> uncovering more of his private life through the testimony of others could be against his wishes I don't see why this is relevant. As long as the journalist

> uncovering more of his private life through the testimony of others could be against his wishes I don't see why this is relevant. As long as the journalist reports from within the ethical and legal boundaries of the profession, I don't think we can fault him/her if the subject doesn't like the end product. Very few journalists will give retroactive veto power to an interview subject, nor will they allow the subject to dictate who else may say what about the story. In the general case, in the absence of submitting the story for review before publishing, it is impossible to ensure that the subject will be happy with it. I don't think there's anything wrong with any of this.