During the opening ceremony of woodpecker furniture company, Mrs Wen Smith, a customer, claimed that her leg was badly injured by a sharp object from one of the furniture in the showroom. Mrs. Wen Smith filed a claim for damages. Due to the occasion and the severity of the claimed injury, the event attracted wide media attention to the City's biggest media house, KE-N Corp. Although the media house had no reason to doubt Mrs Wen Smith claims but did not investigate the facts and truths about the incident. in the following weeks, Mr. Wen Smith gave several interviews in the local media in which she graphically descried the trauma that she experienced during and post the event.

This negative publicity impacted the reputation and the financial returns of the company. After several weeks of investigation by the company by looking through the available CCTV footage and carrying out other investigative processes, the Woodpecker Furniture Company found that the claims of the customer were untrue. However, it was also found that there were sharp metal objects sticking out from one of the furniture Mrs. Wen Smith was viewing during her visit to the showroom and this metal object did clip on to her dress but she safely removed it without causing any damage to her or the dress. Also, it was found out that the laceration on her leg came from a self-inflicted injury before she came to the store. Mrs. Wen Smith and her partner have recently been charged and convicted of other criminal offences. Apparently, Mrs. Wen Smith had a history of filing false injury claims.

Considering the above case, critically evaluate if there are legal bases for a defamation proceeding against any of the KE-N Corp. Media Companies. If so, what could be the line of defense for the media house, if any?