Full opinion text
ORDER BURRAGE, District Judge. On May 26, 1995, the Court entered an Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry # 244) filed by Defendants, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Robbie Gordon, Diane Sawyer and Kelly Sutherland and denying the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #257) filed by Plaintiff, Robert G. Tilton. The following sets forth the Court’s reasons for its decision. On November 21, 1991, Defendant, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“ABC”), broadcast on its weekly television news show PrimeTime Live, a program entitled “Men of God” which focused on — and was critical of— three televangelists, W.V. Grant, Larry Lea and Plaintiff, Robert G. Tilton. On July 9, 1992, ABC rebroadcast its original Prime-Time Live program, with some revisions and clarifications, and broadcast a follow-up segment reporting on additional information ABC had learned about Plaintiff after its original broadcast. Defendant, Diane Sawyer, was the anchor and correspondent for both of the broadcasts. Defendant, Robbie Gordon, and Defendant, Kelly Sutherland, were the producer and associate producer, respectively, for the specific reports concerning Plaintiff which were entitled “The Apple of God’s Eye.” On November 11, 1992, Plaintiff commenced this diversity libel and false light invasion of privacy action against Defendants, alleging that PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II broadcast three libelous and false light statements. Plaintiff, on May 13, 1993, moved the Court for entry of a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction barring ABC from rebroadcasting statements contained in the PrimeTime Live broadcasts. After a five-day evidentiary hearing, the Court denied Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief finding, inter alia, that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate there was a substantial likelihood of recovery on the merits of his claims. Thereafter, Plaintiff amended his complaint setting forth additional allegations of libelous and false light statements made by Defendants in PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II. At the Court’s directive, Plaintiff, on July 26, 1994, filed his Final Amended Complaint, which consolidated all of his claims against Defendants. After conducting extensive discovery, Plaintiff has now filed his partial summary judgment motion, seeking judgment as to six segments of the broadcasts which allegedly contain libelous and false light statements. Defendants have also filed a summary judgment motion, seeking judgment as to all alleged libelous and false light statements. The parties agree that Plaintiff is a public figure. Thus, in order to prevail on his claims, Plaintiff must establish that the alleged defamatory statements are false and that Defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the alleged defamatory statements. Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 775-78, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 1563-64, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 725-26, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 162, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1995, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). The actual malice standard is not satisfied merely through a showing of ill will or “malice” in the ordinary sense of the term. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 2685, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989). In order to prove actual malice, Plaintiff must show that Defendants acted with “knowledge that [the publication] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times, 376 U.S. at 280, 84 S.Ct. at 726. A reckless disregard for the truth requires more than a departure from reasonably prudent conduct. Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 688, 109 S.Ct. at 2696. There must be sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Defendants made the false publication with a “high degree of awareness of ... probable falsity,” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964), or that Defendants “entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [their publications].” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968). The actual malice standard may be proven by indirect or circumstantial evidence. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 170, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 1645, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). However, because First Amendment concerns are implicated, Plaintiff must prove actual malice with convincing clarity. New York Times, 376 U.S. at 285-286, 84 S.Ct. at 728-729. As stated, Plaintiff must also establish falsity of the alleged defamatory statements in order to prevail on his claims. Hepps, 475 U.S. at 776-78, 106 S.Ct. at 1563-64; Garrison, 379 U.S. at 74, 85 S.Ct. at 215. In so doing, Plaintiff cannot simply point to minor inaccuracies in the challenged statements. Rather, he must show that the statements were not substantially true. As stated by the Supreme Court in Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 516-517, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 2432-2433, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991), it is “the substance, the gist or the sting” of the alleged defamatory statements that are critical to the Court’s analysis. Unlike the element of actual malice, the Supreme Court has not addressed the appropriate standard of proof for falsity. Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 661, n. 2, 109 S.Ct. at 2682, n. 2. The circuit courts, which have addressed the issue, have reached different conclusions. Compare Firestone v. Time, Inc., 460 F.2d 712, 722-723 (5th Cir.) (Bell, J., specially concurring), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 875, 93 S.Ct. 120, 34 L.Ed.2d 127 (1972) and Buckley v. Littell, 539 F.2d 882, 889-90 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1062, 97 S.Ct. 785, 786, 50 L.Ed.2d 777 (1977) (expressing view that clear and convincing standard applies to issue of falsity) with Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 414 F.2d 324, 341 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1049, 90 S.Ct. 701, 24 L.Ed.2d 695 (1970) and Rattray v. City of National City, 36 F.3d 1480, 1487 (9th Cir.1994) (expressing view that preponderance of the evidence standard applies). However, in reaching its determination of the parties’ motions, the Court need not make a definitive ruling in regard to the appropriate standard of proof. As will be discussed hereinafter, the Court finds Plaintiff’s proof of falsity is inadequate even under the lesser standard of the preponderance of evidence in regard to several of his claims. As to other claims, the Court finds Plaintiff cannot establish the element of actual malice, and therefore, falsity need not be addressed. Under Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In applying this standard, the Court must draw all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Brueggemeyer v. American Broadcasting Cos., 684 F.Supp. 452, 454 (N.D.Tex.1988). When the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is warranted if the non-moving party fails to “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element of that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In determining whether a material factual dispute exists for trial, the Court views the evidence through a prism of the controlling legal standard. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, in regard to the issue of actual malice, “the appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not.” Id. at 255-56, 106 S.Ct. at 2514. Applying the foregoing standards, the Court now examines the alleged libelous and false light statements in PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II. Haitian Orphanage PrimeTime I reported: “SAWYER: [voice-over] And what about this mission, Tilton’s orphanage in Haiti? We kept thinking about Bob Jones and how he told us you could just fix yourself up a sign and claim an orphanage. BROTHER BOB JONES: Put your name on there, whatever you want. SAWYER: [voice-over] Tilton uses three different names for his Haiti orphanages, so when we went to Haiti, we asked the government officials in charge of foreign missions if they’d heard of any of Tilton’s orphanages. They said no. [interviewing] So nothing from Robert Tilton here? HAITIAN OFFICIAL: No.” PrimeTime II also reported: “SAWYER: [voice-over] And what about this mission, Tilton’s orphanage in Haiti? Well, remember Bob Jones who told us for just a few thousand a month we could put up a sign and claim an entire orphanage, even if we weren’t the only contributor. BROTHER BOB JONES: Put your name on there, whatever you want. SAWYER: [voice-over] So even though his magazine calls it the Robert Tilton Ministries Children’s Home, it’s really not Tilton’s place at all, which is why government officials we spoke to in Haiti hadn’t heard of Tilton or his orphanage. [interviewing] So nothing from Robert Tilton here? HAITIAN OFFICIAL: No.” In his motion and in response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff contends that the underlined statements in the above-quoted segments of the PrimeTime Live broadcasts were false and were published by Defendants with actual malice. Plaintiff argues that the broadcasts falsely accused him of mail fraud by stating that he claimed to own and/or to provide financial support to a Haitian orphanage, when he did not. Plaintiff contends that neither he nor Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church (“Church”) ever claimed to own an orphanage in Haiti and Defendants have never possessed any documents which shows that he or the Church ever made such a statement. Plaintiff contends that the Church did sponsor an orphanage in Haiti, World Harvest Orphanage, which was owned by Reverend Lee and Chris Sullivan. Plaintiff asserts that in 1985, Plaintiff, on behalf of the Church, sent one letter appealing for funds for the Haitian orphanage. Since 1985, however, neither he nor the Church has solicited funds for the Haitian orphanage. Plaintiff further asserts that he did not use three names to describe the Haitian orphanage as stated in Prime-Time I. Plaintiff concedes that the three names, including “Robert Tilton Ministries Children’s Home,” were used in his ministry magazine; however, he maintains the copy for the magazine articles, wherein the three names were referenced, was written by Reverend Lee Sullivan. In regard to Defendants’ statements as to Bob Jones, Plaintiff contends such statements tied Plaintiffs support of a Haitian orphanage to the “money laundering scheme” of Mr. Jones which was described in the segment of televangelist, W.V. Grant. Plaintiff contends that neither he nor the Church were in any way affiliated with Mr. Jones. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that neither he nor his Church ever sent Mr. Jones money or conducted any business with him. Plaintiff contends that Ole Anthony, a Dallas minister, furnished Mr. Jones’ name to Defendants and testified in the Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church, Inc. v. Morales case that Mr. Jones had no connection with Plaintiff. Although Defendants were given a copy of Mr. Anthony’s testimony prior to the PrimeTime II broadcast, Plaintiff states that they ignored the testimony and rebroadcast the statements implicating Plaintiff in Mr. Jones’ scheme. In addition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants knew, prior to the broadcast of Prime-Time I, that only a few orphanages were registered with the Haitian government. Plaintiff specifically cites to Defendant, Kelly Sutherland’s notes of an interview with Fritz Artistyl in Haiti, which included the statement, “149 registered. 700 working w/o legal status,” and her notes on the back of a photograph picturing World Harvest Orphanage, which included the statement, “did a survey found 700 additionally on Haitian soil — only 148 registered.” (Joyce Aff., Ex. 42, Ex. 48). Plaintiff also argues that Ms. Sutherland knew, prior to the broadcast, that Plaintiff did in fact sponsor an orphanage in Haiti as she knew the name of the orphanage and the names and addresses of the Sulli-vans, who owned the orphanage. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants, Diane Sawyer and Robbie Gordon, also knew, prior to the broadcast, that Plaintiff supported an orphanage in Haiti. Plaintiff states that Ms. Gordon’s knowledge is shown by a memo sent to Ira Rosen, senior producer for PrimeTime Live, on July 23, 1991, stating that she did not expect to find out that Plaintiffs missions were nonexistent. (Joyce Aff. Ex. 38). Although Defendants had knowledge that Plaintiff sponsored an orphanage in Haiti, Plaintiff argues that Defendants knowingly broadcast the PrimeTime I segment claiming that they could not find any orphanage. Plaintiff further argues that despite the information obtained prior to PrimeTime I and the evidence obtained from Plaintiff after PrimeTime I aired, Defendants knowingly rebroadcast similar false statements in PrimeTime II. Defendants, in response to Plaintiffs motion and in support of their motion, contend that even if Plaintiffs statements that he never “owned” an orphanage in Haiti; that he did contribute money to World Harvest Orphanage; that after 1986, he did not solicit funds for World Harvest Orphanage; and that he never associated with or knew Bob Jones were true, the broadcasts at issue did not report any such facts. Defendants contend that the broadcasts never said Plaintiff owned an orphanage. .Indeed, Defendants state that PrimeTime II specifically stated “even though his ministry magazine calls it the Robert Tilton Ministries Children’s Home, it’s not really Tilton’s place at all.” Defendants assert PrimeTime I stated that they could not find any of the three orphanages identified in Plaintiffs ministry magazine and other promotional materials and PrimeTime II stated that they could not find “Robert Tilton Ministries Children’s Home.” Defendants contend that they accurately reported in PrimeTime I that they could not find any of the three named orphanages. According to Defendants, the evidence shows that they conducted an exhaustive investigation to find the orphanages, including World Harvest Orphanage, but could not locate any of them. Defendants argue that they accurately reported that the Haitian officials had neither heard of Plaintiff nor any of the orphanages identified in Plaintiffs magazine and other promotional materials. Defendants also argue that they accurately reported in PrimeTime II that the Haitian officials had neither heard of Plaintiff nor Robert Tilton Ministries Children’s Home. Although Plaintiff claims that he did not write the copy for the magazine articles which identified the three orphanages, Defendants contend that he was the publisher of the magazine. As to Bob Jones, Defendants contend they never stated that Plaintiff was associated with or knew Mr. Jones. They contend the broadcasts stated that the canvas sign on the Haitian orphanage featured in Plaintiffs magazine brought to mind the statements of Mr. Jones. Defendants maintain Plaintiff cannot present any evidence to show that the canvas sign did not bring those statements to mind. In addition, Defendants state that Plaintiff cannot and has not disputed the accuracy of the quote attributed to Mr. Jones that just for a few thousand dollars a month “you could just fix up a sign and claim an orphanage” in Haiti. Defendants further state that the quote is accurate as to Plaintiff since the canvas sign on the Haitian orphanage featured in his magazine was hung only once and for the explicit purpose of photographing it. Having reviewed the challenged segment of the broadcasts and the evidence applicable thereto, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in regard to the segments. The Court also finds that Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence, even under a preponderance of the evidence standard, to raise a genuine issue of fact as to the falsity of the segments so as to defeat Defendants’ motion. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants knew of the alleged falsity of the segments or entertained serious doubts as to their truth. Despite Plaintiffs assertions to the contrary, the broadcasts at issue did not state that Plaintiff owned a Haitian orphanage nor did they report that Plaintiff did not provide any support to an orphanage in Haiti. PrimeTime I stated that the Haitian officials had not heard of any of the three orphanages identified in Plaintiffs maga-zine and PrimeTime II stated that even though the Plaintiffs magazine called the mission, Robert Tilton Ministries Children’s Home, it was not his place at all and Haitian officials had not heard of Plaintiff or his orphanage. Plaintiff has alleged that since Defendants knew the name of the orphanage sponsored by Plaintiffs Church and the individuals who ran it, Defendants could have and should have located the orphanage. However, it is undisputed that Defendants, prior to the broadcast of PrimeTime I, did attempt to locate World Harvest Orphanage and specifically questioned Haitian officials about that orphanage. The evidence also reveals that even though Defendants had the names and addresses of the Sullivans, they were unable to locate them in both Haiti and Dallas. Although Plaintiff may contend that Defendants were negligent in failing to find the orphanage, such claim does not support a finding of actual malice. Masson, 501 U.S. at 509, 111 S.Ct. at 2428 (mere negligence does not suffice to prove actual malice). As to PrimeTime II, Defendants merely reported that Robert Tilton Ministries Children’s Home identified in Plaintiffs magazine was not his orphanage and Haitian officials had not heard of him or the orphanage. Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to show that such report was false or that it was made with knowledge of the falsity or with serious doubts as to its truth. Likewise, the Court finds that the broadcasts did not state that Plaintiff knew or was associated with Bob Jones. Prime-Time I stated that “[w]e kept thinking about Bob Jones and how he told us you could just fix yourself up a sign” and PrimeTime II stated “[wjell, remember Bob Jones who told us for just a few thousand a month we could put a sign and claim an entire orphanage, even if we weren’t the only contributor.” Defendant, Robbie Gordon, has testified that the canvas sign on the Haitian orphanage which was featured in Plaintiff’s magazine and was shown on the broadcasts brought to mind the statements of Mr. Jones. Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the canvas sign did not bring Mr. Jones to mind to Defendants. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants falsely accused Plaintiff of mail fraud in the broadcasts. Plaintiff, however, has failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate an intent or awareness on the part of Defendants that they implicitly accused him of such conduct. See, Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., 930 F.2d 662, 681 (9th Cir.1990) (not permissible to uphold jury verdict on basis that “because the broadcast may be capable of supporting the impression [plaintiff] claims, [defendant] must therefore have intended to convey the defamatory impression at issue”); Saenz v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1319 (7th Cir.1988) (to show actual malice, plaintiff must prove “with clear and convincing evidence that the defendants intended or knew of the defamatory implications”); Woods v. Evansville Press Co., 791 F.2d 480, 487 (7th Cir.1986) (actual malice not shown where “there is no evidence that the defendants ... shared the plaintiffs interpretation of [article] or intended that the [article] be read to contain the defamatory innuendos the plaintiff attributes to it”). Holy Water—Response Media PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II reported the following: “SAWYER: [voice-over] Tilton sends out an avalanche of things he asks viewers to sent back to him—‘miracle prayer cloths’ he promises to touch and place upon an altar, cords he says he’ll place on a Vail of deliverance,’ arrows he’ll use to take aim at a sufferer’s needs, a tracing— place your hand there and he’ll put his hand there too. There’s holy water from the River Jordan, ‘miracle anointing oil’— though Moore said some of the items come from that holy place Taiwan. MR. MOORE: We get stuff from Taiwan.” Plaintiff, in support of his motion and in response to Defendants’ motion, contends that the statements in these segments of PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II were false in that they accused Plaintiff of mail fraud by stating that he sends to his followers holy water from Taiwan rather than from the River Jordan as represented. Plaintiff contends that the evidence clearly shows that the holy water sent to his followers came from the River Jordan. He also contends that ABC’s raw footage from the interview with Jim Moore shows that he never said any of Plaintiff’s mailing items came from Taiwan. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Moore’s statement “[w]e get stuff from Taiwan” had nothing to do with Plaintiff’s mailings items. Plaintiff states that Mr. Moore was obviously distracted when he answered the question posed by Defendant, Robbie Gordon. Plaintiff also states that ABC’s raw footage of the discussion between Ms. Gordon, Ole Anthony and Jeff Cooke following the interview clearly demonstrates that Defendants recognized they lacked any evidence to support their statement in the broadcasts. Specifically, Plaintiff points to Ms. Gordon’s statements that she would like to know where they “get the—that Lord’s water and a couple of other things;” that she didn’t “feel like we’ve got him nailed right now;” and that she “really wanted to get him to say that stuff is not from the River Jordan.” (Joyce Aff., Ex. 18 at pp. 71,110,112). Plaintiff also states that ABC’s notes clearly show what ABC wanted to say in the broadcasts as they state that “Tilton’s miracle waters and oils, cloths, etc. — most come from Taiwan — though they imply they are from the Holy Land or somehow anointed” and “[t]he miracle waters, oils, replicas of widow’s mites, etc. — many come from Taiwan, though they imply they are from the Holy Land or they are somehow anointed.” (Joyce Aff., Ex. 19, Ex. 20). Plaintiff further contends that Defendants knew that their statement about the holy water was false because prior to the rebroadcast on PrimeTime II, Plaintiff advised Defendants that the allegations regarding the holy water were false and enclosed evidence to prove that the holy water came from the River Jordan. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Defendants knew that their accusation Plaintiff misrepresented Taiwanese water as River Jordan water was an accusation Plaintiff committed mail fraud as Defendant, Diane Sawyer, specifically asked John Brugger of the United States Postal Service in an interview if “the stuff they send out, the, the holy water ... in fact, it comes from Taiwan. If they don’t actually say where it comes from, again you can’t— ... It has to be fairly specific?” (Joyce Aff., Ex. 21 at p. 15, Ex. VT-21). Defendants, in response and in support of their motion, contend that the challenged segments did not state that the holy water came from Taiwan nor did they accuse Plaintiff of mail fraud. Rather, the broadcasts stated that some of the other items mailed to Plaintiffs followers came from Taiwan. Defendants also state that the gist of their segments was substantially true. According to Defendants, the gist of the challenged segments was that Plaintiff obtained inexpensive items for his mailings. Defendants state that discovery has confirmed the gist as some of Plaintiffs mailing items came from Hong Kong. In addition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot show actual maliee with respect to the broadcasts as Ms. Gordon has testified she believed that Response Media obtained some of Plaintiffs mailing items from Taiwan. Defendants stated that Mr. Moore also testified that it was possible for Ms. Gordon to have interpreted his comments to mean the mailings came from Taiwan. In regard to ABC’s notes referred to by Plaintiff, which were sent to Ms. Sawyer by Ms. Gordon before Ms. Sawyer’s interview with Mr. Brugger and which contained comments that “many” or “most” of Plaintiffs “miracle waters and oils, cloths, etc.” came from Taiwan “though they imply they are from the Holy Land or they are somehow anointed,” Defendants contend that the notes do not support a finding of actual maliee. Defendants argue that if they “wanted to say” that “many” or “most” of the mailing items came from Taiwan in the broadcasts, they could have. Likewise, if they wanted to accuse Plaintiff of mail fraud, they could have. Defendants, however, state that neither broadcast contained such statements. Upon review of the record related to the challenged segments, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact in response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion as to the element of actual malice. The challenged segments did not, as Plaintiff argues, state that holy water came from Taiwan nor did they explicitly accuse Plaintiff of mail fraud. Even though Plaintiff contends that the broadcasts imply such facts, Plaintiff has faded to produce adequate evidence to establish that Defendants intended or knew that the broadcasts implied such facts. See, Saenz, 841 F.2d at 1318. Plaintiff has presented evidence to show that none of the items obtained for his mailings came from Taiwan. However, Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that Defendants knew that their statement “though Moore said some items come from that holy place Taiwan” was false or that they subjectively entertained serious doubts as to its truth. Plaintiff cites to Defendant, Robbie Gordon’s remarks “I would like to know, just out of curiosity, where they get the — that Lord’s water and a couple of other things;” “I really wanted to get him to say that stuff is not from the River Jordan, but I think he ...” and “I don’t think we have him nailed right now” to support his allegations of actual malice. These remarks, however, do not establish that Defendant did not believe that some of the items for Plaintiff’s mailing came from Taiwan. Indeed, it is apparent from the transcript of the interview with Mr. Moore that Ms. Gordon’s “nailed” remark was not directed at the holy water or other mailed items as argued by Plaintiff. As there is an absence of clear and convincing evidence of Defendants’ subjective awareness of alleged falsity, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs attack on the challenged segments must fail. PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II also reported: “SAWYER: [voice-over] So we decided to take hidden cameras to see what we could learn about Robert Tilton’s fund-raising. It led us first to the nerve center of his ministry, the company that organizes his direct mail. It’s called Response Media. JIM MOORE: Bob is doing far better than anyone knows. SAWYER: [voice-over] Jim Moore is president of Response Media. He handles not only Tilton, but a number of big corporate accounts. We told Moore that we were media consultants for this man, Dallas minister Ole Anthony. We asked him to show us how to start a big money ministry like Tilton’s. MR. MOORE: Give them something for free. You know, we want to mail you the latest copy of “X” and get their name and address. New names is the key, new names. Just think, ‘New names.’ SAWYER: [voice-over] We learned that once people give you their names, its easy to keep them on the hook. You mail them something with a gimmick in it. MR. MOORE: First of all, when you send an item in it, it gets their attention. That’s number one. * * * * * * SAWYER: [voice-over] The letters accompanying the items are written by ghost writers to pressure followers to write back and make donations, too. Does it work? People send them in by the truckloads. It’s a great marketing scheme. SAWYER: [voice-over] And when the letters arrive, they’re processed so the company knows which fund-raising appeals you can use to squeeze followers for the most donations. Mr. MOORE: We take the clients’ files and we run them up against demographic information and create a profile of who their people are, how many people have cars that are new— SAWYER: [voice-over] So it’s market research, not God, who can tell Tilton which appeals reach the richest donors, which illnesses create the most dollar opportunities.” In their motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his challenges of these segments of the broadcasts concerning Defendants’ description of Response Media as the “nerve center” or “the company who organizes his direct mail” and their statements that “the letters accompanying the items are written by ghost writers to pressure followers to write back and make donations, too. It’s a great marketing scheme.” Defendants contend that even though Plaintiff argues that Response Media was “only a printer” for him and that “[Internal Data Management] handled the mail” for him, Mr. Moore, during his interview, described Response Media’s role far more than that of “only a printer.” According to Defendants, Mr. Moore described to Mr. Anthony, Ms. Gordon and Mr. Cooke, a wide range of services Response Media could provide to a ministry and indicated that he performed such services for Plaintiff. The described services included sophisticated direct mail strategies, market research techniques and statistical analyses. He also explained the process of handling the direct mail. In addition, with respect to Plaintiffs ministry, Defendants contend that Mr. Moore portrayed himself as responsible for Plaintiffs success, claiming that Plaintiff “was out of business” prior to his association with Response Media. According to Defendants, Mr. Moore told his interviewees that he commuted to Dallas every day for two years, and in reference to assistance he provided to Plaintiff in reorganizing his ministry, Mr. Moore stated that he “worked with them.” Mr. Moore further indicated that Response Media did the media buying for Plaintiffs Church. In light of these representations, Defendants contend they believed that Response Media was the “nerve center” of Plaintiffs Church and the “company that organizes his direct mail.” Defendants also contend that discovery has confirmed Response Media served Plaintiffs ministry as more than a printer. Defendants state that the evidence shows Response Media acted as a consultant to the Church with respect to its mailings. Mr. Moore participated in meetings at which mailing strategies and results were discussed and analyzed. In addition, Response Media created a demographic study for Plaintiffs Church. Even if Response Media were “only a printer” and Internal Data Management handled the direct mail operation for Plaintiff, Defendants contend that the gist or substance of the challenged segments was substantially true. According to Defendants, the gist of the broadcasts was that Plaintiff utilized a sophisticated direct mail operation which effectively brought in large amounts of contributions. Defendants argue that there is no dispute that such was the case, whether the direct mail operation was conducted by Response Media or Internal Data Management. As to the statement in the broadcasts that Plaintiffs letters were written by ghost writers, Defendants state that such statement was true. Defendants contend that Kathryn Ingley, the Church’s manager of partner correspondence, described herself as a ghost writer for Plaintiff. Defendants also assert that Plaintiff testified that he had the concept in the letter but that it was the responsibility of Internal Data Management employees as subordinates to put the letter in mailable form. Defendants further argue the evidence reveals the employees of Internal Data Management reviewed the prayer partners’ letters, selected the responses to them and then mailed them out over Plaintiffs signature. In response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff disputes that Response Media was the nerve center. He also disputes the accuracy of Defendants’ characterization of Mr. Moore’s statements during the interview. While Plaintiff concedes Mr. Moore indicated that Response Media could perform a wide range of services, he contends that Mr. Moore did not state he performed such services for Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff disputes the accuracy of Defendants’ statement that Mr. Moore claimed credit for Plaintiffs financial success. Plaintiff states that Mr. Moore never made such a statement and in fact, the evidence shows that he was not responsible for the success. Plaintiff further asserts that Mr. Moore did not claim to do the media buying for Plaintiff. Rather, he stated that the “downtown office” did the media buying, referring to J.C. Joyce’s office. Plaintiff further denies Defendants’ contention that Mr. Moore was a consultant for Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that Mr. Moore was only a technical advisor involved in the layout and design of the mailing. Furthermore, Plaintiff states that Mr. Moore has only performed one profile of the Church’s mailing and the Church did not use the information. The Court, upon review of the challenged segments of the broadcasts and the record thereof, finds that Plaintiff has faded to satisfy his burden to overcome summary judgment as to the issue of actual malice in regard to Defendants’ description of Response Media as the “nerve center” and as “the company that organizes his direct mail.” Plaintiff has failed to provide affirmative evidence to demonstrate that Defendants knew their statements were false. The transcript of the interview with Mr. Moore reveals that Mr. Moore did indicate or at least suggest that he performed a wide variety of services for Plaintiff. Moreover, Mr. Moore told Ms. Gordon, Mr. Anthony and Mr. Cooke that he had commuted to Dallas for two years to work with Plaintiffs ministry and that he had been the one responsible for moving direct mailing services from in-house to Tulsa. The transcript, contrary to Plaintiffs contention, also shows that Mr. Moore did in fact take credit for Plaintiffs success. Indeed, in the interview, Mr. Moore stated: “[w]hen I got associated with Bob he was about out of business.... * * # $ * * He was having a very difficult time. In fact, almost—I don’t know if he knew what to do at the time. When he first came on, the first mailing program that we did with him he, he tried to convince me—he went—he wanted to go with this real slick—_ ‡ * H: * sfc And what he felt would work and what would actually work were two different things. And once he saw that this wouldn’t work, he was willing to go with this ... ****** Bob, is, is doing far better than anyone knows.” (Joyce Aff., Ex. 18 at pp. 91-92). These statements clearly demonstrate that Mr. Moore claimed credit for Plaintiffs success. Furthermore, in regard to Mr. Moore’s statement as to media buying, the Court concludes that the statement, at the very least, is ambiguous and in the Court’s view, could be understood by Defendants as indicating that Mr. Moore and Response Media played a part in media buying. As to demographic analysis, Plaintiff has not submitted specific facts to show that Defendants knew that the statements in regard to Response Media’s participation in such activity was false or that they subjectively entertained serious doubts that their statements were false. In regard to Defendants’ statement concerning ghost writers, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence, even under a preponderance of the evidence standard, to establish that the statement was false. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown with convincing clarity that Defendants knew such statement was false or had serious doubts as to its truth. The undisputed evidence shows that Kathryn Ingley and others wrote letters for Plaintiff and that Ms. Ingley considered herself as a ghostwriter. It is also undisputed that Internal Data Management employees reviewed letters from prayer partners, selected responses to those letters and then sent them out over Plaintiffs signature. Even though Plaintiff claims that the broadcast implies that the employees of Response Media were ghostwriters for the letters, the Court concludes that the gist of Defendants’ statement is substantially true as Kathryn Ingley as well as Internal Data Management employees wrote letters or selected responses on behalf of Plaintiff. As to remainder of the challenged statement involving ghost writers and the statements concerning letters sent and received from followers, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden of proof that Defendants made the statements with knowledge of falsity or doubts as to their truth. As to Defendants’ statements “[i]t’s a great marketing scheme” and “So it’s market research, not God, who can tell Tilton which appeals reach the richest donors, which illnesses create the most dollar opportunities,” the Court finds that such statements are non-actionable as statements of opinion, not verifiable as true or false. See, Metcalf v. KFOR-TV, 828 F.Supp. 1515, 1529 (W.D.Okla.1992) (“statements which are opin-ionative and not factual in nature, which cannot be verified as true or false, are not actionable as slander or libel”); Miskovsky v. Oklahoma Pub. Co., 654 P.2d 587, 593 (Okla.1982) (opinion or “judgmental statement in which the maker of the same expresses his views” cannot be libelous). Prayer Requests PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II reported: “SAWYER: [voice-over] But how much does Tilton really care about the beat-up and the hurting? We kept thinking about something the head of the direct mail operation told us, that the mail doesn’t go to Tilton. It’s forwarded unopened to Til-ton’s bank in Tulsa. So the bank opens the followers’ mail, not to share the agony, but to get the money. INTERVIEWER: The bank opens the letters that come back in? MR. MOORE: Right. And takes your money and puts it in your account. All we get is the paper document and how much the person gave. SAWYER: [voice-over] And those items that people have prayed over and sent in, believing Robert Tilton would take them and pray over them too? If some make it to Tilton, there are thousands that didn’t. We found them, in the garbage at the bank and the marketing research center. The ‘angels of god,’ the prayer cords, the arrows — this person wanted his aimed at getting a real dad — the tracing where Til-ton said he’d place his hand, ripped up by [PrimeTime I: the bank] [PrimeTime II: letter processors]. We found heart-breaking appeals from followers and letters like this one. It came with personal photographs for Pastor Bob and a prayerful message. It also came with a seven thousand dollar pledge. The money probably made it to Tilton. The prayers went in the trash.” Plaintiff, in support of his motion and in response to Defendants’ motion, contends that the above-quoted segments are false. Plaintiff contends that Response Media did not receive any prayer requests from the bank as stated by the broadcasts. Plaintiff asserts that his mail processor, Internal Data Management, received all the prayer requests. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Moore never told Ms. Gordon, Mr. Anthony and Mr. Cooke, during their interview, that he received “the paper document [or] how much the person gave” in regard to Plaintiff’s mail. Nor did Mr. Moore state that “mail doesn’t go to Tilton.” Plaintiff states that prayer requests were sent to him from Internal Data Management. In addition, Plaintiff contends that the statement “[a]nd those items that people have prayed over and sent in, believing Robert Tilton would take them and pray over them, too” was false because the visual shown at the time the statement was made, does not show items prayed over and sent in by followers. Rather, the pictured mail was actually prayer request forms that Plaintiffs Church had sent to Defendant, Kelly Sutherland, at her request, but which had never been completed and returned to the Church. Plaintiff also states that Defendants produced videotapes shot in Dallas with techniques to malee the small quantity of the Church’s mail they had “look voluminous.” Plaintiff further contends Defendants’ statements that “[i]f some make it to Tilton, there are thousands that didn’t” and “we found them in the garbage at the bank and the marketing research center” were false. According to Plaintiff, Defendants never found any prayer requests in the garbage at the bank or the marketing center which had been placed there by employees. Nor could they find “thousands” of prayer requests. Plaintiff contends the evidence in the record establishes that no mail which was opened by Commercial Bank and Trust had any contents removed or thrown away and that no mail received by Internal Data Management was ever disposed of in its dumpster. Indeed, Plaintiff states that an employee of the janitorial service, who personally emptied the trash for Commercial Bank and Trust and Internal Data Management, wrote a letter to Defendant, Diane Sawyer, stating that no prayer requests were thrown away. In addition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the false statements. In making the statements, Defendants relied upon Mr. Anthony, who purportedly found the trashed prayer requests. However, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, Kelly Sutherland, was advised by Peggy Wehmeyer, now ABC’s religious editor, that Mr. Anthony could not be trusted and was obsessed with his crusade against Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that Ms. Sutherland’s testimony, as well as Ms. Gordon’s testimony, that they believed Mr. Anthony had found the prayer requests in the trash cannot be relied upon as their credibility is at issue. Plaintiff additionally states that Defendants acted with actual malice in rebroadcasting the statements on PrimeTime II because they were advised by Plaintiff, after PrimeTime I aired, the accusations were clearly false. Plaintiff specifically provided the trial transcript and exhibits of the Morales case to Defendants which showed that there were never thousands of prayer requests thrown in the trash. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted with actual malice because the evidence reveals that Defendants or their agents stole prayer requests from Commercial Bank and Trust and Internal Data Management and stole handwritten letters referred to as “white mail” from the Church’s sanctuary and planted 37 of the prayer requests in the trash to support their report. Plaintiff contends that Internal Data Management has the original envelopes which contained the prayer requests that Defendants claimed in the broadcasts were found in the trash dumpsters. These envelopes, Plaintiff argues, prove the prayer requests were stolen and then were placed back in the bank without the prayer requests and with only a token offering. Plaintiff argues that Defendants or their agents stole the envelopes. Plaintiff contends that Defendants filmed Mr. Anthony removing trash containing prayer requests behind the dumpsters at the Commercial Bank and Trust and took video and still pictures showing prayer requests at that location. Defendants also took video and still pictures at Internal Data Management. The video and still pictures, Plaintiff argues, were destroyed by Defendants. Defendants, in response and in support of their motion for summary judgment, contend that Plaintiff cannot show with convincing clarity that Defendants acted with actual malice with respect to the broadcasts. Defendants contend that Ms. Gordon has testified that Mr. Anthony told her, after their interview with Mr. Moore, that he and two of his colleagues, Powell Holloway and Harry Guetzlaff, intended to look through the trash outside Commercial Bank and Trust. Ms. Gordon and Ms. Sutherland have testified that Mr. Anthony had told them that he and his colleagues had examined the trash outside Commercial Bank and Trust, Internal Data Management and the law offices of J.C. Joyce, counsel for Plaintiff. Ms. Gordon also has testified that Mr. Anthony reported that he and his colleagues had discovered thousands of items of trash. Ms. Gordon and Ms. Sutherland further testified that on different occasions, they inspected trash which Mr. Anthony said he had found during his “trash trips” and that they believed Mr. Anthony accurately reported what he had found. Although Plaintiff contends that Ms. Sutherland had been advised that Mr. Anthony was not trustworthy and was obsessed with Plaintiffs crusade, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has shown nothing to rebut Defendant’s testimony that she believed that Mr. Anthony had retrieved the prayer requests from the trash. Moreover, Defendants contend that the evidence Plaintiff has presented to challenge the credibility of Ms. Gordon and Ms. Sutherland has nothing to do with their belief that Mr. Anthony recovered prayer requests in the trash of the bank and the marketing research center. Furthermore, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has faded to present any evidence to support his accusations that Defendants stole prayer requests or planted stolen prayer requests in the trash dumpsters. In addition to actual malice, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof as to the issue of falsity. Despite Plaintiffs attacks on certain statements of the broadcasts, Defendants maintain that the gist or sting of the broadcasts was demonstrably true. According to Defendants, the gist of the reports was Plaintiffs preoccupation with money, a focus that led him to take the most stringent steps to assure that every penny he received from followers was deposited in the bank at the same time the prayers of those followers were treated with callous indifference. Defendants contend that the evidence has in fact revealed that thousands — hundreds of thousands — of prayer requests mailed to Plaintiff were thrown away, pursuant to Plaintiffs directive, without being prayed over by him. Defendants state that at least 180,000 P-21B and P-21C prayer forms of Plaintiffs followers were trashed and that tens of thousands of other responses to Plaintiffs mailings were, as well, trashed. Additionally, Defendants contend that tens of thousands of handwritten letters from followers were routinely discarded. Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff did receive a computer printout with cryptic codes referencing the form letters that Internal Data Management employees sent back to the followers. However, Plaintiff never told his followers that he prayed over the computer printouts instead of the original prayer requests. Defendants contend that all of the undisputed evidence reveals that Plaintiff did not in fact personally pray over thousands of prayer requests that were mailed to him. The Court, having carefully reviewed the evidence submitted, finds that Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants acted with actual malice in regard to their reports. Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that Defendants knew or were aware the statements concerning Mr. Moore were false. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to show that Defendants did not believe that the “mail doesn’t go to Tilton.” Plaintiff has additionally failed to sufficiently rebut the testimony of Ms. Gordon and Ms. Sutherland concerning Mr. Anthony’s report of trashed prayer requests, their inspection of the prayer requests which Mr. Anthony stated were trashed and their belief that his report was accurate. Plaintiff claims that the credibility of Ms. Gordon and Ms. Sutherland is at issue and therefore their testimony cannot support summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. However, the evidence presented to attack the credibility of Ms. Gordon and Ms. Sutherland does not relate to Mr. Anthony, the trash trips conducted by Mr. Anthony or whether they believed Mr. Anthony retrieved the prayer requests from the trash. Moreover, the fact that Ms. Sutherland was advised that Mr. Anthony was not a credible source does not establish actual malice. Ms. Sutherland testified that in fact the majority of information Mr. Anthony provided to her in regard to Plaintiff and his Church was accurate. Plaintiff has not shown that such testimony is untrue or that Ms. Sutherland had reason to question the veracity of Mr. Anthony’s report that he had found prayer requests in the trash. Plaintiff also claims that the reports were false because the prayer requests were stolen and then planted in the trash dumpsters. Discovery, however, has failed to uncover any factual basis for the allegations that Defendants stole and planted the prayer requests in the trash dumpsters or in fact suspected that others stole and planted the prayer requests in the trash dumpsters. Plaintiff has no evidence to reasonably show that Defendants destroyed the still and video pictures claimed by Plaintiff. With an absence of affirmative evidence or specific facts to demonstrate that Defendants knew the alleged falsity of their statements in the challenged segments or entertained serious doubts as to those statements, the Court finds that Plaintiffs claim in regard to the statements cannot prevail. PrimeTime II also reported: “ANNOUNCER: Eight months later, are his followers getting the full story?” (Followed by film clip of Plaintiffs videotape deposition in which he is shaking his head and saying “no”) * * % * * * “SAWYER: [voice-over] But four months later, here is Tilton in a videotaped deposition with the Texas attorney general’s office, which they recently released to the press over Tilton’s objection. In it, Tilton admits he doesn’t really pray over every prayer request at all. Rev. Tilton: [deposition] Not all of them are the original prayer request. Some are on a computer print-out with their specific kind of prayer that they want me to pray. So I don’t get the actual document of some of them. ATTORNEY: And what happens to the actual document? Rev. Tilton: It’s thrown away.” Plaintiff claims that the above-quoted statements in the PrimeTime II broadcasts were false and that Defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the statements. Upon review of the record, the Court finds an absence of evidence showing the statements were false. Indeed, the Court finds that the record supports the statements. The record reveals that Plaintiff admitted that he did not pray over all the prayer requests sent to him. Instead, he prayed over computer printouts with the requested prayer. The evidence also shows that Plaintiff did not tell his followers that he prayed over computer printouts. Even if there were evidence in the record to show falsity, the Court finds there is no evidence whatsoever to establish Defendants knew the alleged falsity of the statements or had serious doubts as to their truth. Phone Ministers PrimeTime I reported: “SAWYER: [voice over] And if Hardy felt he was taking advantage of the callers, imagine how this woman felt, Elizabeth Montcalm, a temporary employee at AT & T. When Tilton went to Israel last year, she and others at AT & T were asked to pose as Tilton prayer ministers. ELIZABETH MONTCALM: I got people calling about their sons being on drugs or alcoholics or husbands being an — an alcoholic. I mean, people are telling you their most intimate secrets, their personal stuff about themselves. And here I am, you know, just a temporary employee from AT & T.” Defendants, in support of their motion, contend they are entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs challenge of the underlined statement “she and others at AT & T were asked to pose as Tilton prayer ministers.” Defendants assert that their description of AT & T employees posing as prayer ministers was demonstrably true. Defendants assert that when Plaintiff broadcast from Israel in September 1990, he urged viewers to phone in their prayer requests to “prayer ministers” standing by at a “miracle prayer center” in Dallas. According to Defendants, Plaintiff instructed the temporary AT & T workers, who had been retained to answer calls, to answer telephone calls by saying, “[tjhank you for calling Success N Life Ministry” and to tell “rambling” callers, “[y]our miracle will come as you pray with Pastor Bob the Prayer of Agreement.” Ms. Montcalm, a temporary AT & T employee from Florida, told Defendants that when she was answering calls for Success N Life during the Israel crusade, callers told her intimate details of their lives, apparently believing that they were speaking to prayer ministers. From what was reported, Defendants contend that they believed their statement that AT & T temporary workers were asked to pose as prayer ministers was true. In response, Plaintiff contends that the Ms. Montcalm and others at AT & T were never asked to pose as prayer ministers. Plaintiff states that the employees were simply hired to take overflow calls which came in during the Israel crusade. Plaintiff contends that the employees were instructed not to pray for anyone. Plaintiff further contends that during her interview, Ms. Montcalm never stated that she was asked to pose as a prayer minister. Although Plaintiff has submitted evidence to support his contention that AT & T workers were not explicitly asked to pose as prayer ministers, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence whatsoever to establish with convincing clarity that Defendants knew their statement in regard to the temporary AT & T employees was false or that they entertained serious doubts of the truth of their statement. Defendants knew prior to the broadcast that Plaintiff told his viewers during the crusade that their calls were being answered by “prayer ministers” at a “miracle prayer center.” They also knew that AT & T temporary employees were instructed by Plaintiff to open each call by stating “[tjhank you for calling Success N Life Ministry, how may I help you?”; to take the caller’s name, address, phone number and prayer request; and to respond to some callers by saying “your miracle will come as you pray with Pastor Bob the Prayer of Agreement.” They further knew that callers were divulging intimate matters to the AT & T temporary employees. Plaintiff has made no showing that Defendants had information prior to the broadcast which would have cast doubts on the truth of their statement. Therefore, Plaintiffs challenge to Defendants’ statement must fail. Tilton’s College Days PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II reported: “SAWYER: [voice-over] But an old buddy of Tilton’s remembers how in college it was all a big joke. FORMER TILTON FRIEND: Oh dear God! Come into this young woman’s life! Heal tonight! * * * * * * FORMER TILTON FRIEND: Robert Tilton, as I knew him, was practicing to become a salesman. That was his concept of success, was to be— SAWYER: [voice-over] This man, who wanted anonymity, is just one of several old Mends of Robert Tilton who talked to us. [RADIO MUSIC PLAYING] RADIO ANNOUNCER: You’re listening to XERF, the (INAUDIBLE) ... SAWYER: [voice-over] He remembers when they were in college, they would use drugs or get drunk and go off to tent revivals as a kind of sport. FORMER TILTON FRIEND: And we’d be drunk and go down front, fall to our knees, speak in tongues. [PrimeTime I: I think that anybody who was there would realize that some people are going to believe anything and all you have to do is capitalize on that belief.] REV. MARVIN GORMAN: Loose him (INAUDIBLE) ... SAWYER: [voice-over] Tilton and his Mends started developing parodies, so-called “Jesus raps” of their own. FORMER TILTON FRIEND: Oh, dear God! Come into this young woman’s life! Heal tonight! She has a need to find Christ. TILTON: 0 God! In the name of Jesus, we believe in prayer! We believe in miracles! FORMER TILTON FRIEND: I personally thought I was a lot better at it than he was. SAWYER: [voice-over] Tilton, who never finished college, admits he was a drug user, but says he was saved when some people came to his house and explained Christ. TILTON: I just changed. I just fell in love with everybody! SAWYER: [voice-over] But he never tells followers how he and his friends talked about running preacher scams and cashing in. FORMER TILTON FRIEND: We said that when we graduated, that we would buy a good tent, a dynamite sound system, a good amen section, and fly around the country and get rich. TILTON: We sold everything that we had, bought an old ragged tent and a big old truck and a travel trailer and we headed out to tell people about this gospel of Jesus.” In support of his motion and in response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff contends that in both PrimeTime I and PrimeTime II, the statements of John Michael Taylor, “Tilton’s former friend,” together with Defendant, Diane Sawyer’s surrounding comments and the context thereby created, portrayed Plaintiff as a man devoid of religiosity, who mocked the very thing for which he now stands. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ statements that while in college, Plaintiff participated in tent revival meetings as sport and in jest while drunk, joked with friends by practicing so-called “Jesus raps” and religious parodies, and hatched a plan to get rich by engaging in a revival preaching scam, were lies and were broadcast with actual malice. Plaintiff argues that in broadcasting these statements, Defendants relied on their interview with John Michael Taylor. However, according to Plaintiff, Mr. Taylor stated, in that interview, that he could not say if Plaintiff actually did what Defendants stated he did in the broadcasts. Plaintiff states that the tent revival disgrace referred to by Mr. Taylor was a fad fueled by a movie entitled “Elmer Gantry.” It occurred in 1963 at North Texas State University and involved John Michael Taylor and two of his friends Doug McLeod and Michael Harbison. Plaintiff asserts that he never attended North Texas State University. Moreover, Plaintiffs asserts that Doug McLeod has testified that he never knew Plaintiff and Michael Harbison has testified that he never remembered Plaintiff participating in the revival sport. Plaintiff also asserts that ABC’s raw footage videotape of Mr. Taylor’s interview shows that Mr. Taylor, in speaking of the fad, used the pronoun “we” to refer to a coterie of college friends, which did not include Plaintiff, and used the pronoun “he” to refer to Plaintiff. Plaintiff thus contends that the statements “[a]nd we’d be drunk and go down front, fall to our knees, speak in tongues” did not include Plaintiff as was represented by the broadcast. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that the broadcasts showed Mr. Taylor stating “[w]e said that when we graduated, that we would buy a good tent, a dynamite sound system, a good amen section and fly around the country and get rich.” ABC’s raw footage videotape, however, shows that Mr. Taylor stated “I said” rather “we said.” Plaintiff argues that Defendants purposely edited Mr. Taylor’s statement “I” to become “we” to include Plaintiff making that statement. According to Plaintiff, Defendants knew that statement was false and their own executive producer, Richard Kapla