WhIZD, a radio station covering Hazzard County, broadcasts a story thot JD Hogg, the County Mayor and leading candidate for state governor, has been ordering local law enforcement to target the Duke family farm and harass the family. Hogg denies the story and sues WHID for delamation.

At trial, Hogg presents evidence showing that the story was false, and that law enforcement presence at the farm was for legitimate reasons. He also presents evidence that, as a result of the story, several loyal voters have considered switching their votes to Hogg's political rival.

WHZD presented evidence describing how its report$$rs meticulously followed leads, interviewed dozens of sources and carefully reviewed countless documents as it prepared the story. WHZD presented its reporters' files to the jury. The jury reviewed hundreds of pages of thorough, highly detailed notes, as well as source's names and phone numbers. A well$-$respected professor at the nation's top journalism school gave expert witness testimony, stating that the reporters correctly followed all appropriate journalistic processes. Hogg does not offer an opposing expert contesting the expert's testimony, or any evidence criticizing the reporters' methods.

Who wins at trial and why?

WHZD wins because Hogg failed to show that the radio station intended to harm Hogg's reputation.

Hogg wins because he showed actual malice. WHZD opposes his candidacy.

Hogg wins because he showed that the story was a false statement of fact.

Hogg wins because the story harmed his reputation.

WHZD wins because Hogg failed to prove that WHZD showed reckless