Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful – An Essential Investigation of America's War on Journalism

by David Enrich

New York Times Bestseller

"Authoritarian governments abroad have long used legal threats and lawsuits against journalists to cover up their disinformation, corruption, and violence. Now, as master investigative journalist David Enrich reveals, those tactics have arrived in America.” — Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of Strongmen

David Enrich, the New York Times Business Investigations Editor and the #1 bestselling author of Dark Towers, produces his most consequential and far-reaching investigation an in-depth exposé of the broad campaign—orchestrated by elite Americans—to silence dissent and protect the powerful.

It was a quiet way to announce a In an obscure 2019 case that the Supreme Court refused to even hear, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the prospect of overturning the legendary New York Times v. Sullivan decision. Though hardly a household name, Sullivan is one of the most consequential free speech decisions, ever. Fundamental to the creation of the modern media as we know it, it has enabled journalists and writers all over the country—from top national publications to revered local newspapers to independent bloggers—to pursue the truth aggressively and hold the wealthy, powerful, and corrupt to account.

Thomas’s words were a warning—the public awakening of an idea that had been fomenting on the conservative fringe for years. Now it is going mainstream. From the Florida statehouse to small town New Hampshire to Donald Trump's White House, this movement today consists of some of the world’s richest and most powerful people and companies, who believe they should be above scrutiny and want to silence or delegitimize voices that challenge their supremacy. Indeed, many of the same businessmen, politicians, lawyers, and activists are already weaponizing the legal system to intimidate and punish journalists and others who dare criticize them.

In this masterwork of investigative reporting, David Enrich, New York Times Business Investigations Editor, traces the roots and reach of this growing threat to our modern democracy. With Trump’s emboldened right-wing coalition committed to demonizing and punishing those who attempt to hold them accountable, Murder the Truth sounds the alarm about the looming war over facts, laying bare the stakes of losing our most sacrosanct rights. The result is a story about power in the age of Trump—the way it’s used by those who have it and the lengths to which they will go to avoid it being questioned.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Law, Journalism, Sociology, Audiobook

331 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 11, 2025

Reviews

[Kayah Swanson · Rating 5 out of 5]

my husband’s reporting is the subject of one of the chapters in this book and i have so far only read that one chapter but i give it an enthusiastic five stars!!! i can’t wait to read the rest. this is essential reading for our time. and also conrad you are so cool 🥲 shamelessly simping for my husband on goodreads not sorry

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

An incredibly engaging and entertaining behind the scenes look into the war on “libel law”. Reading as a lawyer myself I can confirm that Enrich does an incredible job of explaining the legal intricacies of first amendment law in an informative way that makes sense for laypeople to understand better. The look behind the curtain of the inner workings of the Supreme Court and the right’s (and the left’s) war on free speech. A huge takeaway: speech is free for everyone until you start criticizing those in power, then, you better be willing to pay up. They’re willing to kill the truth for their own motives and ambition.

[Nash Δ. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Murder the Truth is a compelling and well researched exposé that delves into the covert efforts by influential people to undermine press freedom and suppress dissent.

The book centers on the potential erosion of the landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, a cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence that has safeguarded journalists for decades. Enrich traces the origins and development of a movement aimed at dismantling these protections, revealing how some of the nation's most powerful individuals and entities are leveraging the legal system to both intimidate and silence press.

Additionally, the book reveals how fear of retaliation, whether through financial ruin, public smears, or legal harassment, forces many journalists and publications to self censor. This has real consequences: corruption, abuse, and wrongdoing go unchecked because those in power can manipulate the system to bury inconvenient facts. The sheer brazenness of these tactics, combined with their success in silencing critics, makes this a chilling and infuriating read.

Enrich's narrative is both engaging and alarming, offering readers a vivid portrayal of the threats facing journalistic integrity today. His thorough reporting and insightful analysis make the book an important read for anyone concerned about the future of free speech and the essential role of a free press in a democratic society.

[Maria Almaguer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book came on my radar through the excellent podcast, Strict Scrutiny--which is about the current cases on the Supreme Court's docket and its analysis and implications on the law.

Enrich is a business editor for the New York Times and here he presents the history of the landmark 1964 case, New York Times vs. Sullivan, which protects journalists' free speech from financially devastating libel suits by powerful personalities. Of course, the news media must make every effort to be truthful and acknowledge and correct mistakes and that's what the law protects (honest mistakes based on the information currently available), otherwise we would have little incentive to investigate corruption and be watchdogs of the world. I really liked the style of the book and the clear and concise explanations of the cited cases to make his points.

My favorite part, however, was the history of the law firm Clare Locke, a husband/wife team who have made their practice's focus holding the media accountable and working towards overturning New York Times vs. Sullivan. How they came into conflict with their own motivation when they defended Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News for the latter's intentional lies about the 2020 election was priceless.

In this age of the danger of this law being overturned--President Trump has expressed a great interest in this as has Justice Clarence Thomas--the protections for free speech are critical for our survival as a democracy.

[Ted · Rating 5 out of 5]

Deceptively short book that is quite tedious at some points. Nevertheless, it is backed with copious research and reveals the contours of development surrounding libel suits, which have morphed into vehicles to stifle political speech. Athough conservatives have been behind the push to liberalize libel laws, quite a few Trump advocates were destroyed by the existing system after the 2020 election.

[Alicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you have a limited understanding of the danger that Don and his billionaire friends pose to the 1st amendment or just want to learn more about it, this book is for you.

[Liv · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. I can’t overstate how important the contents of this book are. As a journalist, I’ve personally been hit with legal threats from powerful people, and their sole goal in doing that is to intimidate and dissuade me from writing truth they don’t like. New York Times vs Sullivan is a landmark Supreme Court Case that protects freedom of the press by ensuring those intimidation tactics don’t succeed in ruining someone’s life or shuttering the doors of an entire newspaper. If this movement to overturn the precedent established in NYTimes vs Sullivan succeeds at any point in the future, it will crush newsrooms everywhere. Local news will disappear, democracy will die and censorship and corruption will run rampant. Enrich outlines this dire phenomenon beautifully. Part of the problem is so many people don’t understand how newsrooms actually work and what they’re facing today, and because of that, I really believe this is a book everyone should read.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

June 2025 Audio Review

Not surprised by the current events, but the historical I wasn't aware of. A very interesting and scary narrative about the First Amendment and the lengths the rich and/or powerful will go to to stop that protection and instead fight to protect their secrets.

One issue I had had nothing to do with the content of the book but instead is about the chronology. I didn't like the fact that the timeline jumped around. This is a consistent problem in non-fiction where the stories and examples are not presented linearly and that makes it difficult to tell where we are in history. Stories like this MUST stick with a timeline and not jump from one decade to another. Aside from this, it was an excellent book. Very well narrated.

4 stars for the book and 5 for the narration.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you value free speech this book will give you insight on the relentless effort to eliminate it by attacking important Supreme Court precedents. New York Times v. Sullivan, settled unanimously in 1964 and long the foundation of a free press in the US. in the time of Trump it is increasingly becoming a target in libel cases and inevitably will be taken up again by a much less liberal court than the Warren court that decided the case. All up a very readable book describing the assault on freedom of the press.

[April · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Enrich is an investigative journalist- and thereby greatly affected by how the first amendment is interpreted. He covers case law from before, during, and after the landmark Sullivan case to showcase where we are today and how important these rulings are to the daily lives of us all. It is engagingly written, and about as impartial in accounting of facts as it is possible to be (until the end).

Read if you also want to be concerned for our futures, I guess.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is about US government, US Congress, US Supreme, US president restrictions on the free press.

It has the potential consequences of Ameriica’s loss of an open and free press ..,,,

Engaging, thoughtful, deeply researched. It is a warning of governmental choking free flowing press.

It sets an alarm……. Well written …..

[Abby Moore · Rating 4 out of 5]

This took me so long I had to return it to the library & finish the last bit on audio oops. But I did learn a lot and I’m glad I made it through, even if it was just couple pages at a time. Such a wide topic I feel like I didn’t know much about

[Lysander VK · Rating 3 out of 5]

Compelling and persuasive, but sidesteps some important objections.

[Fanchen Bao · Rating 5 out of 5]

First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?

-- Dr. Hannibal Lecter

Libel law is a fascinating and important entity, even though it rarely intersects with a regular 9-to-5 folk's life. Too much protection on the media (i.e., harder for the alleged victim to sue), we will end up with tabloids harassing people and drumming shits up left or right. Too little protection bestowed the media, we will revert to the dark ages – with investigative journalism too costly to conduct, the powerful can do whatever they please and the rest of us have only one recourse: ignorance is a bliss.

There must be a balance in libel law -- enough leeway for the actual victims to seek damage from irresponsible media reports and sufficient protection for free speech. In my opinion, Sullivan strikes a good enough balance. The clause on "actual malice" provides the leeway and the burden of proof landing on the plaintiff offers the protection. In fact, I'd even argue that it doesn't go far enough (e.g., if the plaintiff loses the libel suit or the suit is dismissed, they should foot the defendant's legal bill). Even under Sullivan's aegis, news agencies are constantly burdened by threats and hefty legal bills regardless whether they prevail in the court. Imagine a world where Sullivan is not the rule of the land; no honest and brave news agencies would survive if they dare poke the powerful even with a ten-foot pole. Any remnant of responsible journalism would be gone and replaced with propaganda.

With such a high stake at hand, why are some people so eager to tip the delicate balance of Sullivan, even at the risk of endangering one of the key pillars of democracy? Dr. Lecter asked the right question: what is it in itself that these anti-Sullivan individuals want? I shall exclude the lawyers (Harder, Vogt, Clare, Locke, etc.) and the academics (Logan). Although some of them might have a secret agenda, most are no more than sailors at the sea, trying to steer their career where the wind blows the hardest and go as far as possible. The real culprit is the wind blower: Larry Silberman and his protege Clarence Thomas. The former intentionally let confirmation bias overrule his judgement (I am giving him the benefit of doubt by saying his bias is intentional, because it would be much worse otherwise), while the latter has personal vendetta to settle against the media, which he presumes to always put him and his family in the crosshair (well, if Thomas and his wife had not been so deeply intertwined with right-wing politics, he needn't have had to worry about the media questioning his even-handedness as a Supreme Court Justice). They both represent the side of the powerful where dirty businesses are constantly being done. The powerful don't want their dirt to see the light, so it is in the judges’ best interest to protect their friends, colleagues, or sometimes even themselves. Hence, Sullivan must go. Democracy be damned!

Sadly, what the debate on Sullivan reveals is another example of how the powerful misleads the public. It is framed as a fight between the Left and the Right, while in reality it is the continuation of the same struggle between the powerful and the rest of us since the dawn of Men. It doesn't matter if the powerful sit on the left or right side of the aisle; they all want the same things: to bury their secrets, to stop the journalists from revealing their illegal or indecent deeds, and most of all, to live above the law. We are just pawns to their game. When we are too busy throwing rocks or hauling slurs against the opposite political side, the powerful are scheming to forever keep us in the hamster wheel. Trump already teased, in a rally no less, that "you won't have to vote any more". That was the ultimate goal. And Sullivan is just one of the obstacles the powerful needs to remove on their march towards totalitarianism. While I, being pessimistic in this regard, do not think we can stop the right-shift tide, I applaud and donate to the good men and women who continue to do investigative journalism and fight in court to keep Sullivan alive for as long as we can.

All accolades aside, Sullivan does have its collateral damages. I do feel sorry for people like Lohrenz the fighter jet pilot, who barely qualifies as a public figure, to have their lives forever altered because of honest mistakes in a media report. However, if we as a society can stomach Charlie Kirk's view on gun violence,

I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other god-given rights. That is a prudent deal.

-- Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA event in Salt Lake City, April 2023

we surely can allow some ruined careers and damaged egos under Sullivan.

Interesting Quotes

...the popularity of these menacing legal tactics has recently surged to unprecedented heights. In such an environment, the safest course often seemed to be to avoid writing about anyone or anything that smacked of controversy -- or at least anyone with the inclination and wherewithal to retain aggressive counsel. It was a form of quiet censorship all but inaudible to the American public.

-- p6.

His preference was to get rich working in the corporate world.

-- p14. This is Clarence Thomas's true nature, and there is nothing wrong with that. But it seems that he never let this nature go even after assuming the Supreme Court justiceship.

The Times, fearing a tidal wave of litigation, barred its reporters from setting foot in Alabama, and its lawyers urged staff not to write articles that detailed the state's institutionalized racism.

-- p18. This is what the U.S. looked like before Sullivan. It is beyond baffling to me that someone, including Clarence Thomas, a Black man, would want to willingly throw Sullivan away.

Yes, there had been inaccuracies in the "Heed Their Rising Voices" ad, but "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate," and writers and publishers needed "breathing space" to engage in robust argument and criticism without worrying that a factual slipup could cause financial ruin.

-- p19.

Her primary objection to the amendment, which would have guaranteed that women had the same legal rights as men, was that it would open the door to women being drafted into the military. Donnelly didn't want that to happen to her young daughters.

-- p26. Trying to strip way women's rights so that her daughters would not be drafted to fulfill their duty as citizens (other people can die protecting the country but not MY daughters) is such a starter kit of Conservatism.

It was easy to cringe at a tabloid tarring someone as a prostitute or a secretly recorded sex tape being leaked to a boundary-pushing website. Helping such clients arguably fit within the good=versus-evil worldview that Harder liked to espouse. But those cases tended to be the exceptions. Lawyers like harder were often plying their craft on behalf of unsavory individuals, and they were doing so in ways that, if they succeeded, would help their clients escape accountability for their past misdeeds and potentially continue to engage in terrible behavior.

-- p73.

Thomas and his fellow justices were weighing whether to hear a case in which another famous Black man was accused of having defamed his alleged victim. It is hard to imagine that Thomas missed the parallels.

-- p132. I wonder to which side Thomas put his thumb on his internal scale.

... Ginni went to the White House to lobby Trump to install more far-right activists in his administration.

-- p132. I'd argue that the deep involvement of Thomas' wife in right-wing politics should automatically annul his justiceship. And it applies to both sides of the aisle.

The pieces weren't always bulletproof. Stedman sometimes presented a pile of circumstantial facts as evidence of a conspiracy. His language could be overheated.

-- p146. Sigh. As journalists engaging in investigative reporting, they should know better to be careful, extra careful, when their target belongs to the powerful. A shoddy piece should never be published. You are simply asking for trouble.

Even if you accepted Silberman's claims at face value, it was unclear what business a federal judge had using a court opinion to attack news organizations whose views he happened to disagree with. The whole point of the First Amendment was that the government shouldn't be able to suppress speech that its officials disliked.

-- p171. Here is Silberman, the wind blower, who's so biased, whether intentionally or not, that it seems like a parody that he is a well respected, heavyweight federal judge. While the goddess of justice has her eyes blindfolded, Silberman's are clearly not.

The right to vigorously criticize elected officials was a cornerstone of democracy, Katriel noted. Not so for private citizens who had been dragged unwillingly into the harsh glare of the public spotlight.

-- p180. This statement in itself is not wrong, but the devil is in the details. Can a private citizen impart significant influence on elected officials? Of course they can. Then should we not also hold these influential private citizens, such as Shkëlzen Berisha or another billionaire bankrolling the politicians, accountable?

As a result, publishers are incentivized to do little or no fact-checking, confident that the more slipshod their investigation, the less likely they are to be guilty of "actual malice."

-- p185. This was a bizarre argument from Logan, which was not supported by any evidence. Let me offer a simple counter argument. If a publisher does indeed publish things without any fact-checking, it will surely be sued for libel and the fact that it hasn't done any fact-checking is proof of "actual malice" -- any publisher without "actual malice" would definitely do fact-checking. In fact, the reason why there was no evidence to support this claim was that new agencies, those which do take themselves seriously (unlike Fox News which admitted to court that they are more of an entertainment channel), rarely, if ever, intentionally publish anything without fact-checking. Therefore, Logan's argument is easily invalidated. Yet, his paper became an important citation for the subsequent push to void Sullivan.

He must have known that Section 230 -- not Sullivan -- was the root cause of many of the problems he decried.

-- p188. Section 230, the one that allows social media to grow into a behemoth as it is now, is such a double-edged sword. I didn't mention it in the main review because I don't even know what to make of it. But one thing is clear. Stuff on social media is very different from most reporting from news agencies. The anger towards lies spreading on the social media is understandable, but instead of misdirecting it to Sullivan, the Supreme Court should figure out a way to reign it in via a separate ruling.

...owners tend to care about the bottom line. That had been Locke's point: financial incentives would instill discipline. But they also could instill fear. This wasn't simply a matter of outlets paying a price for getting facts wrong. If the burden of proof rested once again with defendants -- if it were up to them to prove that they had their facts right, as opposed to being up to plaintiffs to prove that the facts had been wrong -- even entirely accurate articles could pose huge financial risks.

-- p194.

At one in Florida, a Clare Locke attorney named Jered Ede -- the firm had recently hired him from Project Veritas, the group of conservative provocateurs, where he'd been general counsel -- recycled the incorrect data that Gorsuch had plucked from David Logan's law review piece, claiming that 90 percent of jury awards in defamation cases were reversed on appeal.

-- p195. The data had been proven wrong and Justice Gorsuch had silently corrected the mistake in his dissent (see p191), yet Jered Ede still quoted the wrong figure to suit his argument. Where is the libel lawsuit against that? (there was no lawsuit because there was no victim. The victim is democracy itself, but I'm not sure how we can sue on behalf of democracy).

It's our view in Florida that we want to be standing up for the little guy against these massive media conglomerates," the governor declared.

-- p201. LOL, repealing Sullivan to stand up for the little guy. Such blatant lies can only work on a very mal-informed populace, which, unfortunately, the U.S. has no shortage of supply.

For all of her diligence, the Pilot had failed to take a rudimentary step: it hadn't contacted Tomczyk beforehand to ask for his version of events.

-- p209. Sigh. While this mishap alone should not constitute "actual malice", given all the other due diligence, it nevertheless added unnecessary fuel to Tomczyk's side. I constantly rave about the powerful, yet the media also has power, especially when they dig someone else's dirt. The old saying still rings true: with more power comes more responsibility.

NHPR's outside lawyer...never witnessed such an onslaught. "It's very unusual for sources to be targeted, especially in such a methodical fashion with the clear goal of having the sources retract their stories,"

-- p220. This is a creative way to "prove" actual malice. If your report's source retracts their stories, your writing becomes baseless and thus much easier to be considered as actual malice. Even with Sullivan, the powerful always finds a way to squeeze. The Mafia should be proud.

Libel law, it seemed to Goodman, was a potentially powerful weapon in the fight against corrosive public lies.

-- p233. The context is that Alex Jones was sued for libel for all his shenanigans. And those lawsuits won. This is another piece of evidence that Sullivan is working. It holds people responsible if their claims, like those from Jones, have actual malice.

This left Locke in a potential pickle. If her firm won, it would gain bragging rights, but her arguments for overturning Sullivan might lose traction. If her firm lost, it would be embarrassing, but the loathsome libel precedents might be on borrowed time.

-- p239. The leopard ate my face.

Even if its claims were taken at face value, he argued, they did not show that the Times had acted with actual malice. The editorial had been sloppy but not a deliberate smear.

-- p250. The context is that Times hastily published an opinion piece about a left-wing extremist shooting up a baseball game, injuring many. The editorial suggested that the right-wing extremist shooting up a constituent meeting was linked to Sarah Palin's political ads that put crosshairs on her political opponents. This was not true, yet the editorial went to press with the error uncorrected. Although Times successfully got this libel case dismissed, mainly because it noticed the error and retracted it quickly, I feel iffy about it. Making a claim that political violence was connected to a particular presidential candidate, even though the incident happened many years ago, was a serious matter. The fact that this opinion got out showed a certain level of recklessness in Times's chase of a deadline. The speedy retraction was the saving grace. Had that not happened, the verdict would've looked a lot uglier.

[Jeannie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye opening expose that pretty much explains the political climate of the U.S. right now. Too bad so many won't read this and understand that our democracy is under attack.

[Preston Epps · Rating 5 out of 5]

We are so cooked

[Linda Z · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scary what the rich and powerful, including corporations, can get away with and how they are able to inflict so much monetary, psychological, and even life-threatening damage on individuals and organizations trying to alert the public to lies, misinformation, and misdeeds.

[Madison ✨ (mad.lyreading) · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 rounded up. Murder the Truth follows the New York Times v. Sullivan decision from 1964, which determines that for libel cases to be successful against public figures one must show actual malice, from its inception to current day. Specifically, Enrich follows a few lawyers that have pushed to reduce the strength of Sullivan in order to allow for those with money (and power) to stifle stories about them, regardless of their truth. Murder the Truth is written from the perspective of a journalist, but as an attorney I would say its legal analysis holds up. This book is very fitting in a time when support for the Supreme Court is at an all time low, as it discusses important Judges/Justices' reasons for wanting it to be overturned (looking at you, Clarence and Samuel). My favorite part was toward the end, when Enrich examines the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News, which pushes against the right's reasons for wanting to overturn Sullivan. I wish this part had a more in depth examination, but I understand the record on this case is less developed due to Fox News' last minute decision to settle.

If you have any respect for the First Amendment, I would recommend this book.

Thank you to Mariner Books and NetGalley for an ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Marion · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well- researched and terrifying.

[Amelia L · Rating 5 out of 5]

well researched and unbelievably compelling in a stomach-sinking kind of way. i started reading this book just as jimmy kimmel got taken off the air, which is just one example of how timely this discussion of the first amendment and libel laws is.
the narrative is well laid out and detailed—it’s clear how much effort the author put into getting multiple sides of the story, even while emphasizing the huge risk that overturning sullivan poses to journalism and free speech in america. i’m not usually a nonfiction person but this is a must read.

[Izzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

i’m going to write a review of this book for American Journalism 😀

[Mark Stevens · Rating 5 out of 5]

Of all the slippery slopes out there today, the erosion of free speech and a free press is another one. A free press is a fundamental cornerstone of the American democracy. The degree to which journalists can operate freely, without fear, is a critical component of how we live together, make progress, and all of that good stuff around fairness, equity, and opportunity.

In Murder the Truth, David Enrich digs into a “largely under-the-radar-movement that is the weaponizing the obscure field of libel law—a campaign whose growing momentum has closely tracked the country’s increasing flirtations with authoritarianism.”

In 1964, a unanimous Supreme Court extended substantial protections to journalists and journalism. This key ruling decided that a complainant would need to show “actual malice” in order to recover damages for a defamatory falsehood. And “actual malice” meant that the plaintiff had to show that a reporter or media company had demonstrated “reckless disregard” of whether a story, fact, or assertion was false.

The 1964 ruling involved a case known as New York Times vs. Sullivan, based on a full-page ad that ran in the New York times in 1960 that amounted to a fundraising appeal to support Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “and to bankroll a voter registration drive in the South.” The complainant was a city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama. He filed a lawsuit claiming the ad contained inaccuracies but also to send a message—that “if they aggressively covered the civil rights struggle, if they determined the illegal and at times violent ways that many southerners were fighting to maintain power, they would incur catastrophic costs.”

Sullivan lost. The Supreme Court decision set up decades of relative freedom for journalists with that standard around “actual malice” and “reckless disregard” as guiding legal principle.

Murder the Truth isa careful deconstruction of the inroads being made into the ability of RFPs (that’s the rich, famous, and powerful) to make it harder and harder for reporters to do their job Murder the Truth is Enrich warning us that the Sullivan standard might soon fall as he follows the anti-media justices (including Clarence Thomas) who have been lying in wait for their chance to change the playing field.

Enrich, a smooth storyteller with a flair for color and an easy narrative style, dives into a series of cases that demonstrate what’s at risk. Do you think President Trump’s near-daily derision of the press corps are random, curmudgeonly ramblings? His outsize lawsuits ($15 billion against The New York Times, $10 billion against The Wall Street Journal, $475 million against CNN—even if the cases are quickly dismissed) are part of a long campaign to take down Sullivan and restrict press freedom. (The website Axios is tracking all the anti-media activity by Trump and his White House, including decisions to bar certain reporters from the briefing room; the Pentagon’s approach to press coverage falls right in step with the press-bashing campaign. Here’s the Axios website: https://www.axios.com/2025/07/22/trum...).

In straightforward, layman terms, Enrich takes us inside a variety of cases including a Saudi Arabian prince who went after writer Rachel Ehrenfeld for a book about how terrorism is financed; Hulk Hogan’s case against Gawker over publishing a sex tape; Bill Cosby’s libel suit for news accounts alleging he was a rapist; Rolling Stone’s misguided story about an alleged rape at a University of Virginia fraternity; and Dominion Voting System’s successful suit against Fox News for airing false stories about the quality of its voting machines and the 2020 election. Enrich makes it clear—the media make mistakes. But the “actual malice” is effective.

One of the stories that Enrich lays out is in Colorado Springs, where the 153-year-old Colorado Springs Gazette developed a story about a housing development called Gold Hill Mesa, which was built on top of mine tailings and “two hundred feet of slurry.” The result was houses with crumbling foundations and houses sinking into the muck, water coming up through basements. Reporter Conrad Swanson started looking into complaints that houses were failing. And also into how regulators approved the initial development and ongoing construction. Enrich details the exhaustive research that went into Swanson’s reporting and writing.

“Before the story was published, Swanson exhaustively checked the facts. He created a footnoted Google document with links to the public records and other materials that substantiated each point in the article. And he discussed his findings with Gold Hill Mesa officials and invited them to comment. The conversations struck him (Swanson) as civil and substantive, and he incorporated their responses into the story … Unbeknownst to Swanson, Gold Hill Mesa was already maneuvering to derail the story.”

After some saber-rattling from Gold Hill Mesa’s powerful legal firm, The Gazeete went ahead and published the stories and, at first, played tough. And then suddenly did not. The threats and intimidation apparently proved too much. A series of follow-up ideas from reporter Swanson were quietly squashed. Why? It’s not quite clear, except the developer came in hard and heavy with threats and warnings and there’s also the extraordinary amount of sheer work that a potential lawsuit involves, producing notes and interview transcripts, and so on. The first word of Enrich’s subtitle is Fear for good reason.

In short, even with the “actual malice” standard in place, intimidation works. But so does quality journalism. I worked in print and electronic journalism for twenty years. There was always a process in place to check facts and, occasionally, correct them. Few stories were published without the subject of those stories being made fully aware of what was being written and having a chance to comment or react.

The idea that government and business will be emboldened when or if Sullivan falls is, to say the least, worrisome.

Final quote from John McCain: “We need a free press. We must have it. It’s vital. … if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started. They get started by suppressing free press.”

Oh, and we’re not alone. There’s a group called Reporters Without Borders that produces an annual index measuring world press freedom. Norway, at the top, scored 92. North Korea, second to last, scored 12. United States landed in the middle of the pack, at 65.

It could get worse.

[K. E. Creighton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful by David Enrich is such an important book to read right now. At first, libel laws may not sound that interesting, but truly, this is one of the most necessary nonfiction books to read this year. Enrich does a superb job ensuring that it’s easy to follow and hard to put down. I would recommend picking it up as soon as possible, especially if you value democracy and having a free press.

In the book, Enrich diligently explains how libel law has evolved over the past 50+ years as a result of one major Supreme Court ruling: The New York Times v Sullivan (1964), and how certain powerful individuals (politicians, lawyers, judges, and billionaires from all over the world) have been trying to amend it or overrule it ever since. Why is this a big deal? Because The New York Times v Sullivan is one of the most consequential free speech decisions ever made and ensures that a free press is possible. In fact, the Civil Rights Movement (and all social movements after it) would probably have been affected greatly without it. Without this ruling, journalists (particularly investigative journalists), bloggers, newspapers, publishers— or anyone engaging in free speech, really— are under constant threat of being bullied into submission, to kowtow to the whims and egos of the powerful. They are also under great risk of being forced to shut down their operations, fined in excess, and even incarcerated. And if that happens, democratic dialogues and institutions no longer exist– simple as that. Without a truly free press, and the protections to criticize the powerful freely (specifically when those powerful individuals are endangering others’ lives and livelihoods) democracy is not possible, and the First Amendment is in imminent danger.

As detailed throughout the book, the powerful and well-connected have been weaponizing libel law (namely court rulings and decisions resulting from The New York Times v Sullivan decision) to punish those who write things about them that they simply don’t like, especially when it’s been verified and vetted as being true. I found the resources and research in this book well thought-out and strategically organized. And I was appalled by how voracious so many well-connected people are to blow up our free press because their egos were bruised by being called out for things they actually said or did, or things they were involved in that the public at least had a vested interest in learning and knowing about. That’s honestly the truth of it. So many of these well-connected individuals actually found success after they were subjected to the libel they were alleging (which means no libel happened) — they never lost money or prestige, their public support never wavered, etc. They were (and are) simply acting like vindictive entitled children who became malicious and petty when they were being questioned or held to account (This is my opinion, mind you. The author never says this outright.).

What’s more, Enrich includes snippets on how the public at large is also being swayed into believing that The New York Times v Sullivan should be overturned, or at the very least amended, due to the media efforts of those same well-connected individuals who want to get rid of the free press. And that is problematic because two existing Supreme Court Justices are ready to overturn it, who are more likely to succeed with greater public support. It should also be mentioned that the same individuals and organizations who were behind the decades-long effort to overturn Roe v Wade are behind the effort to overturn The New York Times v Sullivan, too, as mentioned in this book.

This book should serve as a wake-up call to those who understand how pivotal having a free press (and free thinkers who write and publish anything online without malicious intent) is to how we live and work every day in our democratic republic. Now is not the time to wait and see what happens. Keep your eyes on what is happening with all the cases regarding The New York Times v Sullivan now, before it’s too late.

Subscribe to Daily Drafts & Dialogues to receive more book reviews and posts about reading and writing in your inbox every day: dailydraftsanddialogues.substack.com

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are so many aspects of American life that make us blessed to live here that most of them can fade into the ether . . . they are understood to exist, like gravity. Most of us don't even see them any more.

The First Amendment and, specifically, the current Supreme Court precedent New York Times v. Sullivan, is one such American gift. Sure, lots of people bleat about the First Amendment in histrionic tones in our partisan media age, but the First Amendment has long been the subject of serious, bipartisan, sober analysis. One of the products of that analysis, the Sullivan decision, dictates that America leans in favor of holding the powerful to account, and that a free press has the liberty to pursue the truth against the powerful.

What am I talking about? For much of American life, a gentleman valued his reputation above all else, and would do his utmost to protect it. The First Amendment evolved accordingly. But by the 20th century, the wealthy and powerful would use their vast resources to use what we now call "lawfare" to threaten journalists and news organizations who were publishing stories about them. A news story might correctly tell the story of a corrupt official or other public figure, but if one detail was incorrect, the target would sue, using the threat of high court costs and a potential adverse verdict to chill the investigation.

That stopped with the Sullivan decision, which held that public figures have to meet a higher burden before prevailing in a libel or slander case - actual "malice." This decision rests on the belief that America is stronger if we have an independent free press - a belief I share.

Unfortunately, we are in the middle of a pushback against that belief, led by certain libertarian billionaires and a few conservative jurists. It's odd, because Sullivan used to be championed by right-wing judges, as recently as Judge Bork and Justice Scalia. No longer.

As David Enrich - an excellent writer and researcher - tells the story, litigants with deep pockets and a few judges want to see Sullivan overturned. And they work like hell to achieve their goal.

This should scare every American who values a free press. In other words, every American.

Highly recommended.

[Hope · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first learned of Murder the Truth from a segment on the PBS Newshour, where they interviewed the author on the subject matter of his book, and on said subject matter's place within the current political landscape.

I was very impressed with the interview, and the message around the threat to the First Amendment felt urgent enough that I decided to pick up the book from my local library to have a read.

I felt very impressed with this book. It seems to be clearly well-researched, with the author going to great lengths to demonstrate the process of hearing from opposing sides of any given issue that is undertaken. There is also an extensive notes and thoroughly-documented index that takes up about 50 pages, which I found both demonstrative of the enormous effort and research put into this work, as well as useful for referencing sources of information that I read about.

The author focuses on how libel law has evolved over the course of U.S. history. He explains several of the crucial turning points regarding libel law, but most especially a case called New York Times v. Sullivan, which established the "actual malice" doctrine that is in practice today, and which protects journalists and others from prosecution based on honest mistakes in reporting.

Enrich also touches on many other pivotal cases, especially recent cases that have sought to weaken the precedent of the Sullivan case, which he demonstrates is being chipped away at.

While the issues in the book are complex, they are extremely important for everyday citizens to understand, in my opinion, because a repeal of those protections could pose a major threat to a free press, as well as to everyday citizens, who could be subject to some of the same prosecutions.

The author makes this complex topic accessible to the reader, using real-life experiences of people involved in the lawsuits to help understand what is the current normal, and how that normal is being challenged.

I think given a lot of the ongoing prosecution of the media, this shines a light on what's at stake when the media as one entity is disparaged, and is a worthwhile read.

[Yoda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Makes it’s point but, in many cases, not complete

The first and most important point to make about this book is that it does succeed in making its case that, since the Sullivan vs. New York Times case in the early 1960s (that raised the bar on libel cases against the press), that libel standards, used by courts, have been falling over the past (roughly ) 10-15 years. It has become much easier to sue (or use that threat) the press. The author makes the case the case, very well, that this has a very detrimental impact on the reporting, transparency and the working of democracy by enabling the wealthy to launch libel cases (or threaten to launch) them against the press. This has had an especially deleterious impact on smaller news organizations that do not have the large resources that large press establishments have. The author does this primarily by examining libel cases since Sullivan, especially on relatively recent legal cases within the past 10-15 years.

The significant defect of the book is that, in its discussion of a few major cases, the author’s reporting is either not complete or misleading. For example, in the Hulk Hogans vs. Gawker case, there is no mention of the facts that the relevant video tape was probably obtained illegally by Gawker and there is no mention that, because of that and the fact the recording was not in a “public” setting, Gawker did not have the legal right, based on legal precedent, to show it on its website. There are a few other cases discussed in the book where such information is missing too.

Nevertheless, the book successfully makes its case that the libel laws have been getting stricter and that this will have a detrimental impact on the presses ability to report (as well as all the negatives that are implied). The wealthy, to avoid embarrassment or other negative consequences, have been exceedingly able to use libel laws to silence reporters (as well as private individuals).

[Judith · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most important right in this country is the right to freedom of speech. A significant part of that is freedom of the press. Right now we have perhaps the best rules for libel of any country, and they are being eroded.

In 1964 the Warren Court decided the case of New York Times Company vs L. B. Sullivan. The libel case was brought by Sullivan based on several minor factual errors the Times had printed that Sullivan believed reflected on his reputation. The court's unanimous decision sided with the Times.

The court concluded that the Times had not deliberately and knowingly made the errors, nor had it carelessly and recklessly included them. This conclusion set a precedent that has been followed since. A public figure cannot be libeled if a false statement printed about the figure was made in error, not with intent, and if the public figure was not actually harmed.

In a series of recent cases since then right-wing advocates have tried to erode the rules, saying it's not fair to the public figure if the press prints lies about him or her, regardless of intent. So far the Supreme Court has not acted to change the precedent set by NYT vs Sullivan, but several cases are wending their way through the courts specifically with intent to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to gut the previous rules. As the current court leans right, there is a good chance one of these cases will succeed.

This book provides the background and the individual cases leading up to now, and warns of the dangers of destroying our libel rules. It's an important, well-written history that all Americans should read. If the press loses what power it now has (which is being limited currently by threats from powerful figures) then what can we rely on to find out the truth? Will there ever be a way back?

[Writemoves · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enrich describes the legal war against newspapers, journalists and the press as politicians, government officials and greedy attorneys use libel suits and other means to stop publication of articles, exposing corruption, misdeeds and illegal behavior.

The author covers a variety of recent lawsuits and legal actions including:

Sarah Palin vs. The New York Times
Donald Trump’s Lawsuits Against Media Entities
Dominion Voting Systems vs. Fox News
Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker
Melania Trump vs Daily Mail

Enrich describes his own challenges to publish this book despite all his due diligence and follow-up with people he writes about in the book.

It is a dangerous time to be a journalist and writer. Not only is one’s reputation at stake, but one’s financial future, particularly if involved as a defendant in a libel suit.

More than 2500 newspapers in the United States have stopped publishing in the past two decades, a rate of about two per week. Most counties in the United States are no longer home to any daily papers, and many surviving outlets have been gutted by layoffs and other cost-cutting. 70 million Americans live in what researchers have dubbed "news deserts.”

As staffing at local newspapers, declines, mayoral races, become less competitive, and voter turnout wins. Misinformation spreads. Politicians and other public figures are rarely held to account for lies and misdeeds. Today, state, legislators, city Council members, and small town mayors – – not to mention companies that pollute or mistreat workers or sell dangerous products – –are operating with a degree of invisibility and impunity that they have not enjoyed in a century.

Very well written. Interesting stories. Definitely worth a read given today’s political climate...

[Marsha Rafalski · Rating 4 out of 5]

(4.75 rounded to 5.0). Challenge: x) title

David Enrich is a journalist who has written extensively on the role of the Press in common communication assessing and evaluating the extreme effect of true “misinformation” and the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment . Using landmark decisions issued by the Supreme Court since the early 1960s, the author also looks at the background and circumstances that influence the making of those decisions. The use of modern media that has enabled journalists, and investigative writers to pursue truth and hold the wealthy, powerful, influential and corrupt to account. The current tendency of such individuals to consider themselves above the law has contributed to the promulgation of lies, misstatements, and errors that are creating a climate the can result in the loss of truth and integrity available to the public. The aura of invulnerability has contributed to the massive wave of lawsuits against organizations, corporations, professionals down to the lowest individuals. This threat of retaliation has caused many individuals to choose to remove themselves from the public arena rather than risk themselves, their families and associates to such attacks.

This book is a much needed examination of the massive exposure of violations of First Amendment and the use of the legal system as a means of retaliation and as a deterrent for information that may be unfavorable to them. The careful research is evident. The look at the the major dangers that may be facing those who are in a position to act is truly troubling. This book is a hard one to read and digest, but the importance of knowing where we have come from and what is influencing decisions that may affect democracy can’t be underestimated. Highly recommend to readers of political history, law, journalism, and investigation.

[Michaela Kollin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this. And I really didn’t expect to. I went in assuming that a book on defamation law and one specific Supreme Court precedent interpreting the first amendment would be a bit of a dull read, but Murder the Truth really wasn’t. Enrich has a very readable writing style and he writes about each of its case studies in a way that draws a through-line between them, but never makes them feel repetitive. I also appreciated how he acknowledged the complexity of the argument he was making. Sometimes the reputations of innocent people are harmed by inaccurate negative reporting on them, but this unfortunate collateral damage is a price worth paying for a free press who can expose wrongdoing by the powerful without having to worry about being sued into oblivion. It was really sad to read the case studies demonstrating that even with all of the protections the United States has for journalists, moneyed interests are sometimes still able to drag out meritless lawsuits for long enough to shut down small outlets, force the individual journalists to leave journalism, or at least pick their battles when it comes to exposing the powerful.

There was a time when all of the disinformation I was seeing online and the impacts I was seeing that disinformation having on our politics led me to be in favor of a narrower interpretation of the First Amendment. After seeing how aggressively the Trump administration is trying to attack the First Amendment and silence his critics, I now see how precious this freedom is. And I’m grateful to David Enrich for writing about recent efforts to roll it back in such an accessible way.