Final answer:
It is false that a reporter seeking a comment from the subject is always critical in determining actual malice in libel cases. The requirement of 'actual malice' arises from a landmark Supreme Court case and applies strictly to public figures. Private individuals are not held to this standard and only need to prove negligence.
Step-by-step explanation:
False. Whether a reporter sought a comment from the subject of a libelous story is not always a critical factor in determining actual malice. The concept of 'actual malice' originated from the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) case, which sets a high standard for public officials to prove they were libeled. In this context, public figures must show not just that the statement was false, but also that it was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Seeking a comment can be one factor that is considered when determining the presence of actual malice, but it is not a determinative one.
It is important to note that different standards may apply when the plaintiff is a private individual as opposed to a public figure. Private individuals only have to prove that the author was negligent in not making sure the information was accurate before publishing it. Thus the nature of the plaintiff and context of the published material also have a significant role in the legal analysis.