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."
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
Mad Max wasn't a movie, it was a documentary.
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 ~
why link to re-uploads from 3rd-parties when TFA has a link to the original video from LWT on youtube ?
"life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
Also, it seems like it might cause a Streisand effect. Wouldn't that be lovely.
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.
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
The original video doesn't work in all regions, one being the UK.
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 :-)
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.
She's the one who always draws undue attention to negative publicity about herself right? What was she originally famous for in the first place?
(/s in case it's not obvious)
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
What was she originally famous for in the first place?
She was one of the original voice actors on South Park.
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.