Time'somission of the word 'alleged' amounted to the adoption of one of a number of possible rational interpretations of
a document that bristled with ambiguities. The deliberate choice of such an interpretation, though arguably reflecting a
misconception, was not enough to create a jury issue of 'malice' under New YorkTimes. To permit the malice issue to
go to the jury because of the omission of a word like 'alleged,' despite the context of that word in the Commission
Report and the external evidence of the Report's overall meaning, would be to impose a much stricter standard of
liability on errors of interpretation or judgment than on errors of historic fact. n112