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

Every successful First World civilization relies on the notion that a (wo)man's home is his/her castle and that privacy is an inalienable right. Journalists are like everybody else who breaches that sort of societal norm: they only can get away with it as long as everybody else is civic-minded and doesn't retaliate. But it's no surprise that journalists are very poorly thought of by society, below even lawyers on the public approval totem. By definition, what they taught you in journalist school is a recipe for antisocial behavior.

A large part of that is the shield of sanctimony when revealing private personal details that titillate the lowest meanest aspect of human nature under the guise of public interest, followed by air raid siren protests if the fourth estate's own privacy receives the same treatment. All men are equal, but some journalists are more equal than others.

Certainly the fourth estate has / had a role in protecting Joe Average's castle and privacy from the state or powerful vested interest, but revealing individual medical records goes in the opposite direction. Meanwhile ownership control/editorial direction and the internet increasingly pushes the mainstream media into irrelevance. Now the public is more interested in widely-read personal blogs and modern media that wins public approval by not acting antisocially or by admitting what they're doing.