"Now that Woods appears to have been involved in a domestic dispute, the media are wondering if there is 'another Tiger.'... But when he makes deals that benefit dictatorships and unaccountable corporations, all in the name of his billion-dollar brand, he deserves no privacy."
The last part of that sentence needs to be rewritten. Business support and collaboration are not covered by personal privacy.
Yes, the public/media have long since decided to inflict their malicious envy on the personal activities of wealthy/celebrities with remorseless right-to-know. But that’s another matter entirely.