Reinforcing Consent as a "Private Facts" Defense [microform] / David A. Haberman

To delineate the ideas of newsworthiness and consent as they apply to journalism and private facts lawsuits (those in which plaintiffs seek to stop publication of facts about themselves), this paper covers key areas of dispute. Various sections of the paper discuss (1) the definition of newsworthiness, (2) consent as a legal defense, (3) the problem of reneging sources, (4) promissory estoppel, or binding gratuitous promise, and (5) justified revocation of promise in cases of misleading general publication. It examines the test case "Virgil v. Time, Inc.," in which the plaintiff sued to stop publication of facts he had previously consented to release, and points out that several judgments made in favor of the journalistic community, including the Virgil case, rest on a tenuous and misleading definition of newsworthiness as an issue dependent on the state of community mores, rather than one refined daily by application. Writers and editors are cautioned to examine their position when publishing personal facts about public figures or private individuals and to be aware of their legal position and rights concerning newsworthiness and consent. (CRH)