It's a different matter, yes, but as the parent poster noted, there's a compelling public interest argument in favor of withholding said evidence in order to pr

It's a different matter, yes, but as the parent poster noted, there's a compelling public interest argument in favor of withholding said evidence in order to preserve the ability of the press to do their job. You can't have everything, so we must compromise. Unfortunately, in this case the judge ruled incorrectly, and freedom of the press will suffer as a result. If this ruling is allowed to stand, any future event a journalist covers where someone happens to commit a crime of opportunity will result in that journalist being at risk of harm should the perpetrators notice that they've been filmed. And that will make journalists think twice about covering such events. The alternative is allowing criminals to get away with what they were filmed doing, which of course leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. But given the stakes, it's a sacrifice we must make. I'm of course talking about crimes-of-opportunity here (in this case, arson), not planned terrorist attacks or murder, where journalists would be at risk regardless.