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.
This is the first letter exchange. To read all the letters, click here.
From Murdoch
With matters becoming a little tense though still polite, Churchill states he disagrees with “each of the contentions” of our previous letter. He also claims that Lachlan Murdoch “is not seeking to dictate stories” and that he has not been “unreasonable or ‘intimidatory'”.
From Crikey
Our lawyer Michael Bradley replies, saying that Crikey “stands by its reporting”.
This is the final letter exchange. Click here for the full series.
Go you good things Crikey! If it comes to it, do a go fund me for the legal defence and I think you’ll be amazed at the account of support of there in standing up to the Murdochs.
Thank you to Crikey for standing up to this bully organisation, totally support you and the ethical journalists that write and work for your great news service
Was going to tell ya how I really feel about big money pushing people around.
Nar, better not.
Just Crikey’s one of my few trusted news outlets.
Keep up the good work.
Jim C
Good for Crikey, although its response to Murdoch and his lawyers, while robust, is not quite so succinct as Private Eye in the celebrated Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) correspondence.
Awesome job Crikey!! This is why I subscribe to your News