the facts. They’re always bleating about freedom of speech and how the defamation laws are too harsh,” he said. Your contribution goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. Last night, Lachlan Murdoch finally issued his writ. Murdoch said he had not been approached for comment prior to the June 29 article and subsequent related pieces published on the Crikey website, and had only complained to Private Media four times in a five-year period. He claims Private Media acted with malice and engaged in a “disingenuous promotional campaign” to increase its subscribers by making false claims he had intimidated and threatened the firm over the article.

For Crikey, a website founded by journalist and shareholder activist Stephen Mayne, hating the Murdochs has always been a good earner. Whether the journalism ...

Crikey denies this is what the story conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable reader and says Murdoch’s imputations are “contrived”. The costs associated with this case, which is awaiting judgment, are conservatively estimated at$25 million. Rather, it is 40-odd journalists at Crikey who could lose their jobs if the cost of litigation forces their employer to the wall. The notice claimed the article implied that Lachlan Murdoch had conspired with Trump to overturn the 2020 election result, incite a “mob with murderous intent” and commit treason. In the short term, Crikey will commercially benefit from this gambit. Its strategy to monetise its latest legal stoush with Murdoch is clear. It didn’t elicit any new facts about the capitol riots, Trump’s complicity, or the role played by Fox News commentators like Tucker Carlson in stoking anger and resentment among Trump supporters. Crikey is now part of a $20 million publishing company. Ultimately, the people who have most to lose in this aren’t Beecher, the chairman and largest shareholder of Private Media, or his high-profile investors like John B. For Crikey, a website founded by journalist and shareholder activist Stephen Mayne, hating the Murdochs has always been a good earner. However it ends, the spectacle of “Sure, we’re small, but if publishers like us didn’t exist in Australia, the Murdochs would be even more powerful,” declared Crikey’s publisher Eric Beecher.

The news outlet Crikey challenged the younger Murdoch in an open letter, saying it wanted to make the dispute a test case for Australia's strict defamation ...

Crikey then published the legal correspondence between the two parties and ran an ad in The New York Times saying it “wanted to defend these allegations in court” as a way of testing Australia’s harsh defamation laws. In the United States, Fox is fighting its own defamation suits tied to the 2020 election. A day earlier, Crikey issued its challenge to Lachlan Murdoch in an open letter and in an advertisement in The New York Times, saying it wanted to make the dispute a test case for Australia’s strict defamation laws. The statement alleges that Mr. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator.” It went on to say the Murdochs and “poisonous” Fox News commentators contributed to the assault on American democracy. Two voting machine companies have filed multibillion-dollar claims, arguing that Fox News knowingly and repeatedly aired false statements linking them to a conspiracy to steal votes from former President Donald J. Murdoch’s lawyers allege that the article carries the imputation that Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. After first taking down the article, Crikey offered to publish a clarifying statement but did not apologize. Here are the main themes that have emerged so far from eight public hearings: In the statement of claim, Mr. politics and the Jan.

A showdown between Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch and Crikey over an analysis article published in June into January's insurrection on the Capitol is likely to be ...

"I think because the perception is that you're more likely to succeed in a case in Australia than in a place like the United States or the United Kingdom." But he argued the case is not only a legal battle, but one of public opinion, and said they were willing to push the issue in the hope it's "a win for free speech". The barrister said the Murdoch case is likely to be the first major test for the new laws, which only apply to things that were first published or broadcast after July 2021. "The new defence is intended to liberalise defamation law to the advantage of publishers," Dr Collins said. One change was the requirement of a plaintiff to establish that a publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation. Australia has been called one of the "defamation capitals of the world" due to its laws, but amendments to those laws could soon be tested for the first time.

Lachlan Murdoch has launched defamation proceedings against the owners of news website Crikey for an article linking his family to the January 6 U.S. ...

The news Crikey is being sued for defamation by Fox chief executive and News Corp co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch has gone around the world, folks.

[Is this a show that stops the world, or one that drags on?](https://www.smh.com.au/national/is-this-a-show-that-stops-the-world-or-one-that-drags-on-20220823-p5bc6z.html) — Osman Faruqi (The SMH): “After the pandemic, the water cooler doesn’t exist. We stand by our reporting.” [The events of January 6, and the role of Fox and the Murdochs, must be scrutinised](https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/08/24/scrutinise-role-of-fox-and-the-murdochs/) [and] sleeping in a shed on an abandoned Pacific island”, as [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/mack-rutherford-teenager-youngest-person-fly-solo-around-world) tells it. We believe that coverage of the events of January 6 at the US Capitol, and the role of Fox News in those events, is absolutely legitimate. [52,000km trip across 31 countries aged 19](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/20/belgian-briton-zara-rutherford-is-youngest-woman-to-fly-solo-around-world). Patrick said it means we are not privy to the analysis on which national cabinet bases its decisions — whether it be “national security”, “natural disaster mitigation” or “the price of eggs”. [ABC](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-25/albanese-to-announce-details-of-robodebt-royal-commission/101369576) reports. The Commonwealth Freedom of Information (FOI) Act dates back to 1982 and allows us to get the inside scoop on what is discussed at government forums. [Guardian Australia](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/25/swift-parrot-recovery-plan-changes-downplay-logging-threat-experts-say) reports this morning that a recovery plan for a critically endangered parrot species was nearly stripped of notes that logging was its biggest threat. [Guardian Australia](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/15/some-christian-porter-defamation-court-files-to-remain-secret-for-at-least-a-decade) reports. Yet according to Lachlan Murdoch, the role of his family in one of the key disruptive forces in US politics, Fox News, is somehow off limits, beyond public discussion in Australia.” As [The Conversation](https://theconversation.com/murdoch-v-crikey-highlights-how-australias-defamation-laws-protect-the-rich-and-powerful-189228) writes, there is truly no better example than Murdoch’s case to show how Australia’s rigid defamation laws “enable the rich and powerful to intimidate their critics”. Tipakalippa alleged a few unanswered calls and missed phone calls were the entirety of it, but Santos countered that it had engaged on the project since 2016, and besides, it was approved by the regulator.

Nine's publishing arm knocked back Crikey when approached to run its open letter to Lachlan Murdoch advertisement this week, chairman of Private Media Eric ...

Fray added: “Some people may wish to subscribe to Crikey to support us, and good on them for doing it. So it’s a highly cynical thing to suggest.” “We’ve had two explanations,” editor-in-chief of Crikey, Peter Fray added.

According to Murdoch's claims, Keane's piece alleges that Lachlan Murdoch illegally conspired with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 US presidential election ...

[The Conversation](https://theconversation.com) under a Creative Commons license. The Age said its parent company, Nine Entertainment, had made a “business decision” to settle the case. At the camp, Betts alleged he was targeted, abused and the camp “ That means he would have to prove that the newspapers lied or were recklessly indifferent to the truth. The newspaper This has been illustrated recently by the Murdoch wants Crikey to take down the story and issue an apology. This has caused large media companies to settle cases even when they had an arguable prospect of defending themselves. Since those two big American newspapers have published similar material to that published by Crikey, the question naturally arises: why has Lachlan Murdoch not sued them? In it, Murdoch claims that the If he sued there, he would have to prove malice on the part of the newspapers. The court may well decide this is the case.

Crikey founder Stephen Mayne has spent two decades surviving snipes against Australia's media barons. Now comes the biggest battle to date.

Rupert and Kerry. For the series introduction Dear Crikey Boys, love what you’re doing and keen to buy it!