A famous real estate developer is traveling with friend who happens to be a television reporter. The developer says to the reporter that when the developer sees a bank, he thinks about robbing that bank. The developer also brags that sometimes when he walks past a bank that the developer believes has a lot of money, he just can't contain himself and he puts on a ski mask in preparation to rob the bank. Even more, the developer brags that when he walks into a bank with his ski mask on, the bank workers quickly realize they are being robbed, and they open up their cash drawers to let the developer walk over and reach in and steal money out of those cash drawers.

Let's further assume that the statement made by the developer is recorded by the reporter/friend because the reporter was about to conduct a televised interview and a microphone was already hooked up to the developer. In other words, neither the reporter nor the developer knew that the statements the developer made bragging about how he loves to rob banks were being recorded. Nevertheless, both knew the microphones were hooked up, and there was no reason to believe others were not listening.

Years later, the recording becomes public. Shortly after the recording becomes public, a dozen bank managers go to a prominent newspaper and tell the newspaper, on the record, that the developer at one time robbed each of their banks. The newspaper then publishes articles repeating these bankers' claims that the developer robbed each of their banks. Let's also assume the developer later claims:

(1) he never actually robbed any banks and the developer's recorded comments were not true;

(2) the banker's stories were completely made up (false);

(3) the newspaper knew-at the time the stories were printed-that the banker's stories were false; and

(4) the newspaper purposely printed them to make the developer look bad and lose future business In other words-the newspaper acted maliciously.

Since bank robbery is a crime and the newspaper's reports could cause the developer to lose business, the developer files a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper. Once the lawsuit is filed, the newspaper (the defendant) files a demurrer. In other words, the newspaper tells the Court that even if everything the developer claims in his lawsuit are true, there is no way, under the requirements of the defamation law, the developer can win his defamation lawsuit. The court agrees and the lawsuit is tossed out before ever determining who was telling the truth.

Why did the Court rule this way?