Volokh Conspiracy has an excellent article on the state of the law vis-a-vis publicizing past felony convictions.
I ask, how can it be permitted for the media to do something that private citizens cannot? Does the media have more freedom of speech than a private citizen? I would submit that the first amendment was clearly intended to protect both equally.
Do we want privileged classes in the US? Admittedly, we have them de facto, but is this a practice we wish to discourage, or encourage, de jure?
As an additional note, at what point does it become media? Am I, with roughly 1300 visits and 2000 page views per day over the last week (making my articles more read than many small papers, newsletters, etcetera), a media publisher? Are the Volokhs, at roughly ten times that level? Michelle Malkin, at roughly ten times that level? Does it require incorporation? Financial Statements? What, precisely, is the factor or factors distinguishing media publication from non-media?
I mistrust, as a matter of principle, all lines dividing our nation into two or more parts as to legal rights, privileges, or obligations. The correct view to take, and definitely to start with, is that all citizens are equal before the law. If A is allowed to do something, what compelling societal reason do we have for forbidding B? If C is not allowed to do something else, what overriding concern allows it to be permissible for D? We may disagree on specific cases, but I believe that the reasoning is universal.
I submit that in this case, no valid distinction can be drawn between the rights of media and the rights on individuals.
As a final reductio ad absurdem, suppose it is permissible for something to be published by one media outlet or another. Can we visualize any scenario under which it should be illegal for one citizen to tell another what they saw in a news report? If this distinction is drawn, that is precisely the state of affairs we will find ourselves in.