In the past the definition of public interest was much clearer because nationality was such a defining factor in how you would be treated. A friendly German in Britain during the war was still locked up even if they were no threat. Civilians were killed because they lived in a particular country rather than the ideology they supported. Identity is much more globalized and more diverse than in the past, and it is unreasonable to tie people down to a single national interest. The press need to consider what is in the public interest for the whole world.
I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't see how a more globally integrated society can be used as an argument to exempt members of the press, who are physically located in a nation, from being subject to the laws of that nation. We still manage to have international trade despite the fact that each nation has their own laws regarding money and trade, so a news organization (or reporter), like a business (or individual), can relocate itself to a country more favorable to its agenda.
There is a big difference between being concerned, advocating for, and helping those in other nations, yet still being a citizen of your nation, and imagining yourself as a global citizen who is above the laws of any one nation.
Agree 100%. Ironically terrorists give exactly the same "public interest" defense for their actions; appealing to a higher power than national interest. Personally I like the approach that Google adopts of having an overriding ethos, but also respecting local laws. The risk is that government will not be able to tell the difference between a noble ethos and a perverted terrorist one. I don't know what the solution to that is. Ignoring human rights is not the solution.
