由此 - 10 - A B 34. A Beyond that, I am not sure that it is possible or advisable fully to articulate the requisite standard. Much will depend on the context of a C B C given situation. In essence, the Court has to evaluate whether, at least in D E light of the 10 factors identified by Lord Nicholls, a hypothetical responsible journalist or editor might reasonably decide to publish an D E article. F F G 35. The assessment of journalistic responsibility is conducted G objectively. Strictly, the journalist’s subjective belief that he was acting H I responsibly is not relevant to the exercise. This was stressed in Loutchansky (at §40): “In the final analysis it must be the court, not the H I journalist, to decide whether he was acting responsibly”. J J K III. DISCUSSION 36. L M K The Writ never having been served on Mr. Lintner, the trial has focused on ATOL’s duties as editor and publisher of the Article. In this section I will first discuss ATOL’s liability (if any) and then cover the L M quantum of damages (insofar as ATOL is found liable). N N O 37. On liability, I propose to consider the following questions and matters:- P P (1) Q R Is the Article defamatory? The discussion here will look at the Article as a whole. However, as part of such exercise, it will be necessary to consider the individual sections into which I have divided the Article. S T O Q R In so doing, it will also be convenient for me to consider the extent to which (if at all) the Article accurately reflected documentary materials which were S T apparently available to ATOL at the time of publication. As U U V V