3. The publication of the article was not unlawful because Appellants were not aware of any falsity in it as they relied on a claim made by Mr Mahlangu. 4. The publication was not reckless or negligent. 5. The publication was objectively reasonable and the articles were published without animus injuriandi. [33] It is obvious to me as contended by the Appellants, that by their plea they raise what is now known as the Bogoshi defence. This defence as the name acclaims, has its legal pedigree in the case of National Media Ltd v Bogoshi (1998) (4) SA 1196 (SCA). The raison d’etre of this defence is best summarized as follows:- in an action for defamation against the media the defendant is entitled to raise “reasonable publication” as a defence; the publication of defamatory statements will not be unlawful if upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, it is found to have been reasonable to publish the particular facts in a particular way and at a particular time; protection is only afforded to publication of material in which the public has an interest (i.e which it is in the public interest to make known) as distinct from material which is interesting to the public; the form of fault in defamation actions against the media is thus negligence rather than intentional harm; fault, however, need not be in issue if in particular circumstances anterior injury shows that the publication is lawful because it is reasonable; in appropriate cases where the publisher reasonably believes that the information published is true, then the publication is not unlawful; political speech might depending upon the context be lawful, even where false, provided that its publication is reasonable. 21