Solution

There are costs to everything in life. Celebrities compromise their privacy for fame and money. People who are known to the public acquire great authority. They are adored by monarchs and presidents, appear in TV ads and serials, and make every day what most people do not make in a year. If the public gaze is removed, they will vanish like ghosts at daybreak. Blame is simple; the evidence is difficult.
The use of sting operation techniques by some journalists was criticized as an infringement on the privacy of a person. However, those who controlled the nation and guarded its frontiers were the "victims" of the trap. They were willing to exchange all of this for their own benefit. Therefore, in this instance, we might contend that there is no such thing as privacy when important issues like national security are involved. However, the public needs all of them, as do the paparazzi and journalists who cover celebrities, publications, and television.
They do, indeed. Yes, celebrities do require privacy. The use of unethical and inappropriate tactics, such as breaking into hospitals and the intensive care unit (ICU), should be denounced. To be honest, these reckless actions might genuinely endanger a celebrity's health in their quest. Public interest is not served by this. The loving public has a right to know the truth, but not at the expense of their physical, mental, or emotional well-being.
For a celeb, this is a high price to pay. Public personalities do have societal responsibilities. However, only if they fail to fulfill the obligations placed on them by society. The media should go after someone who is acting suspiciously or irregularly in public and expose any fraud. Their obligation as moral beings is to do that. Democracy is based on just that. In the meanwhile, anything one does inside their own four walls is strictly private. The media has no authority to conduct a sting operation to obtain details about his private life.