Under established Texas jurisprudence, a reviewing court must defer to the fact-finder's credibility determinations because the jury is the exclusive judge of the facts, the witnesses' credibility, and the weight given to their testimony. The court may not substitute its findings and conclusions for that of the jury. Once it resolves credibility questions in favor of the jury's verdict, it must independently evaluate the statements and circumstances to see whether the First Amendment protects them. As a public figure, Turner must provide clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. Actual malice is a term of art, focusing on the defamation defendant's attitude toward the truth of what it reported.
Reckless disregard is also a term of art.
To establish reckless disregard, the public official or public figure must prove that the publisher entertained serious doubts about the publication's truth. While the First Amendment protects the exercise of editorial discretion, it does not protect the publisher who abuses that discretion knowingly to create a false impression of events. Although actual malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind, a plaintiff can prove it through objective evidence about the publication's circumstances. When a defendant knowingly omits critical facts and thereby distorts the entire character of a story, such actions raise an inference that the defendant acted with actual malice. Newton v. National Broad.