omitted). Altoona Reg’l Health Sys. v. Schutt, 100 A.3d 260, 265 (Pa.Super. 2014) (some internal citations and quotation omitted). I. Defamation We first examine Rubin’s defamation claim. The relevant burdens in a defamation action depend on the status of the plaintiff, the subject matter of the communication, and the nature of the defendant. See generally Am. Future Sys., Inc. v. Better Bus. Bur. of Eastern Pa., 592 Pa. 66, 923 A.2d 389 (2007); Lewis v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 833 A.2d 185 (Pa.Super. 2003). Because the subject matter of the report is a matter' of public concern and CBS is a media defendant, Rubin has the burden of proving both the falsity of the report as well as fault. Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Lewis, 833 A.2d at 191. Rubin must
holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation holding that in a case where a private figure brings a defamation claim based on a matter of public concern the common laws rule on falsitythat the defendant must bear the burden of proving truth must  fall  to a constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity emphasis added holding commonlaw presumption that defamatory speech is false cannot stand when plaintiff sues media defendant for speech of public concern holding that in a defamation case against a media defendant for speech of public concern there is a constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity as well as fault before recovering damages