their failure to engage the Plaintiff first and also when they failed to engage the Dubes who are the maternal parents of the Plaintiff. I say this because of what was stated in Chinamasa vs Jongwe Printing and Publishing Co. (PTY) LTD and Another 1994 ZLR 133 (A) at 167 – 168 where Barlet J stated the following:‘---that failure to investigate or to get comment from the person who is the subject of a story is indicative of malice.’ Clearly in the matter at hand other than the fact that Defendants had clearly taken sides in the dispute of the Simelanes and felt they had to advance the side they had chosen, no sound explanation has been given why they published the articles before getting the Plaintiff’s side nor even before properly verifying the truthfulness of the allegations concerned. [62] In the matter I have no hesitation that the Defendant took side in a long established chieftaincy dispute and therefore put aside all the consideration it needed to take in order to advance the side it had chosen. It should have known however that as it did so it was taking a risk. From the suggestion of the damages in the sum of E50 000.00 by Mr Flynn, I have no hesitation in concluding that it was fuelled to do what it did because of its belief that it would in any event be made to pay no more than the amount in question. Such thinking must come to an end. The media is a powerful tool which can be used to build or destroy innocent people and they cannot be allowed to get away lightly where they were not only deliberate but downright malicious in their publication. [63] Furtherstill I have to consider the nature of the defamatory statements; the extent of the publication, the reputation and character of the Plaintiff as well as the motive and conduct of the Defendant. The Plaintiff was otherwise labeled as a dishonest person who would conceal her true identity so as to secure an appointment as a chief and as a Senate President. She was also one who conceals her true identity in order to associate herself with the Simelane’s where there was going to be something for her benefit. Clearly these allegations once shown to be untrue cannot in my view attract the usual nominal damages. [64] The publication was sensationalized and was widely distributed throughout the country and even on internet. On the other hand the Plaintiff is an Acting Chief and as such a recognized traditional structure – she is responsible for a wide community which according to the Defendants’ own assertions in the Newspapers was peaceful until after their publication which 42