A Rare Libel Suit Against The Times

Well, if you thought Murray's effort to relitigate the facts of his Crandall Canyon mine disaster in a publicity stunt and the court of (right wing) public opinion ... now along comes Donald Blankenship, fresh out of jail for gross violations of safety regulations at the Big Branch mine that killed 29.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-ex-coal-ceo-fresh-from-prison-urges-tru...

Blankenship claims: "the Mine Safety and Health Administration cut airflow to the miners, causing natural gas to inundate the mine, and sparks from workers cutting sandstone ignited the gas."

The claim that "the Mine Safety and Health Administration cut airflow to the miners" is bizarre. Mine regulations enforce minimum airflows, and it is notorious that mine operators cut the airflows to save money.

The MHSA had found the mine with over 300 violations of safety standards on ventilation shortly before the blast, and both the Federal and the State investigations found that the violations made the disaster possible.

It appears that there is a concerted effort by the mining industry to "push back" against responsibility for mine disasters (who else could be responsible?) and in Blankenship's case this also appears to be part of a grudge match and political stunt against Joe Manchin.

"It’s a bit more disconcerting if it suggests that those with a legitimate claim feel too intimidated to even try."
Of course the NY Times intimidates people! Just consider how LIz Spayd described Robert Murray: "he was referred to as having a “bombastic” style and a man who pushes against well established wisdom, including the concept of climate change."
And what was the source of that characterization:
THE NY TIMES!!!!
Ms Spayd is unable to see how see the NY Times can easily influence public opinion and define someone in the public space.
When you consider that Robert Murray has resources that most people don't have, it is obvious that almost no one can go up against the multi-million dollar powerhouse that is the NY Times.
It is another example of the disgraceful hypocrisy of the owners and editors of this paper.

Sometimes there's a button "false" under the comment near a "recommend" button. What does this "false" mean? That anybody who doesn't like somebody''s comment can require to delete it? And why some comments have this choice and others don't?

This is counter-intuitive for media folks, but the beginning of the end of newspapers and our democracy may have been New York Times vs. Sullivan, in 1964. It was a well-intended decision and one that strongly protects my favorite amendment, but if your industry gets a license to lie about public officials (except in certain, specialized ways), over the span of a half century your credibility as an industry is bound to suffer.

You also end up with the present situation; where people of unimpeachable integrity avoid public service because they know the lies will come, and they can't do anything to stop them. You then end up with "characters" yelling "fake news" and getting away with it, because people know that much of what is printed is not actually true.

"Disconcerting", indeed.

Clinton's agenda was straightforward about coal mining; she intended to put coal miners to work elsewhere, not throw them on the dole. That's not exactly a subtle difference. And speaking of misleading statements, it's interesting that Murray's describes itself as "Murray Energy Company" even though its sole product is high-sulfur coal. If he's so proud of his product, why not "Murray Coal"?

Old saying: "don't ever sue a newspaper for libel; they might prove it".

"(It has lost two in Russia, one in 2015.)"
How could the Times lose to Russia? It's hard to believe. Could we have more info on this please?

Coal is dying. If Robert Murray gave a damn about his people he would be busy helping them retrain for employment in an industry with a future.

Other news media that are covering this are stating that Murray is still trying to maintain that an earthquake caused the mine collapse. The Daily Caller and several others are still stating the 'earthquake caused it' as established fact ... here is a more weaselly example from "PRnewswire"

"... the 2007 mine collapse was what is commonly understood as an earthquake, consistent with Mr. Murray's understanding. "

Note that "commonly understood as an earthquake:"
see here:

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~peggy/Utah20070806.htm

The seismic network detected the collapse, with no prior earthquake.

The broad coverage of this Murray lawsuit in right-wing media that are either stating Murray's claim of an earthquake as fact, or engaging in sly deceits like this PRwire one to convince readers, leads me to conclude that this "lawsuit" is just a Murray propaganda stunt.

Completely unmentioned of course is the whole point that mine engineering must provide safety through earthquakes. If some extraordinarily-strong earthquake had happened there might be a reasonable case for Murray here, but clearly none did.

Wow, it takes some doing to make Murray Energy into a sympathetic - or, more accurately, marginally less unsympathetic, figure. Dare I hope that you will be fired for commenting on ongoing litigation? Murray attorneys can point to your column (and the fact that you started this job as a hack and got progressively worse) as evidence of a generally supercilious attitude at the Times, claiming that everybody there is like you, seeing yourselves as standing on a mountain, peering down at lesser mortals and astonished that anyone dares challenge you. Keys to whether Murray's suit has merit have to do with whether what the Times said is true (from everything I've heard, yes), not with whether lesser mortals than yourselves dare to pick fights with you. Your behavior does nothing but weaken the Times's legal position - which does, however, look to be easily strong enough to withstand this latest hack spillover.

If the Times's lawyers (and anybody at the Times who wants an effective Public Editor) have any sense, we'll soon your receding back.

I am baffled. Why would the NYT run articles by someone who suggests that people should be less inhibited in suing the Times?

The last line says it all. But it isn't just the Times that is intimidating. It is the high standard set for proving libel in the country, especially involving public figures. By comparison the UK puts a much higher burden on the defendants to prove they didn't libel. I'm sure our high bar occasionally allows news sources, some far less legitimate then the Times to get away with libel. But countries like Singapore regularly use libel charges as a political club to destroy their enemies. And I prefer to set a balance that reflects our very high standard of free speech compared to the rest of the world.

Correction: from my comment, please: for "voodoo" read "voodoo."

This article should have reported what Hillary Clinton "famously" did say about the prospects for coal. Don't make me look it up, but she said coal was in deep voodoo, not something she wished, just stating the situation. i thought when i read that that she was making a stupid remark, one easily torn from context.
Even out of context, Murray badly misquotes her, so show the work, please.

This is the modern day version of George Wallace defiantly standing in the schoolhouse door, refusing to accept that the coal ship has sailed.

Er, what's the point of this column? I'd think this would belong in the Business section, maybe in a column by Jim Rutenberg. Reporting on a libel lawsuit against the Times seems to be beyond the purview of the Public Editor.

The same polluter who stated he expected to see things (rollback of mining regs allowing the dumping of mining chemicals directly into streams) to happen very quickly. Following a healthy donation to the trump inauguration slush fund. Go Times.

Have The Times's Office of the Public Editor and its Office of Corporate Communications merged? Their roles seem to have become the same.

Robert Murray has a lot more staying power, Ms. Spayd, than you might like to admit.

He has been the center of more than one or two controversies over the past few decades, and he always seems to land firmly, and lucratively, on his feet.

The Time's record, indeed the record of the press in general, is not as spotless in libel actions as you might wish to believe.

Would you care to give us an account of all of those legal actions against the time that were "settled" by the parties and accompanied by non-disclosure agreements?

There is a lot of dirt swept under the rug by those arrangements.

The core of Mr. Murray's complaint can only be

"he falsely insisted that the 2007 collapse of his Crandall Canyon mine, which killed six miners, was due to an earthquake, not dodgy mining practices."

The mine did collapse, not only did it kill six miners, it subsequently killed six rescue workers trying to save them.

If Mr. Murray intends to sue for libel, he sure has had a lot of targets out there long before the NYT ... starting with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crandall_Canyon_Mine

and

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765607353/Utah-mine-operator-to-pay-n...

The Deseret News reported long ago that Mr. Murray advanced the theory that it was caused by an earthquake -- the NYT appears on safe ground there.

That idea beggars the fact that mine engineering must provide for safety through earthquakes, but in any event the seismological evidence is that there was no earthquake, though the seismographs did detect the mine collapse.

And then the "dodgy mining practices" strikes me as mild indeed given the fines that the company paid for the gross safety violations -- largest to date in the history of coal mining in the US. (not that coal mining safety violation fines have been very large, mind you.)

What the heck does Mr. Murray hope to gain from this? Is his suit solely predicated on a battle over the definition of "dodgy?" Mr. Murray is clearly a "public figure" ... I cannot imagine a judge will have any patience for this.

Liz: "How DARE they sue the NEW...YORK...TIMES! I mean, NOBODY sues MY Times. It is soooo déclassé. "

Ms Spayd, you need to stop acting like the representative of The Times' Public Relations Department. You are supposed to be the paper's internal critic. You are supposed to be the representative of Times readers. This libel lawsuit is absolutely none of your business.

If you refuse to represent readers, if you refuse to serve as the internal critic that you're supposed to be, then you should resign.