Tag: murdoch media
From Murdoch To Bannon, Right-Wing Media Blast Trump's Terrible Iran 'Deal'

From Murdoch To Bannon, Right-Wing Media Blast Trump's Terrible Iran 'Deal'

Right-wing media figures and outlets, including many that have been all-in on President Donald Trump’s war on Iran, are in open revolt against his proposed memorandum of understanding that seeks to deescalate the conflict.

On June 15, the United States and Iran agreed to a framework to bring the war to an end. The reported details reflect Iran’s relatively strong negotiating position, due largely to its ability to maintain and potentially extend its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The New York Times reports:

The terms of the preliminary agreement between the United States and Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping and outline a $300 billon plan for Iran’s reconstruction, but push talks about its nuclear program into future negotiations, according to details described by a senior U.S. official on Wednesday.

The agreement has led to a palpable sense of betrayal from the White House’s hawkish media allies, who as recently as last week looked to be on the verge of persuading Trump to end the fragile ceasefire that’s been in place since April and restart the war.

Instead, the administration appears to be acknowledging the reality that this ill-conceived, unprovoked war of aggression — which the United States launched in coordination with Israel on February 28 — has been a failure on its own terms. It has also been a humanitarian catastrophe for people in Iran and Lebanon, which Israel has invaded and seeks to occupy. The global economic ramifications have been dire as well, with energy costs skyrocketing and food shortages looming — consequences the hawks apparently want to bomb their way out of.

The backlash to the deal from conservative pundits and outlets, especially those within Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, has been swift and harsh. The day the agreement was announced, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wrote of the proposal: “Trump Stages an Iran Retreat.” The same day, the New York Post published an editorial that glumly concluded the MOU “seems to leave things right back where they were before the bombs started dropping.” A day later, the Post was even more critical, writing: “Trump’s Iran deal gives the Islamic Republic big wins upfront — and America nothing.”

Outside of primetime, the story was largely the same at Fox News, where Iran hawks have struggled to swallow the bitter pill of defeat. A day before the agreement was announced, Fox News host and Iran-warmonger Mark Levin said he was “very skeptical about any deal.” The next day, Fox contributor Marc Thiessen, who has reportedly advised Trump on the war, detailed his objections to ending the conflict at all, in part because “the Iranian regime, thanks to all those military strikes, is on its back and a deal, even a good deal, helps them get up.”

On June 16, Fox & Friends host Lawrence Jones channeled the pro-war crowd’s displeasure with the MOU, saying: “I don't think it serves our audience by sugar coating it — there is some real dissent when it comes to this deal right now.”

The same day, Fox contributor Ben Domenech lamented: “This doesn't feel like a victory.”

“I do not think that this is a deal ultimately that achieves the high goals that the president set," Domenech said. Those supposedly lofty goals have in fact been notably fungible and contradictory since the outset of the war.

On June 17, Fox & Friends continued to throw cold water on the deal. Jones said that Iran getting financial help for reconstruction was “a problem,” even if “it won't be American money.”

Jones’ co-host, Brian Kilmeade, tried to draw a red line on a reported possible future point of negotiation that would allow Iran to dilute — rather than surrender — its enriched uranium, calling it “not acceptable.” He also called into question Trump’s decision to appoint Vice President JD Vance as a top negotiator, saying that maybe he “wasn't the right person to bring this conflict to an end.” Kilmeade was one of many in right-wing media who sought to absolve Trump by hanging what they think is a terrible deal on Vance.

A guest from conservative think tank the Hudson Institute said the “memorandum of understanding is worse than not having it.”

The critical coverage continued into Fox’s dayside programming, where anchor Dana Perino implicitly acknowledged that the war had backfired and endowed Iran with the power to close the Strait of Hormuz, “which is leverage that Iran didn’t have before hostilities.”

Perino’s guest, former NATO ambassador Kurt Volker, concurred. “You go back to January, shipping was moving, Iran's nuclear program had been bombed six months before and was largely destroyed,” Volker said. “We launched this war, the global economy took a big hit. Oil prices skyrocketed. Now we're winding this down but we have Iran now emboldened to exercise some kind of control over the Strait of Hormuz.”

The frustration extends beyond Murdoch media. On June 16, The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro, another major supporter of the war, expressed his own skepticism. “We'll wait to see the MOU,” Shapiro said. “I will say that the early returns do not look wildly promising at this point.”

Former Fox News host Eric Bolling, now at Real America’s Voice, was even more blunt in an appearance on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s podcast. “In this deal, the biggest loser is the United States and India,” Bolling said, referencing high energy prices in both countries. He added: “In essence, I think we lost the most here.”

As is always the case with Trump, his position could shift, and then shift again, and then shift again, all over the course of a single day. Trump has a history of breaking contracts, and the MOU and subsequent negotiations could fall apart at any minute, not least of all because Israel may attempt to draw the United States back into open war. For now, right-wing media hawks seem desperate to blow up the deal and get back to the war they’ve wanted for decades.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Murdoch Newspapers Split With Fox News Over Trump's Lawless Chaos

Murdoch Newspapers Split With Fox News Over Trump's Lawless Chaos

In recent days, Fox News has vociferously defended President Donald Trump for deporting some 250 people to El Salvador and attacked the judge who tried to stop the flights. In contrast, the network's sister outlets The Wall Street Journal and New York Post have published strong editorials and op-eds supporting the role of the judiciary, arguing that Republicans and the Trump administration are employing a “terrible tactic” and entering into a “disreputable racket” by advocating for the judge’s impeachment.

After invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — which allows the government to deport people without the due process of immigration law and was previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II — to target the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, the Trump administration deported some 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador. Many of the deported migrants reportedly had no criminal records in the U.S. After civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered that the deportations be halted and flights already in progress return to the U.S. The Trump administration nevertheless continued the flights in “possible defiance” of the judge’s order.

Since this legal skirmish, the Trump administration has escalated its rhetoric against the judiciary. Trump “border czar” Tom Homan told Fox News on March 17, “We’re not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don’t care what the left thinks. We’re coming.” Trump himself attacked Boasberg, calling for his impeachment on Truth Social.

Homan’s views appear to be normative at Fox, with network figures attacking Boasberg’s credibility and seemingly coalescing around the idea that he lacks the authority to issue such an order. On March 18, Fox News legal editor Kerri Urbahn said Boasberg “was not elected president of the United States and therefore does not have authority over matters pertaining to immigration, national security, and foreign policy.”

She continued, “You have judges who are unilaterally inserting themselves into the executive branch, interfering with the president and his team’s ability to carry out his agenda.” Fox host Jeanine Pirro called Boasberg “stupid” for thinking he can stop Trump’s deportation actions. Her co-host Dana Perino belittled the judge, saying Boasberg’s ruling is like “when a low-level security officer gets a whistle, and then they just want to blow it all the time, and they feel powerful with the whistle.”

One of Fox News’ prime-time hosts, Jesse Watters, seemed to suggest that Boasberg could have a “conflict of interest” in the case due to the political leanings of his family members.

Fox News also praised the Trump administration’s deal with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele to utilize a Salvadoran mega prison — which, according to human rights’ agencies, has been responsible for repeated human rights violations — to house the deported migrants. Fox News contributor Sara Carter, who visited the prison in 2024, called it “incredible” on Hannity and praised Bukele, saying he “was able to clean up his nation and remove these nefarious, horrible people off the streets that were holding his citizens prisoner.” She added, “The cooperation you’re seeing between President Bukele and President Trump is so significant. We cannot stop this problem in the Western Hemisphere without this type of cooperation.”

By contrast, Murdoch print outlets seem to be taking Trump’s attacks on the judges seriously.

While the Wall Street Journal expressed support for the deportations of alleged gang members, it noted in its March 17 editorial that it is “troubling to see U.S. officials appear to disdain the law in the name of upholding it.” The outlet took particular issue with the Trump administration’s “reliance” on Bukele, calling it “troubling” and noting: “Gang violence [in El Salvador] is down and he’s popular, but his methods border on the barbaric. The country was desperate, but Mr. Bukele has destroyed independent legal institutions rather than restore the rule of law.”

The New York Post published a similar opinion the next day, saying, “Playing footsie with judicial disobedience — and calling for retribution against judges whom the administration dislikes — is a terrible tactic.” The piece also noted, “It’s more important than ever for the judiciary to remain an independent force capable of standing in the breach.”

On March 18, as Trump and Republicans continued to escalate tensions with the judiciary, calling for Boasberg’s impeachment, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts put out a rare statement rebuking such calls. Roberts wrote, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Later that night, Trump doubled down on his attack and called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic Judge [who] wants to assume the role of President.”

The next day, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “Chief Justice Roberts Rejects GOP Calls to Impeach Judges” that called the impeachment of judges the Trump administration disagrees with a “disreputable racket.” The Journal’s editorial board wrote that such an action is “rare and is typically pursued only amid evidence of corruption,” and warned, “If impeachment is the remedy for every adverse judicial ruling, we wouldn’t have a judiciary left.”

Yet again, Fox News went to bat for the president. Pirro, a former judge herself, said it was “inappropriate” for Roberts to put out a statement, adding that he “should recognize that he is a very important player in all of this, and he shouldn't get involved in politics, and that is what he is doing. He is getting involved in politics. He is setting up a negative situation.”

The Five’s self-identified comedian co-host Greg Gutfeld took a more aggressive stance against Roberts, telling him to “shut the f up” because Trump is the “f-ing president of the United States who protects 300 million plus people. He is a leader who does not have the luxury of opening up his little books to read, oh, my God, maybe he didn't do it the right way.” Fox News host Mark Levin told Roberts to “grow a pair” and suggested Roberts was the aggressor: “This government exists for we the people. It doesn't exist for John Roberts, the judges, Congress, or anybody else.”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Lachlan Murdoch Suing Tiny Australian News Site Over 'Defamation'

Lachlan Murdoch Suing Tiny Australian News Site Over 'Defamation'

Sydney (AFP) - A high-stakes defamation battle between News Corp co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch and small Australian news outlet Crikey will go to trial beginning March 27 in Sydney.

Rupert Murdoch's eldest son -- who is also chief executive of Fox News parent Fox Corporation -- is suing Crikey over an opinion piece that linked his family's media empire to the January 6, 2021 storming of the US Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

The media scion's lawyers claimed their client was defamed over a dozen times in the article, which accused "the Murdochs and their slew of poisonous Fox News commentators" of being "unindicted co-conspirators" in the Capitol riot.

On Friday, Murdoch's barrister -- top defamation litigator Sue Chrysanthou -- pushed in the preliminary hearing for the earliest possible trial date, arguing Crikey had been "directing ridicule and hatred" towards her client.

Crikey was "publicly claiming martyrdom", she told the largely administrative case management hearing, pointing to the outlet running billboard advertisements about the case and fundraising online for its defense.

In the past month, Crikey's GoFundMe campaign has raised nearly S$333,000, and garnered support from two former Australian Prime Ministers, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull.

"Lachlan Murdoch owns boats that are worth more than Crikey," Turnbull commented alongside his $3,400 donation.

A Very Public Fight

The legal scuffle over the opinion piece burst into international headlines last month, when Crikey ran an advertisement in The New York Times daring Murdoch to sue.

The often pugilistic website said it welcomed the opportunity to "test this important issue of freedom of public interest journalism in a courtroom".

Murdoch filed his lawsuit the next day.

The tussle pits an upstart website, with subscriber numbers in the low tens of thousands, against one of the world's largest media empires.

Defamation expert David Rolph from the University of Sydney told AFP that Murdoch's case could be the first test of recent attempts to reform Australia's notoriously tough defamation laws.

Australia has gained a reputation as "the defamation capital of the world" after a slew of lawsuits launched by high-profile figures, including actors and politicians.

Crikey's defense, filed with the Federal Court Tuesday, denied it defamed Murdoch and flagged it would lean on two new defenses created by the reforms.

"One is a serious harm threshold... the plaintiff now has to prove that they not only suffered some harm to reputation, but that it was serious harm to reputation," Rolph explained.

Crikey will also seek to argue that the opinion piece, by writer Bernard Keane, was in the public interest.

"I suppose the difficulty here is that defense is entirely untested. This will be a test case of that," Rolph said.

'Fundamental Public Importance'

In a statement issued Thursday, Crikey chief executive Will Hayward said his company was fighting the case because "there is an issue of fundamental public importance at stake".

"We think it is important in an open, well-functioning society that the rich and powerful can be critiqued."

While Murdoch has stayed quiet since launching the case, his statement of claim accused Crikey of using the legal saga to drive subscriptions.

He has asked the court to permanently ban Crikey from publishing anything suggesting he "illegally conspired with Donald Trump" around the events of January 6.

The case will be heard by Justice Wigney, who has overseen several closely-watched defamation trials -- including actor Geoffrey Rush's successful suit against another Australian media outlet.

Wigney said Friday that before the trial begins, he would seek to have the parties enter mediation where "cool commercial minds may prevail".

Embracing Trump's Big Lie May Cost Murdoch Billions In Libel Lawsuits

Embracing Trump's Big Lie May Cost Murdoch Billions In Libel Lawsuits

Rupert Murdoch for years has enjoyed a Trump-like ability to avoid responsibility for the avalanche of lies he promotes. That all may be changing thanks to a pair of billion-dollar defamation lawsuits surrounding Trump’s Big Lie campaign — Murdoch appears powerless to stop the looming legal reckoning.

This week, Justice David Cohen of State Supreme Court in Manhattan issued a stinging rebuke of Fox News. Denying the network’s attempt to dismiss a $2.7 billion lawsuit filed by Smartmatic, the election technology company that Fox smeared as part of Trump’s Big Lie offensive following the 2020 campaign, Cohen waved off Murdoch’s attorneys.

“Even assuming that Fox News did not intentionally allow this false narrative to be broadcasted, there is a substantial basis for plaintiffs’ claim that, at a minimum, Fox News turned a blind eye to a litany of outrageous claims about plaintiffs, unprecedented in the history of American elections, so inherently improbable that it evinced a reckless disregard for the truth,” Cohen wrote in his 61-page opinion. The judge repeatedly signaled that the lawsuit can proceed because there’s a reasonable chance that a jury would find Fox guilty of defamation.

The finding comes just three months after a judge in Delaware issued an identical ruling in another defamation lawsuit against Fox News, this one seeking $1.6 billion in damages. That one was brought by Dominion Voting Systems, which claimed Murdoch’s network smeared the election software company by casting it as a central villain in the GOP’s “rigged” charade.

“Fox possessed countervailing evidence of election fraud from the Department of Justice, election experts, and Dominion at the time it had been making its statements,” the judge wrote. “The fact that, despite this evidence, Fox continued to publish its allegations against Dominion, suggests Fox knew the allegations were probably false.”

For years, Fox News has gotten away with blatantly lying and slandering people, most often Democrats, and have paid almost no price for it. The reason Smartmatic and Dominion are having success in court is because they are businesses, not individuals, and they’re not “public figures.” If they were, it would be extremely difficult, under U.S. legal precedent, to prove they were defamed. They are both easily able to document how their brands have been damaged, and the amount of business they have lost, thanks to Fox smears.

What’s so damning for Murdoch’s legal team is that the facts of the recent Smartmatic case are not in dispute. That’s because Fox News defamed the company in plain view, repeatedly, on national television, alleging the company’s software switched California votes in the 2016 election, switched votes in Michigan in 2020, and did the same thing in overseas elections, among many wild and false allegations.

Because the facts are not in question, the best Murdoch’s lawyers could do in court was claim that the voting lies that aired almost nonstop did not constitute defamation because there’s no proof they were aired out of malice. Instead, Fox was just covering a big story and including lots of voices.

“When a sitting President and his surrogates claim an election was rigged, the public has a right to know what they are claiming, full stop,” Murdoch lawyers argued.

The judge rejected that defense, without reservation. “This Court finds that plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to allow a jury to infer that Fox News acted with actual malice, since it conceivably had a “high degree of awareness of falsity” or “serious doubts as to the truth” of the statements made.” He added, “Since Fox News allowed allegedly defamatory statements about [Smartmatic] to be repeated on its network, a jury may therefore find that it acted with intent or reckless disregard of the truth.”

The Smartmatic lawsuit can now proceed to discovery, which means it’s likely Murdoch will try to settle, in part because Smartmatic wants access to emails from Murdoch to his top executives to confirm the likelihood they knew the “rigged” allegations were false.

In 2020, Fox News agreed to pay millions of dollars to the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member, after the network had repeatedly hyped a false claim that the young staffer, Seth Rich, was involved in leaking D.N.C. emails during the 2016 presidential campaign. (Russian hacked the emails.)

The settlement came just before key hosts Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity were set to be deposed. Reaching an out-of-court agreement with Smartmatic will cost Murdoch a fortune considering the strength of the company’s case. Then double that with the Dominion lawsuit.

The irony is that in the days right after the 2020 election, Fox News initially resisted echoing Trump’s wild claims about a stolen election.

When Kayleigh McEnany held a White House press conference to double down on allegations of fraud, illegal voting, and a rigged election, Fox News host Neil Cavuto cut away from the event: “Whoa, whoa, whoa – I just think we have to be very clear. She’s charging the other side as welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting. Unless she has more details to back that up, I can’t in good countenance continue showing you this."

That right-wing void was quickly filled by players like NewsMax and OAN. The Trump sycophants rushed in and eagerly became the home of “rigged” propaganda. As their audience mushroomed, Fox took note. Refusing to let itself be outflanked on the fringe-right, the network embraced the Big Lie.

Now Murdoch’s going to pay a very high price.

Reprinted with permission from PressRun

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World