No. I'd rather it work like the media talks about singers singing, actors acting, legislators governing, mechanics fixing, ministers preaching, haircutters styling, salespeople selling, police officers protecting, pilots flying, etc.
And with regard to issues like this, I'd rather it work like the media addresses the issue, not exploit one person's situation, i.e., how it is that many people suffer from X or Y because of Z, etc., rather than getting their jollies focusing on such important issues only for the purpose of exploiting one person's difficulty, and working so incredibly hard to invade on that process (as you can be sure that they shall) so as to drive that exploitation to higher levels.
That would be my preference. They have a right to exploit, abuse, and otherwise feed the American public's childish and inanely insatiable appetite for salaciousness, and sensationalism. That doesn't mean everyone has to contribute to their exploitation by consuming what they put out. Each person has a choice about whether to patronize or eschew this base exploitation.
I stopped buying anything that shares info on personalities after Princess Di died. I had never given any thought to how the photos of celebrities were obtained or how the articles might affect those people. Since then I refuse to participate. I 
