A load of sanctimonious rubbish

Paul Dacre has told the Society of Editors that the News of the World breaking the Max Mosley story was a moral act and that Mr Justice Eady's judgement was restricting the actions of moralising newspapers such as his own (the Daily Mail).

I have two problems with this:

1. I don't believe we need 'protecting' from people like MM, I completely agree with the judge's point that Mr Mosley could expect privacy for consensual "sexual activities" no matter how unconventional. Just think back to the age when the activities that MM could have been persecuted by the media included such things as gay sex, was that right? No and now we should move forward and get people to understand that no matter how distasteful they might find a sexual practice that if the people involved are happy to do so it is none of their business and not a reason to persecute a public figure.
2. The other thing that I can't bring myself to buy into is that the reporters and editors at the News of the World got this story and thought "this is terrible, we should make an example of this man for moral reasons". I find it more credible that they got the story and thought something along the lines of, what a fantastically embarrassing story, get it out there and watch MM squirm.

The other part of his reported remarks on the subject that caught my eye was "It is the others I care about - the crooks, the liars, the cheats, the rich and the corrupt sheltering behind a law of privacy being created by an unaccountable judge." as I think it re-enforces my second point above. While I think the media should do their best to report on crooks, liars, cheats and the corrupt, why should the rich be a target just because they are rich, when did that become a crime? Does this suggest that what Max Mosley was target for was having more money than the people who were 'reporting' on him?