Censorship vs. too much information

After reading the articles for class and learning about how the media can censor itself and other forms of media (like Google) can censor other outlets either directly or indirectly, I thought about the paradox that exists with the media. There seems to always or quite frequently be a debate concerning the media in regards to how they get their information, at least there is a debate to me. For example, in the recent and ongoing case involving an IC grad having an affair with an older man at her internship, I can't help but wonder how the news organizations got some of their information such as pictures, and what makes it exactly (or close to) ethical to publish it? Some even have letters that were given to the police, written by Brook (the IC grad) to the family of the man she had an affair with, Steve Phillips. Again, how does information such as this leak out to the media?

On the other end of the spectrum, there are many websites essentially being blocked by powerhouses such as Google, by not allowing any search results to contain links to any given website that they have essentially "blocked". So essentially, many don't know that the site exists unless it is linked to in another website. It is interesting in comparison, either the media shares too much information that could have possibly been gotten by questionable practices that no one seems to question, or the media isn't popular because of such censorship as stated above.