I don't know enough about how journalists get their info, but isn't there a distinction between insider info and hacked info? The distinction being that the insider at least had rightful access to the info in the first place (again, playing devil's advocate, as I don't know if that is always how journalists get insider info).
I talked to one of my coworkers who, prior to becoming a lawyer, was a sportswriter for one of the bigger U.S. newspapers, and had the communications degree and all that stuff. He really harped on the public interest side of things, saying we really needed to look at that. The example he gave was what if the info was stolen, but it revealed that the government had hidden secret torture camps in Kansas where we tortured citizens. On the flip side would be something like someone stealing private info of Britney Spears. There'd be nothing in the public interest with that, so only something like the U.S. tabloids (National Enquirer, etc.) would run with that.
I think there is probably some sort of matrix or graph that can be drawn here, with source of info down the side, and public interest along the bottom, with info getting plotted on there somewhere.