由此 -9- A B was motivated solely by a desire to injure without any attention being paid to whether the matters stated are true. C D E F G 31. That being so, it becomes important to say something about the standard of journalistic responsibility which the law expects. 32. The standard should not be too low as that would only encourage the proliferation of defamatory material which cannot be in the public goods. H J K L M 33. B C D E F G In this connection the Court of Appeal remarked in Loutchansky (at §41):- I A H “Journalists should be rigorous, not lax, in their approach. It is in the interests of the public as well as the defamed individual that, wherever possible, truths and not untruths should be told. This in the interests of the media too: once untruths can be published with impunity, the public will cease to believe any communications, true or false.” I On the other hand, the standard should not be too high as this L would compromise the free flow of information and prevent matters of J K M public interest from coming to light. Again, in Loutchansky (at §41), the N O P Q R S Court of Appeal observed:“When determining in respect of any given article whether or not it should attract qualified privilege, the court must bear in mind the likely impact of its ruling not only upon the case in hand but also upon the media’s practices generally.... The question to be posed is ... whether it was in the public interest to publish the article, true or false, rather than whether it was in the public interest to publish an untruth. Even, moreover, when the untruth of the article is established (or when, as here, it is not formally disputed), it is important to remember that the defence of qualified privilege tolerates factual inaccuracy for two purposes: first so as not to deter the publication sued upon (which might have been true); and secondly so as not deter future publications of truthful information.” N O P Q R S T T U U V V