and the rules are that when you take the facts as we presented and they have to be deemed truthful to us those facts clearly show a number instances where one the facts were not true in the is actually a fact and that is in reference to our poll guy was a quarterback from what in oklahoma he was this he was a stud a superstar to be and he was recruited by oklahoma state university come play football was a freshman in high school because also i was involved with f c a john talley son sol who's basically the same age as last i also became aware of also and they became really good friends in fact that when sports illustrated in time published this article they created the impression that all psycho guy came to stillwater lived with this big booster john talley and had to and did it for him because he was a superstar quarterback but the reality of the truth the truth of the facts are that he was friends of the family he was good friends with saul he came and lived  reporter for sports illustrated he's won the interview on psycho guy and when the head is hard to listen to thayer evans interviewed also because instead of asking open ended questions he's asking suggestive leading questions he's asking questions on top of him he's bull and he's trying to put him in a corner but if you listen to the tape twelve minutes on the tape and this is that it's  page eight ninety four on volume fo anything and i think you have to look at the context of the interview as it's going on because they are evidence just saying that people are going to john tally and they're working to get overpaid or they're showing up and they're not working but they're getting paid and so when you look at the context of the interview as it is going on it creates the impression that there evans is trying to say would you go work for don talley and get overpaid or did you did you just show up and not get paid at all and because of the context of how that recording goes that's why also post gu matter if he has an agenda it does and as i hope it gives the answers that are contradictory to what you're saying it doesn't matter whether they have an agenda or not it does if the information that he's giving  says that what you're going to publish is not true and also says that he worked and they published it in the article that he done it that he lived there for a referee and  you live there but you never you never i didn't and what are we supposed to do with that well as i want to ask the court to listen to the tape in the context of how the questions are being asked because i truly  into his mouth and he's trying to create the impression of saying that what we know that john talley paid student athletes to work and they didn't have to doing things or they did sham jobs or he overpaid and so he's throwing these allegations he's making these thousand there was no issue no problem with john how we play and athletes or students because we don't tell is working for s t a this is actually f c s not john talent and so actually a is sin in these kids to do speaking against it and before two thousand there was no issue with it two thousand ca came in said hey you know you can't pay him for speaking engagements so what he started doing is team built like tips and they go out and do activities with kids and then after that activity they john teles mission because he believes that if he brings these kids out there not just the football players it's the softball players and baseball players was also the regular students as well if they come out and they work and they and they cut down trees or they put the post hose and put a fence where they go and help someone move or they go help because there's been tornado damage and they help repair homes or whatever and they go out and work side by side he gives him an opportunity to be able to learn about these kids and to know these kids and that's what he's doing this small for it is real small for rats in fact when this in ca went out and looked at it they left and so you know we have a situation where this article has gone down in the history of media as being one of the worst that it articles and we have an expert chris are they found a dollar motion the judge denied it and in his report he says that they acted reckless and we argument is one that they published a false fact about also the two they acted reckless in reference to all these other allegations but but fundamentally below that is that there is a question of fact as it relates to these issues and these issues need to be addressed by the proper fact the juror and by the court addressing these questions took at the hands of the jury did not my client john tell you the right to have a jury trial the expert chris harper he's a professor from tipple university and he's testified that one of the big concepts in this case is confirmation bias that media outlet has a story and they only ask the information to confirm their bias they don't they disregard all the others they are testified that he interviewed over sixty athletes but yet they only had two athletes that said that john talley either paid for a champ job or overpaid and both athletes face carter funked out because the football season was over with they were no longer getting preferential treatment and so they fought the other realities the drop the class before they fought because tatum bell went to the n f l and then brad and got kicked out because he was doing drugs so these are one they knew the fact was false or two they acted in such a reckless manner and publishing information that was false and then put in reference to poll guide they actually knew the facts was one if you take the spend time live with good friends there's no violation the underlying premise of this case is that john kelly did all these things in violation of these in ca rules or the rules will close that universe well the article just says that he he and another player play a ranch at the ranch one summer around three what's fox about that i mean he didn't pay any money he didn't pay any money but he had to earn his keep and he had to work for it so he didn't get three just a different means of  lived there rent free why isn't that reasonable interpretation of that exchange because when you go on to the article says because i was the quarterback and that was a big deal so they're creating the impression they live there rent free because he was a big time quarterback  he lives there he lives there without having to pay rent but he had to work for his ranch he had to work for his room and board plus he was best friends with small telling what we've already gone over the work sure ok anything else on the actual malice besides that of the other argument would be that based on the confirmation bias so for about chris harper that they did not determine the credibility or resource of their sources and reporting to the sham jobs or overpayment of jobs and because of that that would be the recklessness that we'd argue that creates a question of fact they should be put in a permitted or should be submitted to the appropriate trier of fact can i just follow up in hansard just murphy when he asked you about an agenda he said it didn't matter but i understood your brief to argue that that an agenda didn't matter that the reporters had it agenda they had the narrative or something like those lines and what to but when you look at the way he went about doing it asking the questions he's really not asking to find out the truth of the circumstances but he's asking those questions in such a way to fulfill whatever agenda he wants to so if he knows that facts are false and he goes ahead ask those questions to support his agenda then that could be recklessness he complains you're materially false and you've failed to demonstrate clearly in convincingly that the sports illustrated article which accurately reported recorded conversations with multiple sources and also reported tallies were in the fact  published with actual malice now this claim arises out of a five part article about nineteen thousand words publishing in sports illustrated september two thousand and thirteen the article focused on the oklahoma state football program primarily during and immediately after the time on the couch last march rival began in two thousand and one the first part of the article roughly five thousand words was about the old money just of the money  credit cards and sham jobs offer student athletes were speaking engagements that i'm interested in your response to and again i tried to write it down best i could now go back and check and we can all go back and check but it seemed to me that this mr evans asked you were at his ranch to mr polk i responded i did a lot and why doesn't that indicate that mr polk i was working ranch judge in retrospect i wish we had not a clue to that because if you and that's that's evans starving but ask a new question about working at the ranch and if you listen to the tape look at it with what you're saying is that when mr koch i said i did a lot you understand that to be in those those a lot are the words of paul guy but in reference to speaking engagements he was finishing his thought about speaking engagements but but but the way judge mathis and her were working was in there too it was  there was no arrangement he lived there rent free as the court has pointed out there was no arrangement about it pole guy and holly even giving the benefit to this from turkey taishan that he said i did some work it's not clear what work he did it's   to get premier athletes to come and play football that at that university so in the context if you look at the just the passage about money it's here you can almost you know what's that just of the whole five part article and you can narrow it down to what's the jest of the money part or you can narrow it down even further to the just of the part about tally but in each of those no matter how broad or narrow the circle is you're work or didn't do a little bit of work tally didn't calculate the value of that work and say ok that's that's a substitute for paying or if you're working for your keep here poke i live there because of mr already pointed out he was malice even if their work hypothetically a genuine issue the material fact about working or not working on palin's property two tend to be enter connected because the closer the question is about material falsity the harder it is to make a case that there is actual malice when you just have a different viewpoint and again the players to give speeches did any of the players or mr talley say specifically that payment was anything more than a reimbursement for my expense yes there were there were several players we have a record again reviews on there on the record that said they were paid for speaking and they never differentiated between being paid for building which is a physical exercise before you speak to stage one of mr talley's arguments is that there were football players who were sources for this article who had a history of drug use crime and academic misconduct and why wouldn't that provide some sun evidence or at least the beginning of some evidence to make an actual case well  there are i'm sorry i don't remember what page it was of are put there there are a number of cases and there that say that that's not evidence of actual malice in the specially so when we're guarding us with their background or their virtue or lack of virtue when they are relating their personal experiences and actually reported as evidence by the recordings and interviewed independently they tend to corroborate each other because they had similar experiences even though they way you look you argue a lot in your brief about the article accurately reporting what the football players in the interviews but i'm wondering how far that really takes you right you're not arguing that that would something about mr talley to the fact that he was a serial murderer and that's in the interview porter takes it and puts it in the article but there's there's no basis to it but they've accurately reported  mentions i would agree that a lot i mean time well i mean i'm just concerned with the argument that the mere act you're repeating of what was said is enough and that that that can't be the law i think not not in that most got and money happened to be one of those things you just hit the exact time so i