Actual Malice   "Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth" In order to prove actual malice, the plaintiff must show that "the defendant entertained [or should have entertained] serious doubts as to the truth of his publication."   Lonsdale v. Wallowa Co. Chieftain, 143 Ore. App. 331, 922 P.2d 1263, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1345 (Or. App. 1996) "A public official who claims to have been libeled must prove the existence of actual malice by 'clear and convincing proof.' Actual malice is not presumed. Neither may it be inferred from the fact of defamatory publication alone, or from the mere fact that the accusations are of a serious nature. "Furthermore, plaintiffs' allegations in actions for libel that defendants 'relied on statements made by a single source,' or failed to verify statements received from an 'adequate news source,' or performed 'slipshod investigation,' have all been rejected as bases for inferring actual malice. In short, reckless conduct amounting to actual malice 'is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing.' Rather, '"knowledge" or "reckless disregard" is a subjective matter, a question of state of mind, quite distinct from any question of objective reasonableness or prudence."'McNabb v. Oregonian Publishing Co., 69 Ore. App. 136, 140-41, 685 P.2d 458, rev den 297 Ore. 824, 687 P.2d 797 (1984)