It would. We touched on this right at the beginning, which is to say that if a story is of significant enough public interest, you should be able to justify the intrusion. The world we live in now is very odd, because I fear that the public interest defence we have is currently too narrow and not sufficiently robust, but more than that, it's very uneven, so it applies to some laws and not to others. So we're in the odd situation that blagging -- you can impersonate your way to securing a document, but you could not buy that document, say, from the knowledge that you had a public interest defence.
And I would say that if we are going to move to a world, which I expect we will do, where we will have a more muscular regulator and there will be expectations that the press treat people better, press freedom will be best defended by having a very strong and widely enforceable public interest defence.