-2356. The distinction between the first or main publishers of a work which contains a libel49 and subordinate publishers of that work, central to the innocent dissemination defence, was developed in the era of mass communications in the print medium. As we have seen, the defence was designed to relieve from the strict publication rule, persons such as wholesalers, distributors, booksellers, librarians, newsagents and the like. While such persons came within the very broad traditional concept of “publication” since they intentionally participated in distribution of the work, they were relieved of liability if they could show that they did not know and could not with reasonable care have known the defamatory content of the article they were disseminating. 57. In the creation and distribution of such print publications, the first or main publishers have or can readily acquire full knowledge of the publication’s content before its release and are able to control and, if necessary, prevent dissemination of such content. It involves what is sometimes called a “one-tomany” model of mass communication. The “one” – the entity which originates and publishes the work – exercises editorial and general control over the publication process. Such an entity is denied the defence of innocent dissemination. 58. The same “one-to-many” model applies to radio and television broadcasts, as illustrated by Thompson v Australian Capital TV Ltd.50 That was a case which involved a programme produced by one television channel (Channel 9) being broadcast live to air by another (Channel 7). The programme contained defamatory allegations, leading to an action against Channel 7 which sought to raise the innocent dissemination defence on the basis that it was a subordinate publisher of Channel 9’s programme. That defence was rejected on the basis that Channel 7 had full control of how and when the programme was 49 Leaving printers aside for the moment. 50 (1996) 186 CLR 574.