32 In my view, there is insufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Mr Smith or Mr Brayshaw did not have a genuine or honest belief as to the remarks they made. However, the jury could, I think, take the view having seen the 60 Minutes program, and then having heard the opening remarks by Mr Smith that there was, at least, a reckless indifference by him as to the truth or falsity of his statements. The jury may think that if he had watched the 60 Minutes program it ought to have been clear to him that the plaintiff did not say anything about taking nag steroids; he did not say that he was taking performance enhancing drugs, quite the opposite, he said that he had self-injected vitamins. The jury may infer that Mr Smith's statement was just careless, a slip perhaps. (Although if he had watched the program as he said it is difficult to see how.) Alternatively, they may think that he could not have cared less when he made the remark, to the extent that he was recklessly indifferent to whether it was true or false. The jury may also have regard to the fact that it was said at the opening of the program and may conclude that it was sensationalised at a time when the listener's attention needed to be secured. The failure to make any inquiry of the plaintiff may also be relevant to the jury's consideration of whether there was reckless indifference to the truth of the comments made.