Um

I'm certainly one who thinks that reporters often have an exaggerated sense of their personal right to keep their private lives private - especially those in the celebrity press (for which Waas hardly qualifies) - but if anyone can explain to me why there's any legitimate news hook over the fact that Murray Waas had cancer 20 years I'd really appreciate it. Kurtz

It's hard to say where the line should be drawn when it comes to such an intensely personal disclosure. Did Waas's near-death experience, and subsequent complications, affect his journalism? How could such a searing experience not change your outlook on work and life?

Waas, who works for the National Journal and has drawn attention lately for several scoops in the CIA leak investigation, sued George Washington University Medical Center for failing to diagnose his cancer, winning a $650,000 judgment. But over the years he has persuaded other reporters to steer clear of his medical history on grounds that it was private -- an interesting stance for a journalist who asks probing questions for a living.

How about:

But over the years he has persuaded other reporters to steer clear of his serial adultery on grounds that it was private -- an interesting stance for a journalist who asks probing questions for a living.

or:

But over the years he has persuaded other reporters to steer clear of his numerous encounters with hookers on grounds that it was private -- an interesting stance for a journalist who asks probing questions for a living.

or:

But over the years she has persuaded other reporters to steer clear of her past experience as a rape victim on grounds that it was private -- an interesting stance for a journalist who asks probing questions for a living.