Crikey alleges Lachlan Murdoch morally culpable for Capitol riots

Online news outlet Crikey has alleged Lachlan Murdoch was “morally and ethically” culpable for the deadly 2021 US Capitol riots in its amended defence to the defamation suit filed by the elder son of Rupert Murdoch, in an escalation of the dispute between the parties.

Crikey’s publisher Private Media will also attempt to use testimony by Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch in a US lawsuit about Fox News’ coverage of the 2020 presidential election as part of its amended defence, which adds a new defence known as contextual truth.

Crikey alleges Lachlan Murdoch is morally culpable for the riots at the US Capitol because of his role at Fox Corporation.Credit: AP

The contextual truth defence requires Crikey to prove that the article at the centre of the lawsuit conveys additional defamatory meanings to those alleged by Lachlan Murdoch, and that those meanings are both true and of sufficient seriousness that no further harm was caused to his reputation by any other meanings.

Murdoch junior, chief executive of Fox Corporation and co-chairman of News Corp, filed Federal Court defamation proceedings in August against Crikey over a June 29, 2022 article naming his family as “unindicted co-conspirators” of former US president Donald Trump following the Capitol riots in January 2021.

Lachlan Murdoch claims the article conveys up to 14 false and defamatory meanings including that he “illegally conspired with Donald Trump to incite an armed mob to march on the Capitol” following the 2020 presidential election.

Crikey denies that those meanings were conveyed. However, if the court finds any of the meanings are conveyed and a serious harm test is satisfied, the news outlet will seek to rely on a new public interest defence.

The Crikey article was deleted on June 30, 2022, a day after it was published, before being reposted on August 15 that year. The amended defence, released publicly by the court on Wednesday, adds a contextual truth defence for the reposted article.

Crikey argues that – in addition to any of the meanings alleged by Murdoch junior – the reposted article says he is “morally and ethically culpable for the illegal January 6 attack because Fox News, under his control and management, promoted and peddled Trump’s lie of the stolen election despite Lachlan Murdoch knowing it was false”.

Crikey argues the reposted article also says that “Lachlan Murdoch’s unethical and reprehensible conduct in allowing Fox News to promote and peddle Trump’s lie of the stolen election, despite Lachlan Murdoch knowing it was false, makes him morally and ethically culpable for the illegal January 6 attack”.

Crikey says it can prove both of those meanings are true, and that no further harm was caused to Lachlan Murdoch’s reputation by publishing any of the meanings alleged by him that the court finds were conveyed by the article.

For this defence to succeed, the court would need to be satisfied that a finding of moral or ethical culpability for the riots was as damaging to Murdoch’s reputation as any of the other meanings it found the article conveyed, such as alleged criminality.

Sue Chrysanthou, SC, who is acting for Lachlan Murdoch, foreshadowed earlier this month that there would be an application to strike out the contextual truth defence.

Barrister Michael Hodge, KC, acting for Crikey, said in court earlier this month that the news outlet would seek to rely in part on material that has emerged in voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems’ US defamation suit against Fox News.

Dominion is suing Fox for $US1.6 billion ($2.3 billion) for allegedly knowingly airing false allegations that Dominion was involved in rigging the 2020 presidential election against Donald Trump. The US trial is expected to proceed in April.

Private Media’s amended defence extensively references the Dominion proceedings and a deposition given by Rupert Murdoch before the US trial.

It alleges Lachlan Murdoch knew the claim that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen from Trump was being promoted by presenters and guests of Fox News because he was watching the coverage, was directly involved in the news programming and was providing feedback on tone to Fox News chief executive Suzanne Scott.

“Between on or about 5 November 2020 and 6 January 2021, [Murdoch junior] ... chose not to stop Fox News Channel from promoting the claim that the 2020 US Presidential Election was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump because he considered it to be for the financial and commercial benefit of Fox Corporation, for Fox News Channel to promote the lie,” the defence alleges.

Murdoch is expected to argue Fox News also broadcast commentary rejecting claims the election had been stolen.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.