In Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 139 38 S.W.3d 103, 120 (Tex. 2000) the Court held that while a message may be false and defamatory as a whole, even though no single statement is false, proof of actual malice requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant "knew or strongly suspected that the publication as a whole could present a false and defamatory impression . . . ." To prove public-official defamation when the defendant's words could be understood as defamatory or as not, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant either knew or strongly suspected at the time he spoke that his words would carry a defamatory meaning to the ordinary listener. See Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 120, 44 Tex. Sup. J. 244 (Tex. 2000); The Court considered a political candidate's contention that a television news story suggesting that he had participated in a multi-million dollar insurance scam defamed him. Turner had drafted a will for a man named Foster shortly before Foster disappeared under suspicious circumstances. Foster, the target of several criminal investigations, signed the will three days before he was reported to have drowned . Foster's life had been insured for more than $ 1.7 million, and American authorities learned some time later that he was alive in a Spanish prison. KTRK, a Houston television station, broadcast a story about the connection between Turner and Foster in the midst of Turner's campaign for mayor of Houston. The story omitted several critical contextual facts and juxtaposed others in a misleading manner in the course of suggesting that Turner had engaged in unethical conduct. The Court therefore held that the broadcast as a whole conveyed a false and defamatory message. Id. at 119. But we rejected Turner's contention that the story's discussion of the timing of his work on the will was evidence of actual malice. Id. at 121. The Court agreed that a reasonable viewer could take the segment to mean that "Turner 'drew up' the will three days before Foster disappeared." Id. But the Court concluded that even obviously misleading statements, without more, were not enough to constitute clear and convincing evidence of actual malice: We agree that there was a discrepancy in the segment's language and that it is possible that [the reporter] cleverly manipulated this language to deceive viewers. But it is equally possible that [the reporter] simply failed to choose his words with proper precision, that is, by stating that Foster "drew up" rather than "signed" the will (outside of Turner's presence) three days before he disappeared. Because there is no other evidence that [the reporter] knew or strongly suspected that this segment would mislead viewers, its lack of clarity alone is not clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. Id. at 121-22.