an early case nearly contemporaneous with New York Times opined that statements made with a “high degree of awareness of their probable falsity” may subject the speaker to civil damages. Garrison, 379 U.S. at 74, 85 S.Ct. at 216, 13 L.Ed.2d at 133. The negative implication, of course, is that a court may not award damages against one who negligently communicates a falsehood about a public official. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 510, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 2429, 115 L.Ed.2d 447, 468 (1991) (“Mere negligence does not suffice.”); see also Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, 491 U.S. at 688, 109 S.Ct. at 2696, 105 L.Ed.2d at 589 (explaining that establishing liability under New York Times “requires more than a departure from reasonably prudent conduct”); McCarney, 239 N.W.2d at 156 (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has explained its
holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee holding that where plaintiff by his own evidence shows two or more equally likely causes of the injury for only one of which defendant is responsible plaintiff can not recover holding plaintiff failed to present evidence of actual malice because defendants explanation of the mistaken statement shows negligence but no more than that holding that plaintiff must present such evidence holding plaintiff failed to prove actual malice when author was never called as a witness to confirm that he wrote the article