on the neutral reportage privilege assumes the challenged statements were false. It is a doctrine that provides an exception to liability for what could otherwise be a defamatory statement. Since we have affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Sunbelt based on its finding the newspaper article did not contain false and defamatory statements about the plaintiff, we need not reach this alternative ground in support of summary judgment. See, e.g., Ross, 266 S.C. at 80, 221 S.E.2d at 772 (“Since we agree with the trial judge’s determination that the [newspaper] articles were clearly not false or defamatory, we need not reach the question of qualified privilege.”); Fuller-Ahrens Partnership v. S.C. Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 311 S.C. 177, 427 S.E.2d 920 (Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Weeks v. McMillan, 291 S.C. 287, 292, 353
holding that an appellate court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record even if the circuit court did not rely on it holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion holding that appellate courts need not discuss remaining issues when determination of a prior issue is dispositive holding where an appellate court affirms trial courts grant of summary judgment on a particular ground the appellate court need not discuss the remaining grounds holding appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when decision on prior issue disposes of appeal