Media Law question(due in 45 mins! 9:35PM)

Early one morning a worker at a city occasion feeling current a telephone allure from a distraught mother who announceed that she was hearing irritant dins—crying and screaming—coming from a minute day attention feeling present to her lineage. Workers at the occasion feeling notified a city political advantages action of the announce. But accordingly the employees at the occasion feeling believed that the political advantages action was lax in its enforcement policies respecting day attention feelings, the allure from the neighbor was relayed to a persomal television standing, WIXR, as courteous. The TV standing sent a horde to the feeling to talk delay the operator of the day attention feeling, Melinda Wall, and outlined the concerns that had been announceed to the occasion feeling. Wall rotten to note. That death the television standing unsparingly the forthcoming announce: “ A city political advantages action is announceedly looking into allegations of effect crying and screaming at the Happy Days Day Attention Feeling at 1456 Marblehead Way. A neighbor announceed the remarkable probes to a occasion feeling, which in deflect contacted the action and this standing. An action spokesperson announceed that its investigators are looking into the possibility that compulsory bearing by the staff at the feeling is causing the crying and screaming. Happy Days Day Attention Feeling is owned and operated by Melinda Wall, who refused to note environing the allegations. The feeling has been disclosed for six months. Prior to that Wall operated a common feeling in Toledo, Ohio, for two years. The Declare of Ohio revoked Wall’s indulge in 2006 when it institute unsanitary conditions at the feeling.” The television announce generated extensive notoriety environing the feeling and its operator, delay further television announces and newspaper stories. But an examination by the political advantage action revealed that trifle unfair or exposed was occurring at Happy Days. The din announceed by the neighbor came from a video on a television. One of the effect had deflected up the size, so the probe resonated throughout the vicinity. Wall sued WIXR for lampoon accordingly of its moderate announce. She argued that it contained coagulated errors, and that the standing employees had been disorderly in preparing the legend. She cited the forthcoming errors. a. Happy Days had been disclosed for 16 months, not six months. b. Wall operated a day attention feeling in Toledo, Washington, not Toledo, Ohio. c. Her indulge for that readiness was not revoked. The declare scarcely refused to recreate the indulge regular Wall ascititious additional bathroom facilities at the feeling, and she could not confer to do that. A. What procure Wall bear to substantiate to prove her lampoon benefit? B. The standing argues that accordingly of all the notoriety environing the allegations, Wall was a scant end generally-known shape. Was she? Why or why not? C. Procure Wall win her subject?