It is the old difference between what is 'in the public interest' and what is 'of interest to the public'.  Freedom of the press should only be used as an excuse for investigating the former, not the latter - and even then only legitimate methods should be used.

i think it is a really interesting distinction... it's like does one look at one's daughter's diaries without permission if one has grave concerns risking all sorts of consequences .... or does one risk going to jail ....    to expose what is of great concern... whistle blowers are always at risk of losing jobs and careers and all that goes with it... but i think 'in the public interest' is a curious concept that means many things to many people like .... Tiger Woods and his sponsors .... or Max Mosely and F1 or the pakistani cricketers and the betting scandals well for some reason all those are about sport...  or tests on Royal and other security  or cash for questions... which of those are actually 'in the public interest'

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,