#murdoch — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #murdoch, aggregated by home.social.
-
Watching #maamlalegalhai on #netflix. When we were in India reading the paper was brilliant. The #Indian #English is so much more interesting, eloquent and succinct and it was reflected on their better standards in the newspaper. Reading the court cases and the legal implications was fascinating. It is terrible how our #journalism has been trashed because of the grip #murdoch has on it. Bring back interesting articles instead of constant boring BS.
-
Watching #maamlalegalhai on #netflix. When we were in India reading the paper was brilliant. The #Indian #English is so much more interesting, eloquent and succinct and it was reflected on their better standards in the newspaper. Reading the court cases and the legal implications was fascinating. It is terrible how our #journalism has been trashed because of the grip #murdoch has on it. Bring back interesting articles instead of constant boring BS.
-
#ThisWasNews one year ago:
Trump sues Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch over reporting on Epstein ties.
#Trump #WSJ #Murdoch #EpsteinFiles #Epstein
See what else was news. Reply to comment publicly or say 'remind me in 30 days'
-
#ThisWasNews one year ago:
Trump sues Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch over reporting on Epstein ties.
#Trump #WSJ #Murdoch #EpsteinFiles #Epstein
See what else was news. Reply to comment publicly or say 'remind me in 30 days'
-
Update in #Trump v. #Murdoch and the #WSJ #Defamation #Lawsuit over reports of the #Epstein Birthday Book (25-cv-23232) District Court, S.D. Florida https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/
We have [Doc 74] an order scheduling a hearing for the two motions which have been briefed.
2026/08/05 We will have the best Florida lawyers argue against whoever Trump brings.
> PAPERLESS ORDER setting a hearing on 68 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and 69 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The hearing shall take place on August 5, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. before United States District Judge Darrin Gayles at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Courtroom 11-1, Miami, Florida.
-
Update in #Trump v. #Murdoch and the #WSJ #Defamation #Lawsuit over reports of the #Epstein Birthday Book (25-cv-23232) District Court, S.D. Florida https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/
We have [Doc 74] an order scheduling a hearing for the two motions which have been briefed.
2026/08/05 We will have the best Florida lawyers argue against whoever Trump brings.
> PAPERLESS ORDER setting a hearing on 68 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and 69 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The hearing shall take place on August 5, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. before United States District Judge Darrin Gayles at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Courtroom 11-1, Miami, Florida.
-
"You’ve marched. You’ve donated for aid. Here’s another way to fight back within our home: help fund a Federal Court case against News Corp for how it portrayed Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims." #australia #australianpolitics #murdoch #newscorp #zionistlobby #israelism https://ritajabrimarkwell.substack.com/p/help-us-hold-news-corp-australia
-
"You’ve marched. You’ve donated for aid. Here’s another way to fight back within our home: help fund a Federal Court case against News Corp for how it portrayed Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims." #australia #australianpolitics #murdoch #newscorp #zionistlobby #israelism https://ritajabrimarkwell.substack.com/p/help-us-hold-news-corp-australia
-
Also in that vein:
> Faced with an inability to plead even the most basic elements of his libel claim, in his Opposition (the “Opposition” or “Opp.”) to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion” or “Mot.”),[This Reply uses the same abbreviations and capitalizations as in Defendants’ Motion.] Plaintiff President Donald J. Trump abandons allegations in the FAC, mischaracterizes the case law, recycles allegations this Court already rejected, and attempts to rewrite the Article by falsely claiming that it states that the letter bearing his name in the Birthday Book contains his “authentic signature.” Opp. 8. The Article does not say that, and this telling mischaracterization underscores the many ways in which his FAC is fatally flawed. Even with the luxury of amendment, Plaintiff does not — and cannot — plead that Defendants acted with actual malice. In addition, the Article is not defamatory, is substantially true, and Plaintiff has not pled special damages. Plaintiff has now been given ample opportunity to state a defamation claim and has failed to do so. The FAC should be dismissed, this time with prejudice, and Defendants should be awarded the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending against this meritless action.
Doc 72, 2026/07/01, “Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint,” page 1 in #Trump v. #Murdoch and #WSJ over breaking news of the #Epstein birthday book letter apparently from DJT who really needs a Florida court to rule him a vexatious serial litigant whose reputation is such that he’s “defamation-proof” — put that in a gilt frame and he might hang it on the Oval Office wall.
-
Also in that vein:
> Faced with an inability to plead even the most basic elements of his libel claim, in his Opposition (the “Opposition” or “Opp.”) to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion” or “Mot.”),[This Reply uses the same abbreviations and capitalizations as in Defendants’ Motion.] Plaintiff President Donald J. Trump abandons allegations in the FAC, mischaracterizes the case law, recycles allegations this Court already rejected, and attempts to rewrite the Article by falsely claiming that it states that the letter bearing his name in the Birthday Book contains his “authentic signature.” Opp. 8. The Article does not say that, and this telling mischaracterization underscores the many ways in which his FAC is fatally flawed. Even with the luxury of amendment, Plaintiff does not — and cannot — plead that Defendants acted with actual malice. In addition, the Article is not defamatory, is substantially true, and Plaintiff has not pled special damages. Plaintiff has now been given ample opportunity to state a defamation claim and has failed to do so. The FAC should be dismissed, this time with prejudice, and Defendants should be awarded the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending against this meritless action.
Doc 72, 2026/07/01, “Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint,” page 1 in #Trump v. #Murdoch and #WSJ over breaking news of the #Epstein birthday book letter apparently from DJT who really needs a Florida court to rule him a vexatious serial litigant whose reputation is such that he’s “defamation-proof” — put that in a gilt frame and he might hang it on the Oval Office wall.
-
It is uncivil of me to refer to Trump’s lawyers in Trump v. Murdoch as unserious, clownish, or sparkle-magic. However there is a civil way to tell the judge the same thing:
> Plaintiff offers no justification for starting discovery while Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the FAC (“Motion to Dismiss”) is pending. Instead, he resorts to strawman arguments and misrepresentations. For example, he argues that Defendants “speculat[e]” that Plaintiff “might” pursue Murdoch’s deposition first, Stay Mot. Opp. 4, a disingenuous argument given that Plaintiff informed Defendants that he intends to “commence” discovery by deposing Murdoch first, see Stay Mot. Bolger Decl. Ex. 1. Plaintiff then repeatedly asserts that Defendants seek an “indefinite” discovery stay, see Stay Mot. Opp. 4, 6, 11, 13-14, 16, when of course all Defendants seek is a finite stay pending resolution of their Motion to Dismiss. And finally, Plaintiff offers no reason why the discovery stay governing the first round of briefing — one he agreed to — should not similarly apply here, especially after this Court already once concluded that Plaintiff’s defamation claim was inadequately pled.
Doc 73, 2026/07/01 “Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Motion to Stay Discovery”, page 1, in #Trump v. #Murdoch and the #WSJ in a #Defamation #lawsuit
So they may have sacrificed their legal education on the altar of Trump’s ongoing grievances with reality, but I’m sure their mothers loved them until they sued in federal court for $Billions over household chores.
-
It is uncivil of me to refer to Trump’s lawyers in Trump v. Murdoch as unserious, clownish, or sparkle-magic. However there is a civil way to tell the judge the same thing:
> Plaintiff offers no justification for starting discovery while Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the FAC (“Motion to Dismiss”) is pending. Instead, he resorts to strawman arguments and misrepresentations. For example, he argues that Defendants “speculat[e]” that Plaintiff “might” pursue Murdoch’s deposition first, Stay Mot. Opp. 4, a disingenuous argument given that Plaintiff informed Defendants that he intends to “commence” discovery by deposing Murdoch first, see Stay Mot. Bolger Decl. Ex. 1. Plaintiff then repeatedly asserts that Defendants seek an “indefinite” discovery stay, see Stay Mot. Opp. 4, 6, 11, 13-14, 16, when of course all Defendants seek is a finite stay pending resolution of their Motion to Dismiss. And finally, Plaintiff offers no reason why the discovery stay governing the first round of briefing — one he agreed to — should not similarly apply here, especially after this Court already once concluded that Plaintiff’s defamation claim was inadequately pled.
Doc 73, 2026/07/01 “Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Motion to Stay Discovery”, page 1, in #Trump v. #Murdoch and the #WSJ in a #Defamation #lawsuit
So they may have sacrificed their legal education on the altar of Trump’s ongoing grievances with reality, but I’m sure their mothers loved them until they sued in federal court for $Billions over household chores.
-
'When all else fails, “murdoching” is “simply continuing to assert something as true as if no one has ever shown it was false...Instead of it being a way to hold power to account, Murdoch saw it as a means of holding individuals to account”'
-
'When all else fails, “murdoching” is “simply continuing to assert something as true as if no one has ever shown it was false...Instead of it being a way to hold power to account, Murdoch saw it as a means of holding individuals to account”'
-
‘This is the dark art’: New book claims pattern of personal attacks by Murdoch media empire
#media #murdoch #journalism #foxnews -
‘This is the dark art’: New book claims pattern of personal attacks by Murdoch media empire
#media #murdoch #journalism #foxnews -
We also have Trump's Doc 71, [Trump]'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
[Murdoch and the WSJ's] Motion[69] to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [67]It also suffers by being tied to the defects of the First Amended Complaint, but these aren't Trump's serious lawyers so they go too far.
> Defendants have not been served with any discovery requests.
— p. 15, Doc 17.
Yeah, no. These are the people who tired to get a deposition at a time there was no operative complaint. Much like Trump himself, his lawyers are losing a credibility war with AI-produced LEGO videos and Rupert Murdoch.
#Trump v. #Murdoch and the #WSJ #Defamation #Lawsuit (25-cv-23232) District Court, S.D. Florida
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/I think the judge is going to need a murder board to connect Trump's lawyers statement of the case and issues with the actual facts and laws which still seem mostly on Murdoch's side. Hopefully the reply briefs will be informative to the judge.
-
We also have Trump's Doc 71, [Trump]'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
[Murdoch and the WSJ's] Motion[69] to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [67]It also suffers by being tied to the defects of the First Amended Complaint, but these aren't Trump's serious lawyers so they go too far.
> Defendants have not been served with any discovery requests.
— p. 15, Doc 17.
Yeah, no. These are the people who tired to get a deposition at a time there was no operative complaint. Much like Trump himself, his lawyers are losing a credibility war with AI-produced LEGO videos and Rupert Murdoch.
#Trump v. #Murdoch and the #WSJ #Defamation #Lawsuit (25-cv-23232) District Court, S.D. Florida
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/I think the judge is going to need a murder board to connect Trump's lawyers statement of the case and issues with the actual facts and laws which still seem mostly on Murdoch's side. Hopefully the reply briefs will be informative to the judge.
-
Also, when the press reports on this as “#Trump’s $10 billion #lawsuit versus #Murdoch and the #WallStreetJournal” be smug that you know the FAC has two operative $10 billion demands — Doc 67 is a $20 billion clownish complaint.
#Trump v. #Murdoch (1:25-cv-23232, District Court, S.D. Florida) #Lawsuit https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/
-
Also, when the press reports on this as “#Trump’s $10 billion #lawsuit versus #Murdoch and the #WallStreetJournal” be smug that you know the FAC has two operative $10 billion demands — Doc 67 is a $20 billion clownish complaint.
#Trump v. #Murdoch (1:25-cv-23232, District Court, S.D. Florida) #Lawsuit https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/
-
2026/06/10 Update in #Trump v. #Murdoch #Lawsuit
In two filings, we get 1️⃣ the expected Motion to Dismiss to the bogus First Amended Complaint (FAC) which incorporates by reference the letter from the book of well-wishers to #Epstein on the occasion of his birthday — i.e. exactly the document that the dismissed first complaint claimed didn’t exist and was never seen by anyone, and we get 2️⃣ a new motion to stay discovery until the new motion to dismiss is adjudicated. Why? Because Brito’s law firm want to perform an apex deposition of Rupert Murdoch — before the discovery phase has even begun — in an attempt to harass the guy and maybe run some gotcha questions at him to prove he thinks Trump is scum, because Brito doesn’t understand the actual malice standard.
This is not the first time they tried this, and one of their attempts was staged at a time when there wasn’t even an operative complaint.
So we should soon see *something* from Trump’s more clown-like lawyers as Murdoch’s not knuckling under like a common CBS.
-
2026/06/10 Update in #Trump v. #Murdoch #Lawsuit
In two filings, we get 1️⃣ the expected Motion to Dismiss to the bogus First Amended Complaint (FAC) which incorporates by reference the letter from the book of well-wishers to #Epstein on the occasion of his birthday — i.e. exactly the document that the dismissed first complaint claimed didn’t exist and was never seen by anyone, and we get 2️⃣ a new motion to stay discovery until the new motion to dismiss is adjudicated. Why? Because Brito’s law firm want to perform an apex deposition of Rupert Murdoch — before the discovery phase has even begun — in an attempt to harass the guy and maybe run some gotcha questions at him to prove he thinks Trump is scum, because Brito doesn’t understand the actual malice standard.
This is not the first time they tried this, and one of their attempts was staged at a time when there wasn’t even an operative complaint.
So we should soon see *something* from Trump’s more clown-like lawyers as Murdoch’s not knuckling under like a common CBS.
-
How are these are honest + principled observations @[email protected] from #michellemilthorpe?
Reminder that the only difference between #OneNation + #MichelleMilthorpe is a few acres/side hustles of the billionaires funding them, who both funded the #bushsummit.
#agriculture #murdoch -
Arte diffuse pendant un an la série The Hack qui aborde le scandale du piratage téléphonique par News International. https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/RC-027900/the-hack-sur-ecoute
-
Arte diffuse pendant un an la série The Hack qui aborde le scandale du piratage téléphonique par News International. https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/RC-027900/the-hack-sur-ecoute
-
When the Seth Lord dies will the Emperor Dotard be replaced, and his Empire fall? There is no get out of hell free card when you bet on ecocide! #Murdoch #SethLord https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/21/power-and-scandal-how-murdoch-drove-the-uk-us-and-australia-to-the-right
-
When the Seth Lord dies will the Emperor Dotard be replaced, and his Empire fall? There is no get out of hell free card when you bet on ecocide! #Murdoch #SethLord https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/21/power-and-scandal-how-murdoch-drove-the-uk-us-and-australia-to-the-right
-
arte - the hack
lohnt sich
Zwischen 2002 und 2011 wurden im Vereinigten Königreich tausende Mobiltelefon-Mailboxen von Prominenten, Politikern und anonymen Bürgern abgehört. Hinter der Handy-Spionage stand eine Zeitung aus Rupert Murdochs Medienimperium.
https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/RC-027900/the-hack/
#uk #mail #hack #arte #sun #murdoch #guardian #Tennant #Carlyle #Jones
-
arte - the hack
lohnt sich
Zwischen 2002 und 2011 wurden im Vereinigten Königreich tausende Mobiltelefon-Mailboxen von Prominenten, Politikern und anonymen Bürgern abgehört. Hinter der Handy-Spionage stand eine Zeitung aus Rupert Murdochs Medienimperium.
https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/RC-027900/the-hack/
#uk #mail #hack #arte #sun #murdoch #guardian #Tennant #Carlyle #Jones
-
@jhaue I think that's exactly what's happening. A lot of what gets presented as "public opinion" is really the result of concentrated money and media influence. You've got Gina Rinehart buying media stakes while backing Hanson financially, and the Murdoch press lining up behind Abbott and the Liberals. That doesn't feel like grassroots politics so much as powerful interests shaping the conversation.
It's a familiar pattern: wealthy resource interests, supportive media outlets, and a fragmented right working together to push the political debate in a particular direction. With Nine/Fairfax one of the few major media groups not fully in that camp, it's hard not to wonder how much genuine diversity of opinion remains in the media landscape.
Stronger media ownership rules and greater transparency around political donations would be a good start. Otherwise, a small group of very powerful players will keep having an outsized influence on the issues that dominate public debate.#AusPol #MediaOwnership #PoliticalDonations #Murdoch #Democracy #MediaDiversity #Transparency #Australia
-
@jhaue I think that's exactly what's happening. A lot of what gets presented as "public opinion" is really the result of concentrated money and media influence. You've got Gina Rinehart buying media stakes while backing Hanson financially, and the Murdoch press lining up behind Abbott and the Liberals. That doesn't feel like grassroots politics so much as powerful interests shaping the conversation.
It's a familiar pattern: wealthy resource interests, supportive media outlets, and a fragmented right working together to push the political debate in a particular direction. With Nine/Fairfax one of the few major media groups not fully in that camp, it's hard not to wonder how much genuine diversity of opinion remains in the media landscape.
Stronger media ownership rules and greater transparency around political donations would be a good start. Otherwise, a small group of very powerful players will keep having an outsized influence on the issues that dominate public debate.#AusPol #MediaOwnership #PoliticalDonations #Murdoch #Democracy #MediaDiversity #Transparency #Australia
-
@jhaue I think that's exactly what's happening. A lot of what gets presented as "public opinion" is really the result of concentrated money and media influence. You've got Gina Rinehart buying media stakes while backing Hanson financially, and the Murdoch press lining up behind Abbott and the Liberals. That doesn't feel like grassroots politics so much as powerful interests shaping the conversation.
It's a familiar pattern: wealthy resource interests, supportive media outlets, and a fragmented right working together to push the political debate in a particular direction. With Nine/Fairfax one of the few major media groups not fully in that camp, it's hard not to wonder how much genuine diversity of opinion remains in the media landscape.
Stronger media ownership rules and greater transparency around political donations would be a good start. Otherwise, a small group of very powerful players will keep having an outsized influence on the issues that dominate public debate.#AusPol #MediaOwnership #PoliticalDonations #Murdoch #Democracy #MediaDiversity #Transparency #Australia
-
@jhaue I think that's exactly what's happening. A lot of what gets presented as "public opinion" is really the result of concentrated money and media influence. You've got Gina Rinehart buying media stakes while backing Hanson financially, and the Murdoch press lining up behind Abbott and the Liberals. That doesn't feel like grassroots politics so much as powerful interests shaping the conversation.
It's a familiar pattern: wealthy resource interests, supportive media outlets, and a fragmented right working together to push the political debate in a particular direction. With Nine/Fairfax one of the few major media groups not fully in that camp, it's hard not to wonder how much genuine diversity of opinion remains in the media landscape.
Stronger media ownership rules and greater transparency around political donations would be a good start. Otherwise, a small group of very powerful players will keep having an outsized influence on the issues that dominate public debate.#AusPol #MediaOwnership #PoliticalDonations #Murdoch #Democracy #MediaDiversity #Transparency #Australia
-
@jhaue I think that's exactly what's happening. A lot of what gets presented as "public opinion" is really the result of concentrated money and media influence. You've got Gina Rinehart buying media stakes while backing Hanson financially, and the Murdoch press lining up behind Abbott and the Liberals. That doesn't feel like grassroots politics so much as powerful interests shaping the conversation.
It's a familiar pattern: wealthy resource interests, supportive media outlets, and a fragmented right working together to push the political debate in a particular direction. With Nine/Fairfax one of the few major media groups not fully in that camp, it's hard not to wonder how much genuine diversity of opinion remains in the media landscape.
Stronger media ownership rules and greater transparency around political donations would be a good start. Otherwise, a small group of very powerful players will keep having an outsized influence on the issues that dominate public debate.#AusPol #MediaOwnership #PoliticalDonations #Murdoch #Democracy #MediaDiversity #Transparency #Australia
-
2025/07/27 #Trump v. #Murdoch (1:25-cv-23232, District Court, S.D. Florida) #Lawsuit https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/
Old ⁋27: "Notably, Murdoch and Thomson authorized the publication of the Article after President Trump put them both on notice that the letter was fake and nonexistent."
Pick a lane!
New ⁋⁋ 29-36: Convicted Felon Ghislaine Maxwell who can be granted a pardon by Trump if only she makes this Epstein connection just go away "cannot recall" if Trump sent Epstein a letter. Everyone else is dead.
A footnote suggests Trump made the DOJ ask her that question in July, 2025, something like a week after the initial complaint was filed.
New ⁋⁋ 50-75: Grasping a straws, strawmen, and bad arguments, Trump's lawyers attempt to flesh out an Actual Malice claim. But at the core they rest heavily on the believe if Trump says a thing it is true no matter what your lying eyes tells you. That's not how actual malice works.
Trump complains a lot that they don't reveal sources and methods in the article.
But just because the WSJ published an article without their journalistic notes and tradescraft doesn't mean there is evidence of its absence.
———
> I would move immediately for a rule 11 motion ... tell them they have 21 days to withdraw this filing or they're going to you're going to file a motion for sanctions and for attorneys fees.
> This actual malice allegations I think is worse than what was put in the first complaint. And if I were the judge, I would do that and I'd file a bar complaint or make a bar referral to the Florida bar for these two lawyers having uh having brought this into the court, right? And violated their ethical standards in doing so.
-
2025/07/27 #Trump v. #Murdoch (1:25-cv-23232, District Court, S.D. Florida) #Lawsuit https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/
Old ⁋27: "Notably, Murdoch and Thomson authorized the publication of the Article after President Trump put them both on notice that the letter was fake and nonexistent."
Pick a lane!
New ⁋⁋ 29-36: Convicted Felon Ghislaine Maxwell who can be granted a pardon by Trump if only she makes this Epstein connection just go away "cannot recall" if Trump sent Epstein a letter. Everyone else is dead.
A footnote suggests Trump made the DOJ ask her that question in July, 2025, something like a week after the initial complaint was filed.
New ⁋⁋ 50-75: Grasping a straws, strawmen, and bad arguments, Trump's lawyers attempt to flesh out an Actual Malice claim. But at the core they rest heavily on the believe if Trump says a thing it is true no matter what your lying eyes tells you. That's not how actual malice works.
Trump complains a lot that they don't reveal sources and methods in the article.
But just because the WSJ published an article without their journalistic notes and tradescraft doesn't mean there is evidence of its absence.
———
> I would move immediately for a rule 11 motion ... tell them they have 21 days to withdraw this filing or they're going to you're going to file a motion for sanctions and for attorneys fees.
> This actual malice allegations I think is worse than what was put in the first complaint. And if I were the judge, I would do that and I'd file a bar complaint or make a bar referral to the Florida bar for these two lawyers having uh having brought this into the court, right? And violated their ethical standards in doing so.
-
RE: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Arpie4Math/116617832344253295
2025/07/27 #Trump v. #Murdoch (1:25-cv-23232, District Court, S.D. Florida) #Lawsuit
Trump attempts to revive his lawsuit which failed to plausibly pled actual malice:
Old ⁋13: "counsel for President Trump sent an email ... advising that the intended article was false"
New ⁋13: "[Karoline] Leavitt called ... to explain ... that the subject matter of the article ... was false"
New ⁋14: As old ⁋13.
New ⁋16: "Trump spoke to Murdoch ... and told him that the premise of the article was categorically false, and that he had not signed or sent a letter ..."
New ⁋17: Murdoch said "I will handle it" which assuaged Trump.
But the article was obviously published.
Old ⁋21: "the Article does not attach the purported letter, does not identify the purported drawing, nor does it show any proof that President Trump has anything to do with it."
New ⁋24: Adds "which he did not."
Neither version explains why the Estate gave Congress a whole book of birthday wishes which contains one very like that in the article.
Old ⁋22: "[It] does not explain whether Defendants have obtained a copy of the letter, have seen it, have had it described to them, or any other circumstances that would otherwise lend credibility to the Article. That is because the supposed letter is a fake and the Defendants knew it when they chose to deliberately defame President Trump."
New ⁋25: "[It] does not explain if or how Defendants Safdar, Palazzolo, Dow Jones, and News Corp even obtained a copy of the supposed letter. That is the case because they never obtained such a copy of the nonexistent letter."
This is a completely different theory of falsity and weakens all pre-lawsuit denials if they are only saying this now.
-
RE: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Arpie4Math/116617832344253295
2025/07/27 #Trump v. #Murdoch (1:25-cv-23232, District Court, S.D. Florida) #Lawsuit
Trump attempts to revive his lawsuit which failed to plausibly pled actual malice:
Old ⁋13: "counsel for President Trump sent an email ... advising that the intended article was false"
New ⁋13: "[Karoline] Leavitt called ... to explain ... that the subject matter of the article ... was false"
New ⁋14: As old ⁋13.
New ⁋16: "Trump spoke to Murdoch ... and told him that the premise of the article was categorically false, and that he had not signed or sent a letter ..."
New ⁋17: Murdoch said "I will handle it" which assuaged Trump.
But the article was obviously published.
Old ⁋21: "the Article does not attach the purported letter, does not identify the purported drawing, nor does it show any proof that President Trump has anything to do with it."
New ⁋24: Adds "which he did not."
Neither version explains why the Estate gave Congress a whole book of birthday wishes which contains one very like that in the article.
Old ⁋22: "[It] does not explain whether Defendants have obtained a copy of the letter, have seen it, have had it described to them, or any other circumstances that would otherwise lend credibility to the Article. That is because the supposed letter is a fake and the Defendants knew it when they chose to deliberately defame President Trump."
New ⁋25: "[It] does not explain if or how Defendants Safdar, Palazzolo, Dow Jones, and News Corp even obtained a copy of the supposed letter. That is the case because they never obtained such a copy of the nonexistent letter."
This is a completely different theory of falsity and weakens all pre-lawsuit denials if they are only saying this now.
-
Australia’s media ownership is becoming more concentrated by the day. Gina Rinehart quietly helped bankroll almost 10% of the company behind Channel Seven, Triple M, Hit radio, and major podcast networks, through a former Seven executive acting on her behalf.
When billionaires can quietly expand influence over the media that shapes public opinion, democracy suffers.
The body meant to regulate Australia’s media is funded by the very outlets it’s supposed to oversee. That is not independent regulation.
More than 27,000 people have already signed the petition calling for a truly independent media regulator. Add your name and demand accountability before even more media power ends up in fewer hands.
#auspol #media #murdoch #ginarinehart #channel7 #democracy #journalism #getup #australia
-
Australia’s media ownership is becoming more concentrated by the day. Gina Rinehart quietly helped bankroll almost 10% of the company behind Channel Seven, Triple M, Hit radio, and major podcast networks, through a former Seven executive acting on her behalf.
When billionaires can quietly expand influence over the media that shapes public opinion, democracy suffers.
The body meant to regulate Australia’s media is funded by the very outlets it’s supposed to oversee. That is not independent regulation.
More than 27,000 people have already signed the petition calling for a truly independent media regulator. Add your name and demand accountability before even more media power ends up in fewer hands.
#auspol #media #murdoch #ginarinehart #channel7 #democracy #journalism #getup #australia
-
Australia’s media ownership is becoming more concentrated by the day. Gina Rinehart quietly helped bankroll almost 10% of the company behind Channel Seven, Triple M, Hit radio, and major podcast networks, through a former Seven executive acting on her behalf.
When billionaires can quietly expand influence over the media that shapes public opinion, democracy suffers.
The body meant to regulate Australia’s media is funded by the very outlets it’s supposed to oversee. That is not independent regulation.
More than 27,000 people have already signed the petition calling for a truly independent media regulator. Add your name and demand accountability before even more media power ends up in fewer hands.
#auspol #media #murdoch #ginarinehart #channel7 #democracy #journalism #getup #australia
