The actual intent of the publisher is irrelevant to this enquiry, but what the ordinary receiver of the publication would have understood from the material is what is relevant. The Privy Council affirmed that inferences can be part of the natural and ordinary meaning of statement but no evidence is admissible on the meaning of words or the additional facts. The broadcast or article must be taken as a whole reflecting that defamatory sting may be qualified by other parts of the material.
True innuendo arises in light of facts known only to some receivers of the material.
For instance, where conduct of a journalist is described but only journalists would realize that that conduct was in breach of the journalists' code of ethics. The plaintiff has to show that somebody knew the relevant facts but not that they believed the imputation, and that the material was actually published to a person with such knowledge. The publisher's knowledge or lack of knowledge about these facts is irrelevant. This particular heading is of import in cyberspace as the current cyberspace community has developed a number of conventions in communication which may impact how material is received. One could also assume that a significant proportion of the receivers of material in cyberspace have a high technical competency.