There are always plenty of grounds for cynicism about the state of the news media, but in the last week we seem to have arrived at a new set of low expectations.
Fox News, having settled its defamation case with Dominion in the US and with Lachlan Murdoch withdrawing proceedings against Crikey in Australia, the Murdoch news empire has effectively admitted what was already clear: that it knowingly broadcast untrue information.
Make no mistake, this is new. It is directly contrary to the purposes of journalism, and indeed News Corp Australia’s own code of conduct, which states “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate and not misleading.”
We have sadly grown used to news reporting that lacks context, that mixes opinion and fact and by doing so distorts, and that makes egregious and careless errors. These faults are not unique to News Corp and Fox News. If only.
But for a mainstream, professional news organisation to lie, and effectively admit to having done so – that is new, and we should stop and think about the implications.
Nor was this a trivial lie. It was politically charged, and dangerous – concerning allegations the US election had been rigged.
What is the difference between what Fox Media did, and the politically motivated websites and social media channels that exist only to peddle misinformation?
Yet in the wake of these events, the commentary has been preoccupied, not with the chasm opened in the landscape of journalism, but instead on what it means for Fox News as a business (consensus: not much).
That alongside the admittedly titillating details of Rupert Murdoch’s declining wits and the succession to his reign, including the theory that his children, Elizabeth and James, might be planning a takeover from sibling Lachlan, and a more liberal slant for the organisation, when their father dies.
But can we just pause to take in what has happened? One of the world’s most powerful media organisations, the Australian arm of which has for generations dominated our political dialogue, has lied to its audience.
In both the short and the long term, that is the most important, consequential thing.
In Australia, there have been several recent and many more historical cases of distorted news reporting by News Corp outlets.
To quote just two examples, there was the recent Press Council finding about how the Herald Sun made it appear that the Victorian premier, Dan Andrews, had been wrapped up in preference whispering. Or, still in Victoria, the silly stuff about his fall down some steps.
But these involve distortions and questionable assemblages of facts, rather than conscious lies.
Now I know the kinds of things that will be being said internally at News about the Crikey case. I have been listening in to the self-justifying dialogue for years, and it is also made visible in the legal filings.
They will be saying that Crikey doesn’t matter. It is an irritating minnow trying to use the mighty conglomerate to get attention and subscriptions. And in any case, the Fox News-Dominion case is of no relevance to Australia.
And there is truth to all of that.
Australia does not yet have an equivalent to Fox News. Sky News Australia after dark is a try hard, but with a tiny audience and little influence.
And it is a fair bet that most readers of News Corp publications in Australia don’t know that Crikey exists.
The article involved in the Crikey litigation contained the assertion that the Murdochs were “co-conspirators” in the deadly attack on Washington’s Capitol carried out by the former president Donald Trump’s supporters.
Technically, that allegation was likely to be a problem for Crikey, because it was a factual allegation that went beyond the evidence. Easy to establish that Fox News helped foment the riot. But conspiracy? That is of a different order.
But most defamation cases are not only about the letter of the law. They are usually more about politics and power.
The political cost to the Murdochs was increased when Crikey advanced a defence of contextual truth – meaning, in essence, that the sting of the published material was asserted to be true, even if the finer points were in error.
Facing the prospect of being hauled before the courts to be cross questioned on that sting, involving a local airing of the evidence of lying that had come to light in the US case, Murdoch withdrew.
There is no doubt (because I also listen in to Crikey’s internal dialogue) that the best outcome for the tiny outlet would have been for the legal case to run and run. Crikey can certainly claim to have won the legal battle, but there will be internal disappointment that the publicity is over.
But what that comforting, self-justifying News Corp internal dialogue obscures is that the longest lasting import of this case is not about Crikey, nor about Dominion, but about journalism and the nature of the Murdoch news empire. Its values, character, and purpose.
For many years, commentators on Murdoch’s role in Australia (including me) have hedged their criticisms by saying that there are many fine journalists employed at News Corp, and much good journalism done. That has always been true, and it remains true.
But what are those journalists thinking and feeling now? And where do we go from here? What happens to our understanding of what journalists are for, and what they do?
That is what we should be watching in the months and years ahead.
Margaret Simons is an award-winning freelance journalist and author. She is an honorary principal fellow of the Centre for Advancing Journalism and a member of the board of the Scott Trust, which owns Guardian Media Group
