'Coal King' Is Suing John Oliver, Time Warner, and HBO (washingtonpost.com) 397
Reader Daetrin writes: Robert E. Murray, CEO of one of the largest coal mining companies in the US, is suing John Oliver, HBO, and Time Warner for defamation (alternative source) over a comedic report on the status of the coal industry in John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight". The report began with the decline of the coal mining industry, Trump's promises to revive it, and the plight of the workers involved, but was also highly critical of the business practices and safety record of Murray Energy Corporation and Robert Murray's leadership of the company. When the company was contacted about the piece before airing they responded with a cease and desist letter and threatened to sue. John Oliver continued with the segment anyway, saying "I didn't really plan for so much of this piece to be about you, but you kinda forced my hand on that one."
Updated video links (Score:2, Informative)
Cease-and-decist letter brief clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
More complete piece on Coal economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
why link to re-uploads from 3rd-parties when TFA has a link to the original video from LWT on youtube ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The original video doesn't work in all regions, one being the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to provide some non-YouTube option for viewing the videos that might be understandable, but what's the point in just linking to a different YouTube video? If HBO has made it freely available somewhere else that isn't YouTube why don't you tell us where that is, instead of complaining about people going t
Nat! (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone knows Nat King Cole is the REAL "Cole King".
Robert E. Murray is just an asshat pretender.
Re:Nat! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nat! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The word asshat is an americanism, and it is a fabulous use of language.
Indeed it is. One I quickly adopted because of it's sophistication and timbre.
Mr. Murray: (Score:2)
There's someone you should meet. Name's Barbara Streisand, maybe you've heard of her?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She's the one who always draws undue attention to negative publicity about herself right? What was she originally famous for in the first place?
(/s in case it's not obvious)
Re:Mr. Murray: (Score:4, Funny)
What was she originally famous for in the first place?
She was one of the original voice actors on South Park.
Re: (Score:2)
There's someone you should meet. Name's Barbara Streisand, maybe you've heard of her?
One of the first names that came to mind when I read the original post here. Now lots of folks will be looking at the episode but also, hopefully, trying to understand the situation involving coal in all its aspects.
This guy sues anyone who critizes him (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like Trump. I guess there's a reason Trump was so big on coal. He and Murray have an understanding.
Re:This guy sues anyone who critizes him (Score:4)
If you had seen the segment you'd know that John Oliver knew this and was one of the reasons he egged him on :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This guy sues anyone who critizes him (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. He mentioned the cease and desist letter. (Sent to Last Week Tonight before they even aired the segment!) He mentioned the other people (news media, etc) sued by Murray for mentioning him in a less-than-completely-flattering-way (despite what any facts are). Then, he said, "Let's take this cease and desist letter and do neither of those."
Of course, Murray doesn't really want this to go to court. Courts require evidence, which doesn't seem to be in his favor. He wants this lawsuit to make John Oliver and HBO quake in their boots so that they'll prostrate themselves before the Coal King. The problem with this is that it's not going to happen. HBO might not make as much as the entire coal industry (around $4.6 billion annually versus about $46 billion), but they're large enough that they're not going to get scared by someone trying a SLAPP tactic. Once Murray sees this, he'll probably attempt to settle this out of court with undisclosed terms. The only question is: Will HBO allow this? Or will they "make an example" of Murray by pushing the case forward?
Re:This guy sues anyone who critizes him (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the even more relevant quote was: "I didn't want so much of this show to be about you, but you kinda forced my hand."
Re: (Score:3)
I noticed that, too. It tells me that John Oliver allows other people to control what he does.
In as much as the newsmakers control the news reporters. Oliver is more a pundit and not a reporter, but the same principle applies to a lesser degree.
But no one REALLY believes that Oliver thinks his hand was forced. It was another acerbic remark in a show dedicated to acerbic remarks.
Courts require evidence... (Score:3)
"Well, Your Honor. Weâ(TM)ve plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence. "
Re:This guy sues anyone who critizes him (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse for Murray than that. While other networks' news organizations are mainly just interested in reporting a story, Oliver has absolutely no problem with multi-episode segments. His brutal (and much needed) attacks on FIFA were a good example of how he and his writers can happily air updates to previous stories, in the case of FIFA, each new segment more astounding than the last (and not really because of Oliver, but largely because FIFA is truly an evil and corrupt organization run by sociopaths and arch-criminals worthy of a Bond film).
So I'm sure Oliver's team was expecting, even looking forward to Murray's inevitable lawsuit. Indeed, Oliver pretty much openly challenged him to, and you can be sure that there will be followup segments until Murray's case is dismissed, as apparently they all have been.
Re: (Score:3)
Courts require evidence, which doesn't seem to be in his favor.
Although, it seems that a large segment of society here will now simply accept a tweet -- even from someone known to be lying whenever his mouth moves -- as evidence, especially if it aligns with their beliefs. Hopefully, this doesn't extend to the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the article, you'll notice that Murry has sued a LOT of media companies for critical statements/reporting. The ones mentioned on this article were all dismissed so far.
At what point does the "Coal King" start getting slapped for filing frivolous lawsuits? Filing hopeless lawsuits with the intent of intimidation should not be an effective legal strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the impression that some people have lawyers on retainer, and think that to get their money's worth they need to sue everyone who slights them and even if it gets thrown out well who cares the lawyers were getting paid anyway. And hay, maybe being a litigious bastard will discourage others from disparaging you.
You've lost the lawsuit at 'comedian' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Never start an argument with a professional comedian.
The show will have a field day with this, no way does Murray come out of it looking good.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing good will come out of this for Murray. For HBO: follow-up segments, viral YouTube posts and millions of dollars in free advertising.
Dont forget all the lawyers who get fat too. What a brilliant lawsuit -- it made jobs!
Someone better not tell Trump, he may try to sue all the American people for slander to get lawyers jobs and MAGA!
Heh (Score:2)
bait and switch
Truth (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, for it to be defamation, it has to be untrue. [kellywarnerlaw.com]
That means a couple of things:
We may have to rename the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] after this is all over.
Re: (Score:2)
(and then that it somehow cost him money).
He has some funny prior experience [youtu.be] with that.
Re: (Score:3)
We may have to rename the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] after this is all over.
How about the Streisand-Murray Effect?
Re: (Score:2)
The second part is that harm has to be the result of the false statement. If you ever watch People's Court and some of the ridiculous lawsuits that appear: Judge Milan has to ask many plaintiffs about the harm that was caused. So ma
Re: (Score:2)
You mean a comedian didn't provide truthful, unbiased reporting?
I'm shocked.
Re:Truth (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You are an imbicle. Let me illustrate why...
Again, she said her cost was $8,000 in an interview with Al-Jazeera. Please tell me how Oliver lied.
Trump didn't lie when he said his inaugration had more people than Obama's, because someone else told him that and he just repeated it.
First of all it was Sean Spicer and not Trump. Please be accurate. Second, the media said that fewer people attended the inauguration compared to Obama to which Spicer said it was the "largest audience" ever. The photos say otherwise. I would say Spicer lied because Spicer said it. CNN, Fox, MSNBC didn't lie by repeating what Spicer said.
Now justify your stance while claiming Trump lied. You are probably so stupid, like others here on /., that you can't even realize that you are making a similar statement.
I didn't make the claim about Trump. You did. Therefore you lied.
Oliver knew it was false when he aired it, YOU posted a link pretty much proving it was a false statement, and here you are claiming its true. You are a complete imbicle.
You ha
Re:Truth (Score:5, Informative)
John Oliver frequently lies on his program, I've seen him do it MANY times. The most obvious one was his Obamacare episode. He had a woman who couldn't afford a colonoscopy because it coast $8,000. They are under $1,000, the $8,000 was her Obamacare deductible and because of that her insurance wasn't going to cover anything for the procedure. Deductibles were not that high before Obamacare. He intentionally misled the public on one of the worst parts of Obamacare to make it look like the reason it was needed.
Did actually watch the segment? First of all, the woman does not health insurance so she has to pay the full amount of whatever she is going to be charged. One of the benefits of having health insurance is that the insurance company negotiated rates for you already. Some costs without insurance are ridiculous. Second, $8,000 is what the woman was quoted to her. She said that's her cost in an interview reported by Al Jazeera. How did Oliver lie? Or are you being disingenuous?
I watched a few minutes this week to see if he would do some apology for the shooting of the Congressman. The shooter was a big fan of Oliver and revved up because of Oliver and Maddow. I didn't expect him to take blame, but some kind of statement that it was unacceptable would have been good to start off with. 5 minutes in and I didn't see anything like that.
So you fault Oliver for not covering the one topic you wanted him to cover in his hour weekly show in which he has to go over an entire week's worth of news in 5 minutes?
Oliver is shit. This Murray guy has facts Oliver was GIVEN before his program and failed to list. He INTENTIONALLY misled people watching his program at least in part. Not sure how courts rule on facts left out when it would make the target less "guilty".
Please state what facts that Murray gave Oliver. Second how do you know what Murray gave Oliver unless you work for Murray or you work for Oliver. If you don't work for Oliver, aren't you a shill?
Re:Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Did actually watch the segment? First of all, the woman does not health insurance so she has to pay the full amount of whatever she is going to be charged. One of the benefits of having health insurance is that the insurance company negotiated rates for you already. Some costs without insurance are ridiculous. Second, $8,000 is what the woman was quoted to her. She said that's her cost in an interview reported by Al Jazeera. How did Oliver lie? Or are you being disingenuous?
One of the tactics of the American right (ie. Republicans) is to insist that everybody in the country now has much costlier insurance with less coverage and different doctors "thanks to Obamacare". My insurance costs were going up before Obamacare and they've gone up after, but I've seen no proof that they weren't going up anyway without it. And I've had no coverage changes or been forced to change doctors at all. One of my best friends (small businessman) admitted that he and his family have saved a lot of money on insurance (for themselves) since Obamacare yet he hates Obama with a passion and insists he was the world president ever. People believe what they want to believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Re:Truth (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what that lady was quoted for her colonoscopy but when I just googled for the price I got results saying anywhere from under $1,000 to over $5,400. Also I don't know what her deductible was but $8,000 doesn't sound unbelievable either before or after Obamacare. I know I had "good" insurance before Obamacare and the deductible was $3,000 or more. I passed on the plan that would have left me with a $10,000 deductible.
According to the segment [youtube.com] (around 2:15) the AC refers, Cathie Owen was in the Medicaid Gap where she didn't was not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but she couldn't afford health insurance on her own. While it isn't stated she has no insurance, it certainly implies that she did not. She also had a family history of colon cancer so most likely that was one reason she couldn't afford insurance as pre-existing conditions left her without affordable insurance. Without insurance, costs are insanely high for anything.
Re:Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I see the problem here. You think Steven Crowder isn't a lying jackass. Hint: Steven Crowder is a lying jackass.
Murray knows this is going nowhere (Score:4, Interesting)
The only reason to file these lawsuits is for the chilling effect on smaller players. This is high profile, him and his lawyers know this won't go anywhere even if he takes it to the SCOTUS but it gets him the advertising for his policy that his C&D letter promised would happen.
This is only chilling the free speech of smaller YouTube channels that don't have the $8-10k it will cost to defend this in court.
Defamation requires lies (Score:2)
Oliver's show is commentary on the news. If he said nothing that was a lie, they've got no case.
But Murray's scum, anyway. Wanna talk about how he, and the other coal companies, are trying to a) break union contracts, and b) get out of paying into the UMWA Health and Pension funds, leaving miners and their families without healthcare and retirement?
Re: (Score:2)
If you are accused of defamation, slander, or libel, truth is an absolute defense to the allegation. If what you said is true, there is no case.
Perhaps we should no longer call him king? (Score:2)
I guess still Duke is a to high rank, what about Earl or Baron?
Didn't see it (Score:2)
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate coal (Score:4, Informative)
Also, it seems like it might cause a Streisand effect. Wouldn't that be lovely.
4.1 million people tune in to Last Week Tonight. Another 5-7million watch the episodes on You Tube, to say nothing of those people who pirate it because they can't get HBO.
I don't think he'll have much of a problem with Streisand Effects. The reality is most of the Streisand Effect cases end up with little actually such effect. I mean Streisand's case stood on its own because the effect is named after it, but like most of the stupid shit that goes on in the world this will be quickly forgotten. ... If John Oliver lets people forget :-)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think he'll have much of a problem with Streisand Effects.
The original Streisand effect was a result of Barbara being an ass while trying to get people to leave her alone, which backfired. But Robert Murray isn't trying to get people to leave him alone, he is trying to make money, and no one is going to buy less of his coal because they don't like him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I hate coal (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not so much "leave me alone" as it is "stop contradicting me, news media!" For example, there was a big mine accident of his. Even before the reports came in, with miners still trapped underground, Bob Murray proclaimed that this wasn't due to bad mining practices by his company but by an earthquake. Later, the official analysis found no evidence of an earthquake and cited bad practices by his company. Yet, he still insists it was an earthquake and is ready to sue anyone who says otherwise because, apparently, disagreeing with him (and agreeing with the official analysis of the incident) is "defamation of character."
You can't constantly go around spouting complete falsehoods and then complain when people use facts to prove you wrong. At least, you can't do this in front of a judge (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Some of what's on Youtube is pirated. I saw this segment on Youtube but I'm not sure if I saw it on the Last Week Tonight channel. If not, it was pirated.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm outside the US and I haven't had to use a proxy to watch official Last Week Tonight episodes on YouTube. SNL sketches, on the other hand, are apparently some kind of US defense secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it seems like it might cause a Streisand effect. Wouldn't that be lovely.
Well then, let's make sure we know what the offensive action was...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6RsUhw1Q8 [youtube.com]
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't about hating coal, but about an irrational approach on a perceived attack on a declining industry.
People like him and Trump are actually doing them a disservice. The Coal Industry will need to reorganize itself to a market where it wouldn't be considered the primary energy source, using the money made from these companies and their community to help revamp them to an economy where the Coal Mine isn't the center of the community but just one of many good employers.
There is a lot of good skills that have been obtained by the Coal workers which can easily be transferred to other sectors, but we need leadership to help lead them there. Right not the Trump American is too focused on putting this on life support thinking it will regain in strength. And the Clinton American is too busy labeling these companies and its employees villains.
As someone who lives in a post industrial town, where most of the big factories are closed down, and the local economy is poor at best. I still see a lot of potential in these areas if the community is willing to get off the idea that somehow they will bring back the factories.
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Interesting)
...revamp them to an economy where the Coal Mine isn't the center of the community but just one of many good employers.
Based on the information in the John Oliver segment (which matches with what I vaguely knew about the situation beforehand), most actual coal mining going on today doesn't even fit with being "one of many good employers" for an Appalachian community.
The old model was basically: you have a coal mine. You send people with hand or hand-held power tools down into that mine to dig out the coal. If that particular mine runs out (which it will after many decades of use), the odds are very good you can open a new one within a short enough distance that the people from the same town can still work it. This model took hundreds to thousands of men to extract a modest stream of coal from the mine for a long period of time.
The new model, as I understand it, is: you have a mountain with coal in it. You use explosives and enormous machines to cut the top off the mountain layer by layer and sift the coal out of the debris. This model takes a few men (maybe a few dozen) to extract a huge amount of coal out of the mountain in a short time, then they move on to another mountain.
Not only does the new model employ an order of magnitude fewer people, it doesn't provide a job that stays in one place for decades. That makes it a poor fit for a "good employer" for a community.
(That is, of course, leaving aside entirely what the new model does to the environment, which is godawful, but not relevant to its place as a community employer.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:3)
Except, perhaps, to point out that a "moving all the time" mining operation has no incentive to think about how their local environment changes affect the people living there. The old mining company model would have at least needed to think about how their actions affected the local environment. They might not have, but there was at least, in theory
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike in Britain, the US has extremely strong free speech protections, especially if you can afford a decent lawyer (which Oliver/HBO/TW can). You basically can't win a defamation case in the US, therefore Robert E. Murray doesn't have a legitimate case.
For it to be defamation he would also have to prove that Oliver used false and damaging information. Which means he would have to state on record safety records, business practices, etc. And the burden of proof is on him, not on Oliver. And Murray is just drawing attention to Oliver and his criticism anyway. I hadn't even heard about this segment before this, but honestly I pretty much assume that, since coal companies have a long history of horrible working conditions and shitty and unfair business practices that they haven't changed too much in the previous years and, given the current administration, are probably looking at how to walk back what few changes they have made.
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Insightful)
Something like this doesn't end up on air without the network's lawyers and executives getting involved. Oliver and his writers came up with the segment, knew they were going to be doing something very damned provocative, obviously went to HBO with the segment and HBO, who let's be blunt here, makes a lot of money off of Oliver's show, said "go for it!" There's always risk with these sorts of pieces, whether it's a semi-serious/comedy news program or a more mainstream newsroom, but either way, so long as you've crossed your "t"s and dotted your "i"s, I don't see much likelihood in this case of a successful outcome for the complainant. Unless he can show Oliver and his team willfully misrepresented the facts, all that's going to happen is some lawyers make some money.
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it sad? I'm glad he's producing some of the best journalism on television. Traditional news broadcasts, like traditional newspaper and traditional reporting, is dying and in order to keep the advertisers on board, the news itself is going for ratings instead of content.
I'm not said for him. I'm sad that this is what journalists should be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you have it reversed.
A judge decides if a case is legitimated, and then dismisses it or handles it.
The chance of winning has absolutely nothing to so with it.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Not true. They're much harder to win in the US, yes. But they aren't impossible. If you outright lie, or severely misrepresent something, you can be held liable for it. And lets be blunt, Last Week Tonight is about the laziest "journalism" out there. He's covered some topics that were important to me where the 8th amendment applied and never mentioned it.
It's not journalism, it's a comedy show that mentions current events. If you want journalism, you should find a reliable news outlet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When people use it to be informed on current events it ceases to be a "comedy show" even if they do jokes. It presents itself as an informative source for information on a topic yet wants doesn't want to have the responsibility associated with being an " informative source for information" because they make a few jokes. Just because it does news with jokes does not mean it is not a news outlet.
The real question is, how is it not journalism? Even if it is bad journalism with jokes.
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it interesting that intent has no relevance in your argument.
It presents itself as an informative source for information on a topic
Ah, I see, you're ignoring intent so you can make up your own version of reality.
Re:I hate coal (Score:4, Interesting)
The description from their website: "presents a half-hour satirical look at the week in news, politics and current events.".
How is my characterization not addressed in their description? Their intent is to present news, politics and current events with a satirical look. They also present themselves as an informative source of information that people use to become informed on topics. How are they not a news outlet?
Re: (Score:2)
The description from their website: "presents a half-hour satirical look at the week in news, politics and current events.".
How is my characterization not addressed in their description? Their intent is to present news, politics and current events with a satirical look. They also present themselves as an informative source of information that people use to become informed on topics. How are they not a news outlet?
Your sentence breaks down into two:
1. Their intent is to present news, politics and current events with a satirical look. - this is stated
2. They also present themselves as an informative source of information that people use to become informed on topics. - this is not stated nor intended
As with Jon Stewart before him, the side-message has always been: "research more into this yourself, I'm not the definitive nor complete source".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do they convey facts with legitimacy to convey those facts as truth? Do they have teams of researchers to find out the truth of the matter? If not then it is opinion and that means the defamation from Murray has grounds to stand on.
"research more into this yourself, I'm not the definitive nor complete source".
When people use it as a source to be informed about news, politics, and current events. Does that even matter? They want it both ways. They want to present the facts of events and inform audiences about said events with some jokes but don't want to have the responsibility to ensu
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Insightful)
I watched the show. Oliver did two things: he played news videos and quoted from published documents. Then he made satirical comments about what was in those documents. He's funny as hell, but you could tell he knows the boundaries and he's very careful not to cross them.
Murray's a bit of a character, and Oliver pointed out some inconsistencies between what he said and what he did.
Good luck to Murray. He's a dick. And I hope he loses.
Re: (Score:3)
Using other news sources and published documents means he isn't a news outlet/journalist?
If 60 minutes does the same thing without the humor, would you call it journalism ?
Re:I hate coal (Score:5, Informative)
You both are arguing a matter of semantics that really doesn't matter in a court for this purpose. The show isn't using a shield protection so determining if it is journalism or not doesn't matter. (Which as an aside here, legally, it doesn't matter the format, how it is presented, or whatever else you wish to pick. Content is the method for determining journalism. Federal circuit court definition used is typically von Bulow v. von Bulow 1982, for a given state look up that state's statue if they have one. Long story short, if there was a reason that someone needed to determine if the show was journalism or not, which there is no reason to do so but forgetting that altogether, this show would most likely classify as a news source, even with the comedy and random crazy going on in it.)
That said it seems that the filing points out that they were given sources of an opposing view in the cease and desist letter. That's an on purpose thing because then the show cannot claim that they did not know of any opposing views. If the case is heard in a local courtroom like WV/SC, this is about as much burden as the court needs and the show would be found liable. In a federal circuit court, however, there's a greater chance to have the case thrown out. Typically the burden is a lot higher and crying that "they didn't use our sources" isn't going to cut it.
So it should be no surprise to anyone that the suit is being filed in WV by the plaintiff. However, I am sure the show will seek to have the case heard in federal court.
To quickly recap the claims and what I personally feel about them.
defamation - Basically based on where it is heard will determine the outcome.
False light invasion of privacy - No way on any ground. This guy actively works with political figureheads. You give up anything that protects you from false light when you do that.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress - IIED is one of those wild card things. It just depends on how they present the case and who hears it. The typical thing to remember is that the thing that causes the distress has to be heinous, like really overboard, beyond what one would expect in a normal situation. There's people who use "shock" value to get a point across and that's 1A domain. Then there are people who scream, get in your face to the point you can feel the breath coming out of their mouth as they scream, and put their body parts within centimeters of your body. That's not exactly protected speech in a general setting, but in say a rally with protesters and counter-protesters there would be a little more leeway. There is more, but it all depends on who's hearing your case and what they consider "heinous" to be in the given context.
No matter where it is heard, it's an uphill battle for the plaintiff for sure. I'm pretty sure that they're banking on HBO not sticking with Oliver long enough to get through the whole thing, and that might be the entire point. However, seeing how this is on everything now (TV news, Reddit, radio, newspaper, Slashdot), it's getting HBO a lot of what it actually wants, attention, which might just mean they'll stick it out thick or thin with Oliver. If that happens to be the case, in the long term, this coal guy has near zero chance of ever benefiting from this proceedings.
Even if he does win the legal case (which is a long shot given the things cited but you never can tell), it might net him after everything is said and done a few tens of thousand. In the meantime,
HBO is reaping sweet sweet publicity, which long term might translate into more cash then they'll ever have to pay out. WV won't provide the plaintiff a statutory provision for legal fee should they lose there and in federal court none of these are considered outside the American Rule, so each party pays their lawyers win/lose/or draw.
Re: (Score:3)
We're talking about comedians that get away with saying things like "Trump really wants to bang his daughter" and don't get sued by Trump... because even Trump's lawyers aren't stupid enough to try to win such a case.
Trump's solution is to change libel laws [cnn.com] so that he can sue people in those cases. If you are losing the game, just change the rules.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And yet Fox News is "Most Watched, Most Trusted."
Reporting news does not require intent (Score:3)
I find it interesting that intent has no relevance in your argument.
That's because it doesn't have any relevance. Jon Stewart likes to claim that The Daily Show wasn't news but the simple fact is that it was (and remains) a credible source of news for many people. If you report a fact which is true and people become informed it is a news program in addition to whatever else it might be. It's also pretty heavy on the editorial opinions too. I agree with him that it's sad that a show like The Daily Show has ended up in such a position but for him to pretend that he wasn't
Re:I hate coal (Score:4, Informative)
How can you even think this is journalism
This is clearly not neutral news. John Oliver presents an opinion about certain situations.
Often a strong and relatable one.
Sure, it's often about things which should be news.
But I see the show itself more as entertainment and critique of conventional news.
He often puts his finger on situations where the news outlets forgot their neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you even think this is journalism
Because they present themselves as an informative source of information on a topic that people then use it to justify policy. How is it not journalism?
John Oliver presents an opinion about certain situations.
If so then that means the lawsuit presented by Murray has legitimate grounds, doesn't it? After all, if it is not facts that people use to inform their position that costs Murray money and reputation then Oliver is defaming Murray on an opinion. If it is based on fact that is presented as an opinion then it is bad journalism even if there are a few jokes.
it's often about things which should be news.
From
Re: (Score:3)
If so then that means the lawsuit presented by Murray has legitimate grounds, doesn't it?
No, because the truth is a defence. Hence if it is clear that he is presenting his own opinion the only way you can win a defamation case would be to prove that he was actually lying about his own opinion. While I agree with your point that his show does involve a lot of journalism - frankly a lot more than the typical US news - it is really more like an extremely well-informed opinion article in a newspaper and you cannot sue a newspaper for having an opinion you do not agree with.
No news is neutral (Score:2)
How can you even think this is journalism
This is clearly not neutral news. John Oliver presents an opinion about certain situations.
Yes he does present editorial opinions but he also presents actual facts. It absolutely is as much journalism as anything else in the modern media. Good luck finding ANY source of news which simply presents facts with no editorializing or political stance. There is such a thing as a responsible source of news but there is no such thing as a neutral source of news. Fox News is typically neither responsible nor neutral much of the time but does cater to a certain audience. I would argue that John Oliver
Re: (Score:2)
No, CNN. Fox being the butt of news jokes was sooo last decade.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about censorship. I don't understand why you bring it up.
Why does it matter what people think about the show?
Because the show and people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to use it to inform their decisions yet without the responsibility of journalism. I don't care but don't pretend it isn't a news outlet when it is.
So the analogy still stands.
No it doesn't. They are not mutually exclusive. Can you be a comedy show and a news outlet? Perhaps badly worded the point is that i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lazy can lead to misrepresentation. Right now NYT might be getting sued for lazy journalism by Sarah Palin. Legal experts are split on her case, but they agree that it could go either way if she actually decides to file suit. And that's with posting an incorrect fact and then later retracting it. It comes down to if they should have known that it was incorrect when the originally posted it.
The reason you think it's "basically impossible" is because the cases you're familiar with deal with public figures
Re: (Score:2)
Given the letter that they received, I'm completely sure that they will have verified everything they said about Murray in the show. Murray is going to get his arse kicked in this suit.
Re: I hate coal (Score:5, Informative)
No one said they were unique.
However, Britain is named because in the UK the burden of proof is opposite. In the US, to sue for defamation you have to *prove* that someone knowingly lied. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. In the UK, you use for defamation and the guy you're suing has to *prove* they told the truth.
British law leans towards protecting reputations; US law leans towards protecting speech.
In the US, most defamation suits go nowhere. In the UK, most are won. There's 'libel tourism' where people actually try to buy a book in the UK (even if it was not intended to be sold there exactly for this purpose) just to fall under UK's laws exactly because the standard of proof is also reversed in libel cases compared to the US.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mad Max wasn't a movie, it was a documentary.
Re: (Score:3)
if the 14th Amendment means anything, it surely means the EC is unconstitutional!
Re:oliver is a twat tbh (Score:5, Insightful)
Even an English accent which spends most of his show talking about the lack of sophistication and cachet of the English?
Or maybe he's just funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans are still provincial enough to believe that an English accent of any kind lends sophistication and cachet. Except, you know, Australian (all we know about those guys is whatever we saw on Crocodile Dundee; also, we imagine they all sound like Steve Irwin).
It's funny you mention Australia. You do realize it started out as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia [slashdot.org] right? History is fascinating. :)
Re:oliver is a twat tbh (Score:4, Interesting)
Not just Australia. The state of Georgia was also founded as a penal colony. [gizmodo.com] And one quarter of all British immigrants to the (now) United States were prisoners sent as temporarily enslaved ("indentured") labor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
English accents (Score:2)
Americans are still provincial enough to believe that an English accent of any kind lends sophistication and cachet
No, we think anyone speaking in an English accent is a villian [telegraph.co.uk]. Given how many countries England has invaded over the years there may be some truth [telegraph.co.uk] to that assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Predicted? Oliver pretty much openly challenged Murray to sue him. It really was a sublime segment, and yes, while John Oliver is a comedian, and sprinkles his segments with a healthy dose of humor, at the core is well-researched investigative journalism. Well, in this case, Oliver is playing provocateur, but that can be news as well? Murrow went down the same path with McCarthy and Cronkite with Vietnam, because sometimes it's the guy that people watch on TV every night who has to be the one who tells it s
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give specific examples of things they got wrong?