83. It was common ground that the non-exhaustive checklist of factors relevant to whether a publisher had acted responsibly as set out in Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127 was still relevant. The factors included: (1) the seriousness of the allegation; (2) the nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern; (3) the source of the information; (4) the steps taken to verify the information; (5) the status of the information; (6) the urgency of the matter; (7) whether comment was sought from the claimant; (8) whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side of the story; (9) the tone of the article; and (10) the circumstances of the publication. The lack of hindsight available to journalists must be remembered. The need to avoid discouraging investigative reporting is vital. Responsible journalism creates a fair balance between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the reputations of individuals. There is a helpful consideration of relevant factors in Yeo v Times Newspapers [2015] EWHC 3375; [2017] EMLR 1 at paragraphs 133-148. No defence of truth – paragraph 7(c) 84. The evidence shows that Mr Burgon did not join the band, but he did make a guest appearance on one of the songs for the band. If it could be shown that Mr Burgon performed a guest appearance on a song for a band “which he knew took great pleasure in using Nazi symbols” I would find that the defence of truth would not fail having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true because a guest appearance with such a band would raise issues similar to those raised by joining such a band. 85. In my judgment the evidence does not show and I do not find that the band took great pleasure in using Nazi symbols. The band did produce the Dream Troll image and published it by tweeting it with the hashtag Black Sabbath, and putting it on Facebook without the hashtag Black Sabbath. The evidence showed and I have found that the Dream Troll image was produced as a form of tribute to or imitation of the Black Sabbath album cover. 86. I also accept that, whatever the inspiration for the Dream Troll image, the question is whether it used Nazi symbols. In my judgment the two “S”’s in the Dream Troll image are not “Nazi symbols”. I make this finding because the two “S”’s are not positioned together and, much less importantly but still relevant, the angles of the “S”’s are different. The colour scheme of red, white and black and the Gothic writing and umlaut for the words “Dream Troll” do not change my finding on this because the colour scheme and form of writing cannot convert a symbol into something it is not. In my judgment the stylised “S”’s used in the promotional material about the heavy metal band “Kiss” are different because the “S”’s are together and read, when together, as “SS”. I note that the defence pleaded only that the band used “Nazi associated iconography” in its promotional material and did not assert that the band used “Nazi symbols”. 87. I accept that some persons, particularly if they are told that they are Nazi symbols, may consider the use of the “S”’s in the Dream Troll image, when together with the red, white and black colouring and the Gothic writing, to be similar to the “S”’s in the “SS” Nazi symbol and therefore associated with Nazi iconography. This is because the “S” is stylised. However there is no evidence that anyone in the band thought that the Dream Troll image was similar to the “S” in the Nazi symbol, or that they took great pleasure in using the “S” because some persons might make the link to the Nazi symbol.