## Facts

- A magazine article criticized two San Antonio newspapers and cited former reporter Aziz Shihab as an example of alleged “fabrication,” referencing two widely publicized stories attributed to him.
- In response, the newspapers’ publisher, Charles O. Kilpatrick, sent a letter to the magazine and to several “opinion leaders,” stating that Shihab had been fired because Kilpatrick had “lost confidence in him,” and conveying that Shihab had fabricated stories.
- Shihab sued the newspaper corporation and Kilpatrick for libel based on the letter.
- At trial, there was no evidence that the two specific stories highlighted in the magazine article were fabricated.
- The evidence did show that Shihab had fabricated at least one other news story while employed by the newspapers.
- The jury found the letter was libelous as to Shihab, found it was substantially true, and also found Kilpatrick wrote it knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for truth.
- The trial court rendered judgment for defendants based on substantial truth; Shihab appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may prove the truth (substantial truth) defense to an accusation that a reporter fabricated stories by showing fabrication of at least one significant story, even if the defendant does not prove that the particular stories referenced were fabricated.
2. Whether a jury finding of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard defeats the substantial truth defense or otherwise requires judgment for the plaintiff.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the take-nothing judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding that the “gist” of the letter—Shihab fabricated stories and was discharged for loss of confidence—was substantially true.
- The court held the “actual malice” finding did not create liability where the statement was substantially true.

## Legal Principles

- Substantial truth is a complete defense to libel; a defendant need not prove literal truth in every detail.
- The controlling inquiry is whether the “gist” or “sting” of the publication is justified and whether the publication, taken as a whole, is materially more damaging than a fully truthful account would have been.
- When substantial truth is established, a finding that the defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard does not impose liability because malice presupposes falsity.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the defendants because the core charge conveyed by the letter—that Shihab fabricated news stories and was fired for that reason—was supported by evidence and was therefore substantially true, defeating the libel claim notwithstanding inaccuracies about which stories were fabricated and notwithstanding the jury’s malice finding.


Shihab v. Express-News Corp., 604 S.W.2d 204 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1980)