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."
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
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?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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."
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.
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
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
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?
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?
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
...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.
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.