“made -with knowledge of [the statement’s] falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.” See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3008, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). The private individual need prove only negligence on the part of the media defendant — that is, he must show that the defendant knew or should have known that the defamatory statement was false — in order to recover actual damages. See McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 571; Foster v. Laredo Newspapers, Inc., 541 S.W.2d 809, 819 (Tex.1976). However, when the defamatory statement involves a matter of public concern, a private individual must meet the higher standard of proving actual, malice in order to recover any presumed or punitive damages against a media defendant. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 349, 94 S.Ct. at 3011 (<HOLDING>); Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders,
holding commonlaw presumption that defamatory speech is false cannot stand when plaintiff sues media defendant for speech of public concern holding when defamatory statement involved issue of public concern that private individual was required to prove actual malice to recover presumed or punitive damages against media defendant holding that under the first amendment where there is no proof of actual malice damages are limited to actual injury which excludes punitive damages but is not limited to outofpocket loss holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable holding under federal law that public figure claiming iied based on defamatory nature of speech must prove actual malice