In an open letter the editors published as an advertisement in significant US and Australian newspapers, independent news outlet Crikey challenged the influential Murdoch family to sue them.
Additionally, Crikey made public the correspondence between its legal team and the team defending Lachlan Rupert, who has threatened to sue the website for defamation in relation to a political commentator’s post Crikey published in 2021.
Crikey first removed the story and associated social media postings as a “goodwill” gesture, but both have subsequently been re-posted as the publisher refuses to provide an apology.
Peter Fray, the managing editor of Crikey, and Eric Beecher, the chairman of its publisher, Private Media, claim that they were supporting press freedom in the open letter that was published as an advertisement in the New York Times and the Sydney Morning Herald.
They said, “We at Crikey passionately support public interest journalism and freedom of thought.”
We worry that Australia’s defamation rules are excessively onerous.
The two demanded that Murdoch’s Sydney-based attorney John Churchill carry through his threat to file a lawsuit.
The two wrote, “We want to fight those claims in court.”
“You have said in your attorney’s letters that you plan to file a lawsuit to address this claimed defamation.
“We await your writ so that we may litigate this crucial issue of freedom of public interest journalism.”
Mr. Fray argued that by publishing all of the communication between the Murdochs’ attorney at MinterEllison and Lachlan Murdoch’s agent, Crikey was doing a public service and advancing a cause that the Murdochs had championed.
According to Mr. Fray, who published an essay on Crikey’s website, “Like the Murdochs, we believe in the public’s right to know.”
“Exposing this legal assault is we believe the only way we can shine light on the actions of a powerful media owner (and therefore a competitor of ours) to silence a small publisher by using Australia’s defamation laws—laws that News Corp itself constantly argues should give the media more freedom to fulfil its mandated role.”
The alleged defamation was made in an essay by Keane regarding the Washington, DC, Capitol Hill riot in January 2021, which Crikey referred to as a “analysis” piece. In it, Keane claimed Fox News pundits were a big factor in motivating the Capitol Hill rioters in 2021.
The News Corp media company, owned by the Murdoch family, has an American division called Fox News.
The Murdoch name is used twice in the article—once in the headline and once in the last sentence—but it is not clear to whom in the family it refers.
On June 30, Mr. Churchill sent a letter to Crikey requesting that it remove the article and related social media post as soon as possible because they included ‘defamatory’ allegations about Lachlan ‘conspiring’ in the pro-Trump uprising.
The piece, according to Mr. Churchill, “unwarrantedly attacks my client without cause and with total disdain for the truth.”
In order to perhaps prevent legal action, the letter also required that Crikey publish an apology, which was delivered by the attorney. However, even if the requested actions were immediately performed, that possibility was not ruled out.
Crikey responded by denying that the story implied Lachlan Murdoch was being defamed and asserting that Rupert Murdoch was the Murdoch being referred to. However, as a “goodwill gesture,” Crikey removed the article and the social media messages.
As an additional “goodwill gesture,” Crikey also asked Lachlan to participate in an on-the-record interview with the website.
The essay was subsequently reposted by Crikey.
Lachlan Murdoch declined the invitation to an interview, and his attorney responded by disputing Crikey’s assertions that the letter did not make any personal charges and that similar statements had been made by other media.
Such scandalous charges of criminal behaviour and plot, which immediately include personal and purposeful involvement in a plan to create harm, have only been made in the publications of your clients, according to Mr. Churchill.
There have been more correspondences, in which both parties have maintained their stances about an apology.
Mr. Churchill refuted Crikey’s assertions that the material it published was “responsible and acceptable public interest journalism” in his most recent letter to the publication, which was sent on August 9.
Any impartial publication would have swiftly extended a sincere apology, he said, for making accusations against my client in the piece.
“Your statements and exaltations about restricting freedom of expression do not apply,” he said.
“The journalism in this instance is indefensible, as happens sometimes to most publications.”
Crikey once again rejected the need for an apology in its response on August 9.
Michael Bradley, a partner at MinterEllison, writes: “You are requesting that our client apologise for the most extreme reading of our piece, but not explain what that interpretation is.”
Readers could believe that our client is regretting writing the essay. Not at all. It stands by what it reported.