CASE BRIEF 9.1 Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. 144 Cal. App. 3d 991 (1983) FACTS: The National Enquirer published a story about Carol Burnett and Henry Kissinger in its “gossip column.” The story depicted Ms. Burnett as drunk and boisterous. A retraction was printed and Ms. Burnett filed suit. DECISION BELOW: Ms. Burnett was awarded $300,000 compensatory damages and $1,300,000 in punitive damages by a jury. The judge reduced the amounts to $50,000 and $750,000, respectively. The National Enquirer appealed. ISSUE ON APPEAL: Was the National Enquirer, a newspaper, entitled to the privilege? Was the publication of the column done with malice? DECISION: The Enquirer was not found to be a newspaper and could not claim the retraction privilege. The standard of malice was applied, and the evidence clearly established that the article was published with knowledge that part or all of it was not true and was “reprehensible.”    1.Was malice established in the case? Why was it necessary to establish malice?    2a.Is the National Enquirer a newspaper for purposes of the protection of the privilege? b. Should tabloids like the National Enquirer enjoy the protection of the privilege?    3.Why do you suppose the damages from the trial were reduced by the judge?   4. As a business manager, what do you believe is the most important lesson we can take away from this chapter?