Of course the reporter would realize that Glenn's statements were not true, and thus printing them could meet the
threshold of actual malice. The purpose of the neutral reportage privilege is to protect a reporter who did not concur in
these statements, but rather neutrally reported them. If the reporter knows that a statement is false and the reporter's
story suggests that the statements are true, the reporter is not protected by the neutral reportage privilege. The reporter
must be careful in this situation. If the reporter's story implies that the reporter endorses the defamatory statements or
the story attacks the subject of the defamatory statements, the neutral reportage privilege would not apply. In that case,
the reporter could be found liable for defamation. The journalist [*156] cannot hide behind the shield of the neutral
reportage privilege to attack or defame someone by repeating unfounded accusations made by a third party if those
accusations appear to be endorsed by the reporter. Although not required, if the reporter were to seek and report "the
other side of the story," this would help establish that the statements were being reported neutrally and not endorsed, as
was the case in Edwards