This article is part of a series about a legal threat sent to Crikey by Lachlan Murdoch, over an article Crikey published about the January 6 riots in the US. For the series introduction go here, and for the full series go here.
Lachlan Murdoch’s decision to sue Crikey has reignited support for a royal commission into media concentration in Australia, prompting high-profile political figures to pledge their support for Crikey — and declare the dangers of the Murdoch media empire.
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull told Crikey the ripple effects of this lawsuit could be huge. “This case will have global importance,” he said.
“Using all the interlocutory processes of discovery, this case could become, effectively, a public inquiry into the involvement of Fox News and the Murdochs in the whole catastrophe that was the latter days of the Trump presidency, and in particular, the propagation of the Big Lie that laid the foundation for the attempted coup on January 6.”
He called the lawsuit “ridiculous” and “hypocritical” — but also a “colossal error of judgment”.
“It would be difficult to identify an issue of greater public interest because January 6 was an attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. That is of enormous consequence, not just in America, but right around the world. It has shaken to the very core people’s confidence in the stability of the United States — our most important ally and the sheet anchor of our security.”
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, chair of the Senate inquiry into media diversity, told Crikey the lawsuit highlighted the need for a royal commission to oversee Australia’s media ownership rules and regulations.
“It’s a bit rich for [the] Murdoch empire to flex their muscle in this case given the damage the corporation has done to reputations of many people here and abroad over decades [and] it is hard to deny Fox News promoted and amplified the conspiracy theories that it was a stolen election,” she said.
“The Murdoch media empire has an enormous amount of unchecked power and influence in the media sphere. Just because you own one of the biggest media companies in the world does not mean you’re above the scrutiny of parliaments or public interest journalism.”
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd was damning in his take on Twitter, arguing that the fact that Lachlan Murdoch is suing Crikey, instead of making a Press Council complaint, “tells you the system is a joke”.
“Murdoch’s lucky he has the cash to sue [Crikey] for defamation. Most people are stuck with the toothless Australian Press Council. It’s not fair. Australians deserve access to a low-cost way to protect themselves from abuses of media power,” he wrote.
But Communications Minister Michelle Rowland stressed that a royal commission into media concentration was off the table.
“The government has affirmed its clear and consistent position that a royal commission or judicial inquiry into media concentration isn’t our policy,” she told Crikey.
“I have long called out the fact that Australia has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world … [but] an inquiry into a particular media company or the established fact of media concentration isn’t the way forward for media policy. We need to be outcomes-focused and that is the approach I bring as minister.”
ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr has voiced his support, saying “I wish Crikey well in the case”, while former NSW and federal independent Tony Windsor voiced his moral — and financial — support. “The Murdochs have been out of Australia so long they have forgotten Australians won’t tolerate foreign bullies,” he wrote on Twitter. “When does the crowdfund start.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition spokesperson for communications Sarah Henderson didn’t respond to Crikey’s request for comment by deadline.
Labor’s stance, in refusing a royal commission or similar is most perplexing. What are they doing as an alternative? Because it needs doing ASAP.
The importance of this fight is almost breathtaking. News Corp could take a serious injury (even a self-inflicted one) and seen to be the liars and manipulators that they are, even by the people who follow them. That will leave them vulnerable. On the other side, Crikey could be destroyed financially.
The good part is that people with a political profile will have to take sides. We will know who supports actual facts, who wants to back well away (we’re looking at current Labor figures, and the once prestigious Nine papers whose gutlessness is palpable) and who will side with the forces of evil.
In dismissing an RC into media concentration (read near monopoly) the Communications Minister Michelle Rowland states a need for “…need to be outcomes-focused…”.
The ending of a media monopoly would seem to be an ‘outcome focus’ with much to commend it.
Not for Labor – the same gutless, pre-emptive buckle & cower as usual.
“Outcomes focused” is just another weasel word with no real meaning. Why not just be honest and say “we’re too scared to tackle this because 1975…”
Outcomes focused means that no matter what emerges from such RC, nothing can be done about it. There is no licensing of the Digital or Print Press. Any legislation of outcomes from such an RC, controlling the media would, more than likely, be vilified as “controlling the media” and/or be ruled as against Common Law. It would be seen as a witch hunt across the board but particularly by the “Freedumb” brigade. The Government would be on a hiding to nothing.
While the Commonwealth is able to impose conditions on broadcasting licensees, its legislative reach over print media ownership is largely limited to general competition law and foreign acquisitions.
Additionally, the right to freedom of opinion and expression is contained in articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Australia is a signatory.
While our great hope, the Labor Party, (haha) squirms.
Labor cannot take unilateral action against any media company. They will be slaughtered from day one.
Hard to know unless they try – perhaps the public accolades & support would exceed the bile from the usual winged monkeys of Murdoch.
Sorry about this apparent repetition – it was blocked by the mod so in the comment below had Mr Burns’ revenge mutant simians removed.
How would they know without trying?
Perhaps the public approval would far exceed the rants from the RWNJs?
My best guess is that Labor would need to have a broad enquiry into the media and it needs Fairfax, Ch 9 and the rest – won’t enrage them.
Unfortunately, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has specifically ruled out any enquiry in media power because there of “a need to be outcomes-focused…”.
I don’t know what that means and, after running it through google translate, am none the wiser.
What more important outcome than there be than protecting democracy?? A vote for a lie is vote stolen.
Over half a million Australians petitioned the government for an inquiry into the power of the murdochracy.
How much support does Labor need?
As in every other issue that counts Labor doesn’t stand for much.
This government, led by the class traitor Albanese, is a pack of neocons that say some nice words to the populace while ensuring that the economy is placed at the disposal of the “Free Market” champions of the Australian business world.
Apart from a spine “How much support does Labor need?” perhaps a titanium exoskeleton and several major operations to remove the ethics by-pass, reattach the morality circuits and replace what currently passes for a brain with something resembling that of a normal human being?
It would be a start…
What outcome could be expected from a Royal Commission into one company that wouldn’t come from a Royal Commission into the role of all media operating in this country.
Absolutely agree, David. What on earth is the Labor Party doing? They should jump at the chance to have an all-embracing RC on the MEDIA in this country…NOT just News Corp. There are also others who have questions to answer.
Good on Crikey…at least they are standing up for the right to publish the truth!