The objective aspect of good faith is expressed mainly in the setting of the standard of "responsible journalism", which relates to the conduct of the advertiser and to the publication itself. Within the framework of this standard, the advertiser is required to conduct a manner of conduct that can be described in a general manner as reasonable and fair. In the judgment on appeal, Justice Vogelman pointed to an inexhaustible list of tests in which it can be used to assist in deciding on this matter: whether the advertiser acted in accordance with the standard of "responsible journalism". The defense requires the existence of a "real public interest" in the content of the publication, which establishes an obligation for its publication and for those engaged in the work of journalism, for careful and responsible journalistic work, which is expressed in basing the publication on reliable and serious sources; verifying the facts prior to publication; the advertiser's belief in the veracity of the facts; refraining from formulating information as a matter of fact, if it is merely a matter of suspicion; fair and balanced presentation of the facts of the publication - presenting a full, fair and true factual picture; examining the necessity of the offending part - whether the inclusion of the part that constitutes defamation was necessary to achieve the purpose of the publication and to take measures to prevent unnecessary harm; publishing the victim's response and the essence of his version and adhering to the rules of ethics for journalists.
These tests were accepted by President Grunis in the additional hearing, who noted that the expression "responsible journalism" is preferable so as not to imply that the application of the protection is limited to those who regularly engage in the profession of journalism.
(See Civil Appeal Ilana Dayan , paragraphs 29-30 of Justice Vogelman's opinion; Additional Civil Hearing, Ilana Dayan, paragraphs 75-79 of President Grunis's opinion);