Coal executive sues John Oliver for making him sad

[Travis]

In case you missed it last week on Last Week Tonight (trying saying that five times fast) John Oliver dove into the coal industry. And he noted, right at the start, that one evil coal baron named Bob Murray had actually sent them a Cease & Desist letter.

Naturally this wasn't going to deter Oliver who then dedicated most of the last part of the episode into exposing how Murray is hated by his own employees and probably has gotten many of them killed. Also there is a talking squirrel.

Oliver made a point to only cite official government reports through the entire thing but did that stop Murray from going through on his threat of suing? Nope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...a-coal-industry-titan/?utm_term=.5e82f449328b

In the complaint it actually says this: "Nothing has ever stressed him more than this vicious and untruthful attack.”

Keep in mind that Murray had a mine collapse. Six miners were trapped and three rescuers died trying to get to them. This all stretched out over days. But not even that stressed him out as much as Oliver talking about him on TV.

 

[KatieG]

I watched that episode. I laughed and laughed and laughed. Do love John Oliver

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's the new era where billionaires simply sue to destroy any media that displeases them.

Like Gawker.

 

[Trebuchet]

Streisand Effect. I sincerely hope.

And since I just looked, a search for "Bob Murray Streisand" returns 5,710,000 results.

 

[Civet]

Huh. I'm going to have to make a point of watching the John Oliver bit that triggered him. Vaguely on-topic - one of the earliest Superman comic book stories involved him fighting unsafe mining practices.

 

[beren]

Huh. I'm going to have to make a point of watching the John Oliver bit that triggered him. Vaguely on-topic - one of the earliest Superman comic book stories involved him fighting unsafe mining practices.

Here it is.



Mods: this is officially uploaded by the show to their channel.

 

[Civet]

Here it is.



Mods: this is officially uploaded by the show to their channel.

Dang, that was one effective piece of journalism. Thanks for posting it. I'd be pretty pissed off if I was Bob Murray right now.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I read the Washington Post article. Maybe I missed something. Are Murray's lawyers pointing out, specifically, any false statements by John Oliver?

 

[Agatha]

I watched that (we get Last Week Tonight on a satellite channel, Sky Atlantic) and laughed a lot, especially at the squirrel.

 

[beren]

I read the Washington Post article. Maybe I missed something. Are Murray's lawyers pointing out, specifically, any false statements by John Oliver?

IIRC, they are claiming he deliberately ignored evidence of an earthquake to bias the story.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

IIRC, they are claiming he deliberately ignored evidence of an earthquake to bias the story.

Really? That's going to work out well.

 

[Giordano]

Streisand Effect. I sincerely hope.

And since I just looked, a search for "Bob Murray Streisand" returns 5,710,000 results.

That was exactly what I was thinking.

And IMHO I suspect that there is little expectation by Murray's lawyers of winning the suit, rather than to just use it as a threat to try to quiet Oliver. That strategy may work well against a private individual, but here is a situation where the defendant and the network have strong legal resources of their own and are likely to benefit more from the publicity than they might suffer from any extra legal costs.

 

[TragicMonkey]

here is a situation where the defendant and the network have strong legal resources of their own and are likely to benefit more from the publicity than they might suffer from any extra legal costs.

That was also true of Gawker. It just takes equal money on the other side, and the patience to keep on chipping away, and eventually you'll get a jury stupid enough to agree to destroy your enemy for you. Justice is now literally whatever you can afford.

 

[ddt]

IIRC, they are claiming he deliberately ignored evidence of an earthquake to bias the story.

Ignoring Murray's own reports on the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster seems as safe as ignoring Ken Ham's opinion on evolution. The MSHA fined him a record 1.83 million, i.a. for not disclosing another incident 5 months prior, and Murray lied about not knowing that.

That was exactly what I was thinking.

And IMHO I suspect that there is little expectation by Murray's lawyers of winning the suit, rather than to just use it as a threat to try to quiet Oliver. That strategy may work well against a private individual, but here is a situation where the defendant and the network have strong legal resources of their own and are likely to benefit more from the publicity than they might suffer from any extra legal costs.

It might bully a private individual or a small local paper into quiet, but not HBO and certainly not NYT. I'm sure they know the relevant case law there. None of Murray's cases has ever gone to court.

That was also true of Gawker. It just takes equal money on the other side, and the patience to keep on chipping away, and eventually you'll get a jury stupid enough to agree to destroy your enemy for you. Justice is now literally whatever you can afford.

Gawker's fault was publishing a private sex tape. That's invasion of privacy.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Gawker's fault was publishing a private sex tape. That's invasion of privacy.

And the woman in the McDonald's hot coffee case was just careless and greedy. Sometimes the superficial explanation isn't the whole of the matter.

 

[Giordano]

And the woman in the McDonald's hot coffee case was just careless and greedy. Sometimes the superficial explanation isn't the whole of the matter.

Although I do not agree with the size of the award, the details of the case indicate to me that it was not quite the one-sided travesty of injustice it is often held to be. The McDonald's coffee was much hotter than standard and remained so after repeated prior incidents and warnings; the women was much more severely burned as a result. Sure she was primarily responsible for her injuries in that she spilled the coffee, but it was a much more complicated case than often presented.

But I want to avoid derailing the thread. Certainly juries can be found who make stupid and injustice decisions. But even if the case in the OP comes to a jury trial, I am fairly confident that any decision that violates basic slander/libel law would be thrown out immediately or on appeal.

 

[Giordano]

That was also true of Gawker. It just takes equal money on the other side, and the patience to keep on chipping away, and eventually you'll get a jury stupid enough to agree to destroy your enemy for you. Justice is now literally whatever you can afford.

As I see it Gawker did violate the law. Oliver did not.

But somehow I recall you to be a lawyer; if so I will defer to you on these judgements. And if so I view your last sentence as profoundly depressing.

 

[Beady]

But I want to avoid derailing the thread. Certainly juries can be found who make stupid and injustice decisions. But even if the case in the OP comes to a jury trial, I am fairly confident that any decision that violates basic slander/libel law would be thrown out immediately or on appeal.

In the US, in all states, truth is an absolute defence against a libel/slander accusation. If the basis of the suit is that Oliver ignored the claim of an earthquake, I remember he mentioned it, as well as saying they checked and found no evidence of unusual seismic activity. Seems to me, then, that the plaintiff is going to have to demonstrate that the cave-in was caused by normal seismic activity. Even then, I don't see how he could prevail since "earthquake" was specified, and normal seismic activity should have been provided for.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[Giordano]

The coal industry is not the first example of companies and their wealthy owners who have tried to portray themselves as the benevolent protectors of their workers just to rally political support. Surprisingly to me, some workers do buy into it.

For example, the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest several decades ago rallied their workers to oppose environmental and endangered species laws that might impact lumbering. Not surprisingly, when the lumber soon began to run out so did the companies, abandoning their workers and the local environment. The industry is now heavily automated and many of the lumber jobs after the tree are felled have been moved overseas.

It is usually a mistake to assume that you and the multi-millionaire head of your company are "in it together." A few interests overlap; many do not. It is important to recognize which are which. The owners may claim to have your back, but if a conflict between their interests and yours arises youwill turn around and they will be gone.

There are a few owners who really do seem to care about their workers- when true this manifests in many ways day to day- not just as a last-minute attempt to avoid environmental and safety regulations.

 

[Giordano]

In the US, in all states, truth is an absolute defence against a libel/slander accusation. If the basis of the suit is that Oliver ignored the claim of an earthquake, I remember he mentioned it, as well as saying they checked and found no evidence of unusual seismic activity. Seems to me, then, that the plaintiff is going to have to demonstrate that the cave-in was caused by normal seismic activity. Even then, I don't see how he could prevail since "earthquake" was specified, and normal seismic activity should have been provided for.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

That is my understanding as well and seems quite sufficient a defense to me. And if Murray is considered a public figure (and I think this is likely true) then even a falsehood cannot rise to the level of slander/libel unless "there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth)" (Wikipeedia). Given Oliver's repeated use of government documents and published statements, this would be a second tough difficulty for Murray if he expects to prevail.