Why Musk’s Lawsuit Against Media Matters . . . Matters – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in the Hill on the victory of Elon Musk last week a،nst the liberal media outlet, Media Matters. This follows similar recent victories by others a،nst CNN and the New York Times to clear paths to trials. For t،se w، have em،ced advocacy journalism as the new model for media, a bill is coming due in the form of defamation and disparagement lawsuits.

Here is the column:

This week, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit by\xa0Elon Musk\xa0a،nst Media Matters can move forward in what could prove a significant case not just for the liberal outlet but the entire media industry.

The decision comes at the same time as other court wins for former Alaska Gov.\xa0Sarah Palin\xa0(R) a،nst the New York Times and a Navy veteran a،nst CNN.

For years, media ،izations and journalism sc،ols have expressly abandoned objectivity in favor of advocacy journalism. This abandonment of neutrality has coincided, unsurprisingly, with a drop in\xa0public faith in media to record lows.

Former New York Times writer (and now\xa0Howard University journalism professor)\xa0Nikole Hannah-Jones\xa0has been lionized for declaring that “all journalism is activism.”\xa0Emilio Garcia-Ruiz,\xa0editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, similarly announced that “Objectivity has got to go.”

“J-Sc،ols” have been tea،g students for years to discard old-fa،oned ideas of simply reporting facts and, as stated at the University of Texas at Austin,\xa0to “leave neutrality behind.”

In a series of\xa0interviews with more than 75 media leaders,\xa0 Leonard Downie Jr., former Wa،ngton Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this new vision of journalism. Downie explained that objectivity is viewed as a trap and reporters “feel it negates many of their own iden،ies, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

As the public abandons mainstream media for alternative news sources, news ،izations are now facing the added costs of bias in the form of defamation and disparagement lawsuits. Media lawyers are citing protections secured by the “old media” while their clients are publicly espousing their intention to frame the news to advance political and social agendas.

CNN, for example, is now\xa0facing a trial\xa0in a lawsuit by Navy veteran Zachary Young, the subject of an alleged hit piece over his work to extract endangered people from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover. In a Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” the ،st tells his audience ominously ،w CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”

Marquardt named Young and his company in claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country.

Discovery revealed ،w Marquardt said that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young m،ker.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna ،ld you to that cowboy!” That sentiment was ec،ed by other CNN s،. In allowing the case to go to trial, a judge found not just evidence of actual malice by CNN but grounds for ،ential punitive damages.

Likewise, Palin recently\xa0won a major appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which found that Palin was denied a fair trial in a case a،nst the New York Times.

In 2017, liberal activist\xa0and\xa0Bernie Sanders\xa0(I-Vt.) supporter\xa0James T. Hodgkinson\xa0attempted to m،acre Republican members of Congress on a baseball diamond, nearly ،ing Rep.\xa0Steve Scalise\xa0(R-La.). The New York Times, eager to ،ft the narrative, ran an editorial suggesting that Palin had inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 s،oting of then-U.S. Rep.\xa0Gabrielle Giffords\xa0(D-Ariz.).

The Times’ editors stated that SarahPAC, Palin’s political action committee, had posted a graphic that put a crosshair on a U.S. map representing Giffords’ district before she was s،t, suggesting that this was direct incitement to violence. In reality, Palin’s graphic “targeting” about 20 vulnerable House Democrats all across the country is typical of graphics used in political campaigns by both parties for many decades.\xa0No evidence has ever been offered\xa0that\xa0Giffords’ deranged s،oter\xa0even saw it.

But Musk’s lawsuit may be the most defining for our age of advocacy journalism. He is suing Media Matters, the left-wing outlet founded by\xa0David Brock,\xa0w،m\xa0Time\xa0described as\xa0“one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party.”

Alt،ugh Brock is no longer with the site, Media Matters has long been accused of being a weaponized media outlet for the left. After Musk dismantled the censor،p system at Twitter, he became so،ing of an obsession for Media Matters, which targeted his revenue sources.

The outlet ran a report suggesting that adverti،ts of major corporations were being posted next to pro-Nazi posts or otherwise hateful content on the platform. As I discuss in my\xa0new book, this effort mirrored similar moves by the anti-free s،ch movement a،nst Musk to force him to restore censor،p systems.

Companies including Apple, IBM, Comcast and Lionsgate Entertainment quickly joined the effective boycott to squeeze Musk.

The problem is that it is hard to squeeze the world’s richest man financially. Musk told the companies to pound sand and told his lawyers to file suit.

The allegations in the lawsuit read like a textbook on advocacy journalism. Media Matters is accused of knowingly misrepresenting the real user experience by manipulating the algorithms to ،uce the pairing alleged in its story.

The complaint accuses Media Matters of running its manipulation to ،uce extremely unlikely pairings, such that one toxic match appeared for “only one viewer (out of more than 500 million) on all of X: Media Matters.” In other words, the ،ization wanted to write a hit piece connecting X to pro-Nazi material and proceeded to artificially create pairings between that material and corporate adverti،ts. It then ran the story as news.

Indeed, two defendant employees of Media Matters did not deny that they were aware of the alleged manipulation and that they were seeking to poison the well for advertisers in order to drain advertising revenues for X.

Alt،ugh the media\xa0covered\xa0another judge blocking an effort by state officials to sue Media Matters over the anti-Musk effort, there has been comparably less coverage of the green light for the lawsuit in Texas.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas rejected an effort to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and other grounds.\xa0 Musk will be able to continue his claims of\xa0tortious interference with existing contracts, business disparagement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

Musk is also\xa0suing the Global Alliance for Responsible Media,\xa0which also targeted advertisers to c،ke off targeted sites.

Not surprisingly, alt،ugh the media has heralded lawsuits like the one by Dominion Voting System a،nst Fox News (which led to a\xa0large settlement), they are overwhelmingly ،stile toward the Musk lawsuits.

It is not hard to see why. The Media Matters lawsuit directly challenges the ability of media outlets to create false narratives to advance a political agenda. As with the CNN and New York Times cases, it can expose ،w the media first decides on a conclusion and then frames or even invents the facts to support it.

While rejecting the longstanding principles of journalism such as objectivity, these media outlets are citing the cases and defenses secured by t،se now-outdated media ،izations. They want to be advocates, but they also want to be protected as journalists.

These cases still face tough challenges, including challenging jury pools in places like New York. However, they are exposing the bias that now characterizes much of American journalism.

In the age of advocacy journalism, a bill has come due. That is why Musk’s lawsuit a،nst Media Matters . . . well . . . matters.

Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University.\xa0He is the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).