Slashdot Mirror
'Coal King' Is Suing John Oliver, Time Warner, and HBO (washingtonpost.com)
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."
Cease-and-decist letter brief clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
More complete piece on Coal economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Robert E. Murray is a great big douchebag. Heavy on the douche, light on the bag.
This seem to me to be cesnsorius litigation, and you are right, it has nothing to do with coal as an energy source.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Everyone knows Nat King Cole is the REAL "Cole King".
Robert E. Murray is just an asshat pretender.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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).
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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Mad Max wasn't a movie, it was a documentary.
There's someone you should meet. Name's Barbara Streisand, maybe you've heard of her?
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.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Nothing good will come out of this for Murray. For HBO: follow-up segments, viral YouTube posts and millions of dollars in free advertising.
there's no place like ~
. . of a post-Trump presidency.
Also, it seems like it might cause a Streisand effect. Wouldn't that be lovely.
bait and switch
In the US, for it to be defamation, it has to be untrue.
That means a couple of things:
We may have to rename the Streisand Effect after this is all over.
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.
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Is it really necessary to redirect people to other channels trying to profit off of clips from something HBO already made available for free on YouTube? I'm all in favor of getting around stupid restrictions about viewing content, but there aren't actually any restrictions to get around here.
If you want to skip straight to the part on the Coal economy, go here.
(And it's not "more complete", because again, it's just a subset of the original video.)
If you want to skip straight to the part about the cease and desist letter, go here.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Oh that's gonna be hot.
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.
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.
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 :-)
Why would people pirate it if the episodes are on youtube?
John Oliver is informative and funny, and he predicted they would get sued, so he was careful to avoid libelousâ statements. Show make for a good follow up show.
I didn't say it was impossible. I said you basically can't win. You can argue that John Oliver is lazy, but it's hard to win a defamation case even when you do lie, while Murray appears to just being using his lawyers for SLAPP purposes.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
Curious. What is this "reliable" news outlet you speak of and what are your standards in terms of calling something "reliable?"
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
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
When people use it to be informed on current events it ceases to be a "comedy show" even if they do jokes.
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.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Wait... are you talking about Fox News?
WAAAH, they're being mean to me again, WAAAH! I'm going to SUE you, you big meanies, WAAH, WAAAH, WAAAAAAHHH!!!!
That's about how this reads. Someone doesn't have a sense of humor, apparently -- or just needs their diaper changed. Either way I hope some judge tells this idiot to STFU and GTFO.
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 right? History is fascinating. :)
We'll make great pets
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Same thing anyone (liberal or conservative) ever means by "reliable" journalism: that it tells him what he wants to hear.
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?
What's on YouTube is only special segments.
Ah, that old vacillation.
"It isn't journalism" when there's any chance of liability.
"It is journalism" when they have no worries and want to build trust.
I saw the same thing from the gamejournopros. "We are legitimate journalists, we went to school for this, we get all the exclusive press access ...oh wait there's some line we're starting to cross... lol we're just bloggers and this is our hobby ...wait now we might lose our power... like we said, we're journalists! Hobby journalists who are uh officially unofficially ... official?! HEY LOOK A CONTROVERSY"
The delivery isn't the deciding factor. Insinuation that it is valid information worth conveying is, and the people telling it to you are journalists. And if the information is willfully disingenuous, that's on them, not the subject or the audience.
If this does actually go to trial I hope Oliver's attorneys let Oliver do the cross examination. That would be epic television.
Not just Australia. The state of Georgia was also founded as a penal colony. And one quarter of all British immigrants to the (now) United States were prisoners sent as temporarily enslaved ("indentured") labor.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
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. Celebrities and politicians. There are a lot of exceptions made for public figures. But this guy isn't a public figure. Most people would have never heard of him up until now. This makes it a lot easier for him, and John Oliver had better make sure he didn't misrepresent a thing or say one falsehood. And if he did, he'd better make damn sure that he posts a retraction immediately, otherwise this could cost them a lot of money. Sarah Palins case comes in to a similar situation. The pundits think it would be fairly clear cut if she were still an acting politician and clearly in the public eye, but because she has largely removed herself, now the case becomes much more serious.
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?
What wound? I'm not the one that voted for a president with a 36% approval rating.
English accents are for villains and comedians. Oliver fits with that, and if the comedy thing doesn't work out, America will accept him trying a second career, of evil.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I guess still Duke is a to high rank, what about Earl or Baron?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But, I think it's hilarious when someone talks bad about someone else, and they somehow have the right to get money over it. My philosophy (not saying this John Oliver is correct, BTW...again, didn't see it): If you're a piece of shit, you're a piece of shit. If someone calls you out on it, and you throw a tantrum instead of looking at yourself to fix the ACTUAL issue, you're now a WHINY piece of shit. Sorry - wait no, not sorry.
Feeding the trolls here, but the reason that Robert E. Murray doesn't have a case is that John Oliver pulls all of his stuff from the public record, and is legally allowed to call someone certain names, such as asshole. Any judge worth a damn will throw this out way before it hits trial.
So..guessing it is either..Fox or CNN? Pick your xenophobia. There is no reliable news outlet. News is so unreliable, a Comedy Central show's alumni going to a paid premium cable channel still has more clout than the official channels. I don't even like John Oliver, but damn. You can argue otherwise but in the end you'll go back to your war peddling bullshit.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Being on HBO does that too. At least I assume, I've never had an HBO subscription so I've never watched John Oliver. With his stance on net neutrality, climate change, and a bunch of other issues that put him at odds with the special interests running the country into the ground, I'm not sure why we're making fun of his accent.
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.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
No, CNN. Fox being the butt of news jokes was sooo last decade.
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.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
internationally even.
Besides obviously important pieces like this, he covered a whole piece on Bolivian Traffic Zebras, which in fact got Bolivia's attention and an invitation to come visit and interview them.
He's also done a variety of stories on Putin, the EU, Britain (mocking his birth country with quite a bit of white I might add.), and I think even a bit on Africa (although I don't remember what.)
While he's decidedly left learning in his coverage, he isn't afraid to take blows at lefty candidates and point out when liberals are doing dumb shit, whether as dumb, or worse than conservatives have (sometimes in the same show, other times in loosely related shows.)
That's like saying a carving knife used to commit a murder is no longer a kitchen utensil. Can we sue the maker for the bloodletting?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I have never heard of it. Maybe it was just to produce an angle in the headline? To be fair it should have been 'Coal King' sues 'Comedy Hack'.
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.
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Are you sure about that? SLAPP cases are extremely common here in the US.
Because it is only available in the US on YouTube. All other countries are blocked.
Result: it gets "pirated".
"Well, Your Honor. Weâ(TM)ve plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence. "
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
No. It's like saying if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck. It's probably a duck even if it is missing the feathers.
in small doses like when he was under Stewart, sure; but his own show? no.
and Trevor is just stinking it up every night, he would have been long gone if Hillary was elected.
Oliver himself has even commented on this, and finds it amusing.
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".
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. Given how many countries England has invaded over the years there may be some truth to that assumption.
Well, in that case, I can say you are posting in favor of censorship, which is a horrible thing to do. Why does it matter what people think about the show?
Anyway, you said it right here: When people use it to be informed on current events it ceases to be a "comedy show"
So the analogy still stands.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And CBS poll is of course a trusted source for that information..
I would prefer:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
53.7% disapprove and 41.3% approve as of writing this... Of Course, those number are also really bad..
Sure he sounds like that crazy person on the bus, but looking at what he is for:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
he's not too crazy.. But still crazy enough that it surprised me that he got elected... On the other hand, Clinton was not really a choice either.
Or what other people is voting for:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
Next time, please think and look at who you are voting for... Look at their track-record of what they have voted for in the past and do not only listen to what they say they will do.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... or look it up elsewhere for someone that's new to congress.
Nope, Netherlands here and I can watch them just fine on YouTube
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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 their website their show is about news, politics and current events with a satirical look. Just because you add some jokes to news does not mean it is not news.
This is clearly not neutral news. ...He often puts his finger on situations where the news outlets forgot their neutrality.
He gets away without being neutral because opinion. Yet talks about things that the news should talk neutrally about because it is news worthy but oh it isn't news when he does. How is it not journalism?
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 a part of the media is disingenuous and/or false.
John Oliver is presenting news whether or not he intends to do so. In fact he and his colleagues do a more credible job of reporting facts than many so-called "legitimate" news organizations.
Eat Shit, Bob!
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.
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 ensure that the information they give to their audience is accurate like any journalist.
They have a teams of researchers, yet not journalist. They present news, current events and politics with said research, yet not journalist. People use their presentation of the facts and research to become informed, yet not journalist.
I still do not understand. How are they not journalists?
The word "satirical" is how. That's an adjective that changes the meaning of the words that come after it. Much like if one said, "...presents a deliberately warped view of news and current events..." you probably would not consider that show a news show.
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 is typically very responsible while also being not neutral and also caters to a certain audience.
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.
It is that but he also is routinely informing people about issues of the day that they might otherwise not know about. For example his report on FIFA corruption was genuinely news to many Americans for whom soccer is simply not a part of their every day existence. And while he had a very clear position on the topic of FIFA he also reported actual facts which pretty fairly represented how much of a scumbag organization it is.
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 it isn't only a comedy show and it is fact a news outlet of comedic journalism. Just because it is a "comedy show" does not mean they have to give up journalistic integrity if they are also a news source.
And the safety record for Murray's company isn't great. Murray would have to prove otherwise.
Okay great, they're a 'news outlet' (based on your definition). Now what? What does it have to do with the price of rice?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And yet Fox News is "Most Watched, Most Trusted."
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.
Despite what you have been told, news does not need to be unbias.
Also 2 sides to every story is sometimes just wrong, yet for every puppy eaten by wolf story out there, you get the some group who says puppy eating is good.
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.
I don't know. What did your original comment had to do with the peanut in my shit I took this morning?
You're ignoring a very important word there: Satire. By definition, it is a warped and skewed reading of the world, wholly unsuited to straight news reporting. LWT may have the effect of 'informing' viewers, and it may even count that as a useful adjunct to their work, but their primary focus is making fun of the world through a very specific comedy lens. Trying to contort them into something they're not is only doing you a disservice.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Also, it seems like it might cause a Streisand effect. Wouldn't that be lovely.
You mean that Internet users everywhere are going to start firing up coal stoves this fall just to spite the lawyers?
John Oliver needs to be gawker'd.
Guy enters Australian Customs.
Customs Officer (going down the list): are you a convicted felon?
Guy: Is that still a requirement?
Well, I can answer that with a question. Are you going to look up John Oliver under comedy/talk, or under the news section of your cable/sat guide? Contrary to your desires, 'journalistic integrity' does not apply. Taking it seriously is a personal issue, nothing to do with the show itself.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Nice work bob, because of this, I went and watched the episode of Last Week Tonight in question - great watch, lots of laughs. Probably would have missed it otherwise. Hope you have fun in court!
What exactly do you mean "unlike in Britain"? The U.S. protections of speech are by no means unique, in fact similar protections are commonplace in most democracies. Even in the U.S. frankly odd and undemocratic version of democracy, for now.
I've never had an HBO subscription so I've never watched John Oliver
That's no excuse. He posts his entire show on youtube the day after it airs.
I'm not sure why we're making fun of his accent.
Because the alt-reich hate, hate, hate, HATE the guy, but they aren't smart enough to come up with a criticism of substance.
Or that a guy who presents evidence and not just ad-hominem distractions is of value.
From the many segments I've seen, most of his pieces are well-researched. It is sad to think that his comedy show is producing some of the best journalism these days winning a Peabody award in 2014.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Except that he is trying to get people to leave him alone. He sent the original cease and decist before the segment aired. According to Oliver, he and his company were going to be a small part of the piece, but his attempt to proactively gag the show resulted in his company making a larger part of the piece.
This guy doesn't want the bad press and public outcry that he knew would come from Olivers piece. That has backfired because the backlash against his industry is being eclipsed to some extent by backlash against him and his company specifically. Textbook Streisand Effect.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Maybe it's not part of the DeVry JD curriculum but Britain has free speech too. It's just that if you tell outright lies about someone they can have the shirt off your back for it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Pllleeeeaaassssse tell me he's suing in a jurisdiction with Anti-SLAPP laws on the books, his history has more than proven that his intent is to try to stifle his opponents with frivolous lawsuits.
There is no reliable news outlet.
Da, comrade! The only reliable news comes from Dear Leader. All else is FAKE NEWS!
I don't respond to AC's.
Yeah, this can be the new Prenda.
-- Cheers!
Or as I call them, Koreans.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I am not ignoring the word satire. Is satire a form of joke?
To see the distinction between a comedic 'news outlet' and a wholly comedy show about some current events. South Park compared to LWT.
If you watch South Park, you will not be informed on current events. Mr. Garrison did not win the presidency and Ads have not evolved into people form. If you understand current events and some philosophy you can interpret the South Park events much more broadly and with various lenses of critique on modern society in addition to the comedic aspects of satire and scat.
If you watch LWT, you will be informed on a current events and you can take action in the real world based on the events they do. Murray is a Coal executive. Coal is failing as a an industry. Murray has filed similar lawsuits before. If you didn't understand the events before watching his episode you will afterwords. There are a limited number of ways to interpret the events portrayed in the show and any additional analysis will require additional facts of the events. However, that does not mean that the information presented will not be used to decide policy and voting behavior of the audience. Just like any other news source.The comedic value is the absurdity of reality and the way they present that absurdity. News through the lens of a joke is a still news. Does his audience consider him a credible source of information for current events? That is more important then the lens through which they show reality.
Fat slags invariably have no willpower and hence are morally inferior.
In this case, Oliver, being the skinny little bitch he is wins.
My opinion is that you fuck baby goats and always return library books late. If I plastered that across the front page of the NYT you'd be OK with that, then?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Is satire a form of joke?
...I give up.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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/... right? History is fascinating. :)
Australia started out as a hyperlink?
Is there a section for comedic news in the cable sat guide? Then why would I use an incomplete and arbitrary definition? BTW, there is nothing wrong with LWT being a news outlet but lets call it for what it is and not give them a free pass because the jokes on you.
...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
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I must have missed the punch line.
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.
Sure. but the OP said: "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show that mentions current events. If you want journalism, you should find a reliable news outlet.". I disagree.
Then he is presenting the facts. His show is built around presenting facts in a comedic fashion. How are they not a news outlet that should be held to the same journalistic standards?
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).
Americans cant even tell the difference between Australian and English accents. Every time I've been over there I've been asked "Are you from London" or "what part of England are you from" (ignoring the fact it should be "which") I usually reply with "a small island a bit south of England called Australia".
Although now I live in England... I cant really use that any more.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
There should be a mirror nearby.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Czech Republic: watching SNL on YouTube without problems.
And here is The Onion's description from their web site.
They also present themselves as an informative source that people use to become informed on topics. How are they not a news outlet?
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
Funny enough, you sound very much like the policy part of Clinton's platform. You know, that stuff that the press just ignored because they don't do journalism anymore. Even NPR would say she gave a speech dedicated mostly to policy and then only quote the trump references, ignoring the policy content.
Not just Australia. The state of Georgia was also founded as a penal colony. And one quarter of all British immigrants to the (now) United States were prisoners sent as temporarily enslaved ("indentured") labor.
New Zealand was started with colonists and look how badly that turned out.
The thing about penal transportation was, only petty criminals were transported. It was seen as a way of reducing the population of riff-raff in England. So anyone who stole a loaf of bread, jeered at a nobleman or was Irish (I'm serious, displaying an Irish flag was considered sedition in the 1800's). However the hardened criminals, the rapists, murderers and politicians, they were kept in merry ol' England.
The reason for this was that penal transportation wasn't a life sentence. You worked your sentence and at the end of which you were given a parcel of land and permitted to do with it as you saw fit. Given the cost of a voyage back to England in the 1820's was astronomical most stayed in Australia (or the American colonies). Those few that went back usually did so via a tour as a sailor in the Royal Navy or a merchant ship because almost all who were transported were relatively poor. The prisoners essential became settlers.
Most people who came to the Australian colonies were actually settlers. The last penal transportation was in 1868 to Perth, Western Australia.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Trevor is not funny. Oliver was somewhat funny filling in for Stewart. Oliver is awesome on Last Week Tonight.
Does The Onion report facts? Does The Onion audience consider them a credible source of information for current events?
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.
You've got that backwards.
In the UK, you have to prove the speech was deliberately damaging and inflammatory. In the US, you can use the threat of legal action to cajole people into giving you a payout (UK has a loser pays system). To win at deformation, you just need a good lawyer whereas in the UK, you need an actual case.
Plenty of deformation cases have been won in the US, http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/11/18/6-most-successful-celebrity-libel-and-slander-case.
Of course this case is frivolous and I expect it to be thrown out, as it would be in the UK. That kind of thing never gets reported by the papers, the papers don't want people believing that Libel and deformations laws actually work as they're intended. This is mainly because the papers (rightfully) lose most deformation cases bought against them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Or as I'd like to put it, it's a syndicated YouTube channel on cable.
Since half the semantic stink bombs farther up the threads would seem to argue that by dint of dealing with news and giving them an ADMITTED spin full of snark, their definition would hilariously make YouTube's user opinion pieces journalism.
All I see is your bad reasoning and poor logic. I guess, that is funny in a scatological sense. You should work on your humor. It's a little flat.
If you want journalism, you should find a reliable news outlet.
Now that's comedy.
He could try that, it would be pretty funny.
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.
If they research things and report on them, then they are de-facto journalists. It doesn't matter if their intent is to amuse or inform. It's entirely possible to stand by your own research whilst encouraging people to fact-check you with other sources; saying "we're the only people who can tell you the truth" is a dangerous lie favoured by "news" organisations that are pushing opinion as fact. What LWT does is push fact as entertainment, which I do worry might trivialise facts, but the quality of their reporting is very good compared to mainstream news.
I've watched other US topical entertainment shows, and their tend to be extremely partisan, with few facts, cherry-picked statistics and a lot of personal insults against the enemy flavour of politician or celebrity. LWT clearly has a liberal bias, but never makes serious claims without presenting evidence, and gives well reasoned arguments in amongst the mockery and derision.
All reporters and news sources have personal views and biases, presenting hard facts to back them up is the best we can hope for.
I'm trying to work out what Robert Murray's head is shaped like. The only thing I've managed to exclude so far is a head.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The only difference in the UK is that truth is not an absolute defence. In that if you rat out a coworker as gay to your christian boss who sacks him and you get the promotion you were both going for, the claim "But he IS gay!" is not a defence from the damage you wilfully did.
On the other hand, the UK has much more requirement to PROVE DAMAGES. Mental anguish really is worth fuck all.
But the defence of a libel suit doesn't have to prove their innocence, you moron. The defence has no burden of proof, but they may have to provide what they had to make the claim, since they are the ones who made concrete claims. After all, how can the defamed person prove the other person had wrong information or misrepresented the information they had if you don't have that information?
But the accuser in a UK Libel case still has to show proof that it was deliberate deception or a deliberate attempt to harm (and proof of that harm that can be redressed by the court order) to win. The defendent doesn't have to prove innocence of libel, only defend against the attribution of malice.
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 ?
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).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
Being on HBO, ratings are relative so content rules.
They make the best and most important bits of the show free and put it on youtube for example this piece is there, so its not like the best journalism is even being kept behind the paywall.
Jon Stewart always said that people using the Daily Show for their news was a sign that the news media was failing, not that the Daily Show was that informative. I'll admit that I did use it for a portion of my news consumption at the time. Many in the news media at that point, seemed unwilling to ask hard questions or point out hypocrisy (such as saying one thing and then supporting something completely opposite a year later for no good reason) lest they anger the people they were covering. Some media are ditching this, but too often you'll get a politician in front of the camera and they're given all softball questions because the interviewer doesn't want to risk the politician leaving and the news organization being banned from future interviews. IMO, the news needs to be hard hitting and hold politicians' feet to the fire. This is true of both sides of the aisle, mind you. I don't want them soft on Democrats and hard on Republicans or vice versa. It's one of the jobs of the media to shine a light on politicians if they step out of line.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
All I see is your bad reasoning and poor logic.
Yeah you said that already but you can't point to an actual example.
You should work on your humor.
Ah, I see your problem: I wasn't trying to be funny.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
A 'free pass'? To do what?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It borrows greatly from one thing that The Daily Show did often with Jon Stewart that I loved. Show Politician A giving a speech saying he supports/opposes X. Next, show a clip of Politician A from not that long ago expressing a completely contrary position. They might not have been news media and they were far from unbiased, but they were great at shining a light on those hypocritical moments.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
He's not looking for money in this lawsuit. He's trying to intimidate people, to make them afraid of broadcasting information about him and his business practices.
Banking on HBO not sticking with Oliver long enough to see it through?!?!? Why on earth would anyone think that? Last Week Tonight is a multiple Primetime Emmy Award winning show. It's only been out for 2 seasons and has already won dozens of awards and has beaten many of HBO's other current events talk-shows like Bill Maher in the ratings.
Assuming that John Oliver keeps his game up, I expect he'll be a staple just like Jon Stewart was for The Daily Show for at least 5-10 years.... unless HBO is foolish enough to lose him to an even better show.
Oliver did his skit knowing this person was going to sue -- because he's a litigious person. HBO likely was well informed in advance this was going to happen. Oliver wasn't just aware of this fact, but told the audience about it... and Oliver isn't stupid enough to open himself up to any serious litigation in such a format when he knows to expect a lawsuit.
The guy has no case. He's a public figure and Oliver is a comedian. The stakes in these cases means he'd have to prove Oliver knowingly lied or knowingly strongly implied something that he knew was false without any hint of humor with intent to defame. Yeah... good luck with that.
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.
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, SOME incentive of "our workers' families are getting sick because of stuff we're doing... let's change." With a moving mining operation, why would they care if they completely destroy the local environment? They'll be someone where entirely soon enough and won't need to see the effects.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
using the money made from these companies
Unfortunately, all the money from those companies is in the Cayman Islands now, and the bosses don't feel like giving it back.
AC
Does The Onion report facts?
Sure seems like it these days. I'm expecting "We give up, here's the actual news" any day now.
It's too bad we don't have any laws that protect the right to speak our minds in the US. Oh, wait. We do. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Fuck off, "Coal King." Go troll somewhere else.
I can't deny that there can be pirated material on youtube, but these 'outrageous' segments are usually to be found on the official channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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 so that he can sue people in those cases. If you are losing the game, just change the rules.
Enigma
The UK has the strongest libel laws in the world.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If there's a youtube link you can't watch, just change 'tube' to 'pak' in the url and you'll get a mirror that can be watched from anywhere.
Murry's a public figure, they can spend 20 minutes calling him names and making up lies about him and he can't do squat unless he can prove they acted with malicious intent. This is nearly impossible to prove because it requires that they know what was in their minds when they filmed it.
It's called free speech and it's the way it should be. Murry the special snowflake that he is deserves this. IMO he's responsible for the deaths of 7 miners in Utah. The man should burn in hell.
Clinton wasn't a choice? What about those 2.86 million MORE VOTES?
if the 14th Amendment means anything, it surely means the EC is unconstitutional!
He's not looking for money in this lawsuit.
Sorry, I meant he wants his business to make money, and tried to point out that this documentary isn't going to have a negative effect on that. No one is going to buy less coal.
I have to wonder how much of Trevor Noah sucking is because of the writers. I stopped watching because he came off as a blatant Hillary shill with a worldview that didn't extend beyond New York City, not exactly what you would expect for a South African who had just recently moved to the US. It's like they had the Broad City writing staff pull double duty once Jon Stewart jumped ship.
New Zealand was started with colonists and look how badly that turned out.
You mean the 8th happiest country out of 155 measured? Ahead of Australia, the UK and the USA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You forget, he is from South Africa. He's not used to the level of blatant racism in America.
Freeze! Put your hands on your head! Don't move!
Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang! ...That black guy should have listened to the officer's(mutually exclusive) instructions!
I am pretty that at this point, if anything, England is province of United States, Though perhaps you are not sophisticated to realize that.
Uh, there is a huge amount of racism in South African and tensions between blacks and whites. If anything it's worse than the United States.
I mean, I've met probably 30 australians or so and I'll be damned if they aren't a bit of a stereotype.
It's not quite that simple. Why do you think he goes on the news and tries to make the coal industry look good? Why do you think he's suing anyone who points out his company's questionable practices?
The main issue is government regulation. If the government prohibits coal companies from putting their employees in dangerous situations, and prohibits coal companies from damaging the environment, *that* will cost them a lot of money. Whether that kind of regulation gets passed is entirely based on the level of public support. Preventing public support depends on nobody shining too bright a spotlight on his company's business practices.
Therefore, he's going to sue anyone who publicizes his company's business practices.
I believe the standard for winning such a case in the United States is:
The statements are false.
The person who ran the piece knew they were false.
Knowing they were false, you presented them in order to defame.
There was an actual harm or loss as a result of such defamation.
Merely making false statements is not enough.
I don't watch that show and have rarely seen a clip from it, but this article made me watch the clip. So at least in my case, the Streisand Effect is 100% in force.
And really Mr Murray did not say anything really stupid, *EXCEPT* for sending a cease and desist letter! If he had not done this I don't think this segment would have amounted to much of anything as you could actually defend his other statements.
If Australian accent is part of the set of "English accent of any kind" is not all American accents also part of that set? They are all speaking English albeit different variants. Then it would mean that speaking like swamp-living southern would lend sophistimacation and kasheeet to eenitheeng.
It will probably be thrown out of court.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You're a douche bag
Captcha: Republicans love big black cock
Don't worry, The Donald will try and fix this.
John Oliver makes no representation that he's a journalist. It's clear his show is a comedy. If you're dumb enough to consider him a journalist you'd be watching Fox News and wouldn't feel the need to tune into a weekly Sunday wrap up show.
Ooh that's handy!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This is how Trump makes his money.
Lawyer up and most people back down because they can't afford the fight.
I suspect HBO is drooling at the chance to take this Murray idiot to court.
Oh, shoot, now I have to lawyer up.
Idk, VICE News seems legit
shu' i' you silly bunt.
Hillary shill?? HAHAHHAHAHA. You never watched him at all. He was, is, and always will be a Bernie bro. Just because he didn't defect from the Democrat party when they fucked Bernie's chances up, doesn't mean he was shilling for her. He knows burning your house down when you didn't get ice cream for dinner is a stupid idea.
...and when you cant change the rules, whine on twitter like a little bitch...
I learned about how the British employed biological warfare against Native Americans during the "Siege of Fort Pitt" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt by watching the South Park episode "Red Man's Greed" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Man's_Greed.
So I concluded that South Park is a valuable journalistic resource for me.
Yes. The Onion's audience considers them a credible source indeed!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/27/china-kim-jong-un
The uploader has not made this video available in your country
I still do not understand. How are they not journalists?
Because the show is entertainment. Without the jokes, no one would watch.
Also, John says what every rational person is thinking about current news, which is cathartic. It's nice to know that you are not the only person who saw an absurdity that had occurred and been reported-on in the prior week.
That is why his show is on Sunday.
The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
The uploader has not made this video available in your country...
Because the show is entertainment. Without the jokes, no one would watch.
Sure. I don't disagree that it is entertaining and that they have more viewers primarily because of humor/jokes. However, if you took out the humor what would you have left? Or to ask it a different way, If you added humor to 60 minutes, how would that be different to LWT? Why is one journalism and one isn't?
What does "journalism" even have to do with anything?
Both the First Amendment and defamation laws apply equally to journalists and non-journalists alike. "Is he a journalist?" is - just plain irrelevant to the case.
Can confirm - my first fleet ancestor stole bread, the other a tablecloth. After a year we received ridiculous amounts of production land from the Crown, which we still own. Eventually though the dude smuggled his way back to the motherland to be with his mistress, according to historians.
The full episodes aren't on Youtube, only the main story.
You also don't see the full episode on Youtube, only the main story.
Except that he is trying to get people to leave him alone.
Maybe spending a lot of time on the media lying is not the best way to go about it.
Because pirates are stupid, and often pirate things even when there's a free legal source available.
When people use it to be informed on current events it ceases to be a "comedy show" even if they do jokes. 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.
Are you claiming Last Week Tonight makes their main segment (about a usually very boring subject) without the intent to inform people about it? Even if they present it a certain way, it is not just for shits and giggles.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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 ?
I could be wrong, but I think it's Oliver's sarcastic comments that Murray has a problem with.
That's not news, it's commentary, or parody, and it's protected speech.
He doesn't 'get away' with anything - there is no requirement to be neutral. If there was, it would make for some interesting first amendment case law - it's very established that the government cannot censor opinion, but are you suggesting there should be some requirement to compulsory speech that the writers, editors, and on-screen talent don't agree with? And if you present it as an editorial opinion, you get to "get away" without being compelled to do this?
That's complete nonsense.
Usually the punishment for a news organization that isn't neutral, is that they lose half the available audience. However, if there's anything we've learned from the Fox News / Breitbart / MSNBC / Daily Kos set, it's that neutrality really isn't that important, because you can just swerve farther from the middle to recoup any losses.
To reiterate succinctly: there's nothing to get away with, if there are no hard requirements.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I am not arguing what Murray's position is or whether what LWT is doing is protected speech or not. I am arguing the position from GGP: "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show". It is journalism. It is news. Adding sarcasm and jokes does not make it any less journalistic. From their site they are doing the news, politics, and current events with a satirical lens. Satire does not nullify the journalistic aspect and to claim that what he does is not journalism is disingenuous. Journalism and comedy show are not mutually exclusive.
That is why I ask about 60 minutes. They do basically the same thing save the humor/satire/jokes. If 60 minutes did have the humor, how would it be different to LWT? I have no problem with LWT doing journalism. In many regards they do a better job than other MSM journalists (which is more of a commentary on the poor state of affairs for MSM journalism than LWT).
If anything, I think this lawsuit makes it very clear what LWT is and isn't. If they are "only a comedy show" and it is only Oliver's opinion then Murray does have a case because the commentary is based on an opinion and not fact. If they are researching facts and telling the truth (regardless the satirical manner or not) then Murray doesn't have a case because the commentary is based on journalism reporting the facts. The manner in which LWT presents those facts do not degrade the validity of the facts nor does it change the reality those facts present regardless what Murray thinks of it.
To put it a different way, I can't call you a pedophile to defame you in a newspaper unless there is evidence (like an arrest record). Humor is irrelevant.
Neutral is a bad word to use but that was the word GP used. Bias is the proper word when talking about journalists but accuracy is the more important word for legalities in journalism.
but are you suggesting there should be some requirement to compulsory speech that the writers, editors, and on-screen talent don't agree with
No. I am saying that there is a requirement to report with accuracy that journalists are held to. All your examples of MSM try to report factually or at least do so in a way as to not slander or defame someone. They have their bias (which is what you are talking about for losing audience or recoup losses) and there isn't a legal requirement for that. Yes, I can say CNN and Fox are politically biased but that isn't illegal and they can have all the bias they want but I won't listen them.
there's nothing to get away with, if there are no hard requirements.
There are legal requirements for reporting on someone. The first amendment does not protect against libel, slander, and defamation.
Are you claiming Last Week Tonight makes their main segment (about a usually very boring subject) without the intent to inform people about it?
No.
Even if they present it a certain way, it is not just for shits and giggles.
Never said otherwise. My point is that their primary aim is to be funny. Oliver's been very explicit on this point when being interviewed. Everything else is important, sure, but secondary to the aim on skewering the world and making you laugh. To ignore that is folly.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
The left is so busy trying to hate that they won't even think about listening. Coal is used in Steel production - http://dailycaller.com/2017/04... . A lot of MSM outlets didn't even bother to look at what it was for, they just slammed it like the ignorant bunch they are.
I never said that there is protection against libel and slander. In fact, there's well known holes carved in protected speech for just those occurrences. However, it's on the accuser to prove the libel or slander, and those charges have very specific meanings.
It's on this litigious company to make the charge. This shit will never see trial - it's going to be dismissed well before it ever gets there.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I'm a fan of his, but come on, yes he was shilling for her. He basically tried to downplay all the fning info from the DNC leak as just minor kinks in the episode right before election.
FYI, that's not his entire show, just the main segment. His entire show is 40 minutes long
You forgot the millions of international subscribers too - its playing on almost every regional HBO mutation few days after HBO America. :)
Sure.
I remember the Daily Show used to have a tag line that said, "Where more Americans get their news than probably should." It seems quite apt. That might have even been back in the Craig Kilborn days, before Jon Stewart.
What case would Murray have? If what Oliver said is true, Murray has no case. If Oliver had reason to believe what he said, Murray has no case. US law is not nearly as favorable for slander and libel suits as that of some other countries.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
IIRC, and IANAL, presenting something ostensibly factual as "your opinion" doesn't get you off the libel hook. It's still hard to win a libel suit. Murray would have to show that Oliver's statements were false, and that he had no good reason to think them true, and show some actual harm. This isn't the case in all countries, but the US has unusually strong free speech protections.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you tell outright lies about someone, and said lies hurt that someone, you can lose big in the US also.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The leftists I know realize that coal is used in things other than electricity generation, and that it will take a long time to get rid of it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We are both saying' if' which makes a lot this speculative and beside the original point being made. However, having a case or having grounds to stand on (other language I have used to describe this in other comments) doesn't necessarily mean he is right, the courts will side with him, or that he will win the case. It just means that on the face of it there is more substance to his argument that could have a legal basis. After all, someone saying an unfavorable opinion another person is more likely to defame someone than if you were stating facts.
TBH, I don't think Murray has a case. When I watch the episode in question from LWT it seems very thorough with the facts and research, as with other episodes of LWT (it's one side of the story obviously so there could be something more but I don't know with what I have seen). The original point I am trying to make is that LWT are journalists even if they do it in a comedic fashion.
There is an interesting case being argued for libel in the US about pink slime. It is rather interesting because there is legitimacy to both claims. On the one hand, ABC was well within their right to report on BPI for their product and used the term 'pink slime'. On the other hand, the USDA recognizes that pink slime is safe and there are no problems with consumption so the addition of those statements put consumers off needlessly for no reason for the public benefit that costed BPI money.
The Electoral College is part of the constitution, so cannot be unconstitutional by itself.
The best you could do is argue that the 14th Amendment and the Electoral College are in conflict with each other, and that the 14th Amendment is more important than the Electoral College and therefore must win. Good luck with that.
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.
I watched his show, and he presented facts. Is presenting facts a defamation? Robert E. Murray may win, but I hope it's only one dollar. He is not worth more.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Facts are a defence against defamation in the USA. I don't think Murray has won any of his lawsuits.
The leftists I know realize that coal is used in things other than electricity generation, and that it will take a long time to get rid of it.
Really? I feel like this is a test to see how gullible I am. They really do exist along with Santa and the M&Ms character candies? I bet I could ask 100 leftists at a convention and not find one that would know there is some other use for coal.
I didn't mean to indict the left that much, people on the right often think that's the only use as well. I happen to know about steel. However the right doesn't seem to just go psycho on things like the left does. They even go after each other, for example the women's march. It was funny, the black women saying the white women don't count. They have no idea what it's like. Also it wasn't for all women, for example those that are against abortion. Now it's just getting silly with that woman that's claiming she's trans-race. What next, we get to pick our own relatives? I joke... watch that'll be the next bit of insanity. At some point we all need to admit there's a mental problem. I think we're way past that point.
Ah, Politics.
"Because the alt-reich hate, hate, hate, HATE the guy"
No, he is not well enough known to be hated.
Apparently the cat got your tongue. Maybe because you're barking up a tree without a paddle?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The show is listed as a comedy/talk show, and 60 minutes as a news show. Any particular viewer's opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Regardless, the rules are the same for both.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The first amendment does not protect against libel, slander, and defamation.
Read the part that says, no law. That is exactly what it means. Unlike the word "reasonable", which is also sprinkled around, there is no room for any ambiguity whatsoever.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
k?
does his audience use it as an authoritative informed source of information on the topics discussed?
how is he not a journalist.
Because he didn't claim to be one. That simple. The label is yours, not his.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What 'free pass' are you talking about? That makes no sense.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
so what? does he do what journalists do?
Who cares? That still doesn't make him a journalist. Only his claim to such would make him one. I talk with people about the news also. That doesn't make me a journalist by any means.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It is rather interesting because there is legitimacy to both claims.
No, there is not. Calling it 'pink slime' is not libel in any fashion. The case should have been thrown out with extreme prejudice.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
[Plastic American accent needed] That would be the Awstrayliah of Wight? Didn't the Beetles do a song abaht your home? Ticket to Ryde? Did you know John Lemon?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I have to wonder how much of Trevor Noah sucking is because of the writers.
It's the writers leaving and all the good correspondents (like Oliver and Samantha Bee, Jason Jones, etcetc) leaving as well. The new guys are horrible actors and unfunny comedians.
Because your legal opinion is something to fawn at. I wait with baited breathe for your legal expertise and analysis on the case as it has developed so far and why the judges were in err to let it go to trial.
how much of the thread did you read? Clearly a lot of people do care. It started with CodeArtisan saying "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show that mentions current events". I doesn't matter even though millions of people use his show to inform their political decisions and behavior? Sure thing, I guess but I disagree.
I talk with people about the news also. That doesn't make me a journalist by any means.
Do you have a team of researchers? Do you present that research to millions of people as facts? Do those millions of people use that research and facts to inform their politics and behavior? Then why the hell do you think "I talk about news" even remotely comes near to what is being discussed. You are a bad troll.
You're just being silly. 'CodeArtisan' is completely correct with that assessment. Just because somebody takes the show seriously does not make it journalism. That is a totally whack idea. And I still have to ask, what difference does it make if it was? What is he supposed to do to make you happy? Sorry, you are nuts. He does a comedy show and is in no way responsible for how people take it. That is their own personal problem.
And as far as trolling goes, I have to admit you are a good one. You sure got me fished in, and a bunch of other people too. Congrats!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Because it is a simple free speech issue, and judges do err all the time. We have lots of innocents behind bars for it too. The bullshit is pretty transparent, but, eh, what the hell, just roll with it, right?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Oliver himself has said on occasion "I am NOT a journalist". He claims to be a comedian.
that some grade A legal analysis. can I can a bibliography of references to back it up?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [emph mine]
Couldn't be more obvious
You seem to believe that judges are infallible.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
gee whitikers. i wonder if there are preceding court cases that established an implementation of other laws that the judges used in justifying bring the case to trial. could you elaborate on that and help me understand why these judges would not see it as frivolously as you? or is libel, slander, and defamation legal according to that text?
It couldn't be simpler, but you have convinced me that Poe's law is at play here and you are performing shtick, or is it 'journalism'?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
oh my. i guess libel slander and defamation are legal. i wonder where my research team and millions of viewers are. hey. it's not like journalism is lacking any ethics or integrity these days. but then again a pedo like u wouldn't care about ethics, amirite? after all, no law can prohibit my free speech! libel, slander, and defamation be damned. those laws and court rulings are judges in err. -.-
u haven't thought this through, have you?
i guess libel slander and defamation are legal.
They are simply bullshit terms to protect powerful people.
then again a pedo like u wouldn't care about ethics, amirite?
Ah, so now you engage in projection. Very revealing!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There's idiots all over the political spectum (spectra?). I suspect you've been seeing many more left-wing idiots than a random sample would give you.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
lol, wow you're dumb.
Now, there's a comeback I can believe in! Like so many before, you win the internet. Your gold star is on the dresser.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
yay, i got the approval of an idiot.
Well there ya go. At least somebody loves you
Peace out
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
WRONG!
The 3/5 compromise was part of the Constitution and WAS unconstitutional after amendment!
Likewise the definition of who was eligible to stand for Congress or President was limited to MEN, until the 19th Amendment CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION!
That's what "amend" means.
Too stupid to think? Be a republican't!!
That's an interesting case to make, that the 14th Amendment conflicts with the 12th Amendment. There isn't a supremacy clause in the Constitution. Interesting. Good luck with that. Hire some lawyers. Maybe you'll be famous.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Works every time an honest court looks at the issues
Bad news?
5-4, this isn't an honest court
Yeah, it's a lot like during a poker tournament and one player at the table builds up a huge lead. They can then just lean on the other players and push them out one by one by virtue of being able to afford playing more aggressively. Murray and the POTUS (:Shudder::) have the benefit of money to burn, unlike the people they generally sue. And when they do sue someone with deep pockets, like HBO in this case, they have the benefit of knowing the lawyers for the other guy will be rational and do what's it their own financial interest, even if it means backing down. They win both cases because they are rich and don't give a fuck.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde