>This is straying just a bit - but still relevant. Years ago USA Today learned that Arthur Ashe was HIV positive. Ashe and his inner circle begged and pleaded with USA today not to run the story, because Ashe wanted to protect his children. USA Today ran the story anyway (and to this day I won't buy/read USA Today). I ask you - do you think USA Today should have run the story?
>
In my journalism classes the tests were simple:
-It has to be true.
-It has to be important to at least some of your readers.

There were obviously cases where more tests applied, such as national security, but they were rare.

This is the first time I've heard about the Arthur Ashe story but I'd have published it.

In general, there's more danger from people not having facts than the reverse.