## Facts

- A Memphis newspaper published a brief article reporting that Ruth Nichols was treated for a gunshot wound after a shooting at her home and that a woman was held by police.
- The article stated the incident occurred at night after the suspect arrived at the Nichols home and “found her husband there with Mrs. Nichols,” then fired at her husband and at Mrs. Nichols.
- The article omitted that Mr. Nichols and two neighbors were present in the home and that the events occurred in the afternoon.
- Trial evidence showed multiple people were in the living room when the suspect arrived; shots were fired outside at the suspect’s husband, and Mrs. Nichols was later shot inside.
- The plaintiffs alleged the publication falsely implied Mrs. Nichols was engaged in an adulterous affair with the suspect’s husband and was “caught” with him.
- The reporter relied on police reports; one report omitted the additional witnesses and time of day, while another included them, and the parties disputed which report(s) were available to the reporter.

## Issues

1. Whether a publication may be actionable when literal statements are substantially true but omissions create a false and defamatory implication (defamation by implication).
2. Whether the article was reasonably capable of conveying to ordinary readers the defamatory meaning alleged, requiring submission to a jury rather than resolution by directed verdict.
3. Whether the same publication could support an invasion-of-privacy claim based on false light publicity.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s reversal of the directed verdict for the newspaper.
- The court held the case should be tried to a jury because the article was reasonably capable of a defamatory construction based on the alleged implication of adultery.
- The court rejected the argument that “substantial truth” of isolated statements foreclosed liability where the publication’s omissions could change the defamatory “gist.”
- The court indicated the plaintiffs’ false light theory was legally cognizable on the record and could proceed on remand.

## Legal Principles

- In defamation, truth is tested by the “gist” or “sting” of the publication; minor inaccuracies do not matter if the overall gist is true, but literal truth of parts does not defeat liability if the overall impression is false and defamatory.
- A publication can defame by implication: what is conveyed to the ordinary reader by the article as a whole, including implications created by omission, may be actionable.
- The court decides as a matter of law whether language is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning; if so, the jury decides whether it was understood as defamatory and whether it was false and injurious.
- False light invasion of privacy may arise from publicity that places an individual before the public in a false and objectionable light, and may overlap factually with defamation claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that a newspaper cannot rely on the defense of substantial truth when selective reporting and omissions plausibly create a false, defamatory implication, and it remanded for a jury to determine whether the article conveyed and caused harm from the alleged implication.


Memphis Publ'g Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1978)