Each case raises the issue of where privacy for public figures begins and ends, writes Emmet Oliver.
George Bernard Shaw once accused newspapers of not being able to discriminate between "a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilisation". This week two newspapers were accused of displaying similar shortcomings. They were accused of, not just confusing the trivial with the serious, but of serious breaches of privacy.
RTÉ's most recognised reporter, Charlie Bird, decided that after being "stalked" for several days by a photographer from Ireland on Sunday, he would speak out via RTÉ's Liveline programme. He told Joe Duffy, ironically a columnist with Ireland on Sunday, it was time to speak up about media intrusion and what might be done about it.
The RTÉ correspondent was followed because Ireland on Sunday said it believed he was in a new relationship, possibly with a Government spokeswoman. The paper later dropped the story.
But what further angered Mr Bird was last Saturday's Evening Herald. Under the headline "Shock at Bird's love nest probe", the paper claimed the reporter was "fuming" about being pursued.
One particular paragraph irked him: "The ace reporter has admitted in an interview recently he is in a new relationship". Bird says there was absolutely no truth in this; he was not in a new relationship and had never discussed the issue in any interview.
Bird joins a long list of public figures who have protested at the kind of coverage they have faced from certain newspapers over the last two years.
In recent months among those who have clashed with newspapers over privacy are the Kilkenny hurler, D.J. Carey, Mairead McFadden, mother of pop singer Bryan McFadden, the Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, and now, in the High Court, the U2 guitarist, the Edge.
Each case raises the issue of where privacy for public figures begins and ends, and what is acceptable in pursuit of stories.
The problem is that, while some aspects of privacy are already specifically regulated and protected, for example, through data protection legislation and by way of recent criminal law, often the damage has been done before action can be taken.
Political pressure is growing. The Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, asked recently: "With regard to media intrusion, how far do you feel that a person's public and private lives should be examined? What defines a 'public' life, and what level of intrusion do you feel is justified?"
Until recently such questions did not need answering. Indeed, the press was too often too respectful and sometimes exercised undue self-censorship.
But since the takeover of Ireland on Sunday in 2001 the line between the public and private, for good or ill, has been redrawn.
Last Sunday the paper broke major journalistic taboos by publishing an article and photograph of Malcolm Mcarthur's son. In recent weeks it has also run an article about a close friendship between the Taoiseach and a Dublin widow that was completely unrelated to wider political issues.
Several papers last year visited Kilkenny and asked close friends and colleagues of Carey about the state of his marriage.
However, Ireland on Sunday drew the sharpest criticism for its conduct during investigations into the Monica Leech saga involving Mr Cullen. Government sources claim that staff from the paper at one point even entered Mr Cullen's family home and questioned his children.
They also argue that there was no public interest involved in a subsequent story about the Minister's partner, a civil servant in the OPW. Contrary to a report in Ireland on Sunday, the woman never had a role in approving the Minister's expenses.
And they utterly repudiate the paper's claim that Mr Cullen had "a stand-up row" with the mother of his partner about their future plans.
The Minister for Justice has recently also criticised some papers' practice of using fictional bylines .
The National Union of Journalists Irish Secretary, Mr Seamus Dooley, yesterday warned that while "the vast majority of journalists are ethical, a small minority of editors and reporters could jeopardise independent self-regulation."
Ireland on Sunday defended itself last Sunday, at least in relation to Charlie Bird. It said the RTÉ reporter had expressed his unhappiness with "recent legitimate Ireland on Sunday attempts to secure a photograph of him and his new girlfriend", and the paper subsequently described Bird as a public figure whose activities were of interest to readers. Yesterday its editor, Mr Paul Drury, declined to comment and did not return several phone calls.
Yet the paper has been very succesful in sales terms, and much of the controversial reporting it has been involved in is tame by comparison to the British press.
But those who study journalism professionally detect a subtle shift. Mr Paul McNamara, a lecturer in news journalism at the School of Communications at DCU, says: "Areas related to the private lives of well-known people, which would not have been covered in the past, are now routinely reported.
"This is driven by several factors including: the perception that readers have a voracious and increasing appetite for celebrity news of every sort; fierce competition among certain newspapers to be the first to break hot gossip; a macho culture among some editors keen to ensure their coverage is always the most revealing; and the influence of British tabloids which have taken a greater interest in their Irish editions."
Mr McNamara emphasises that recent coverage is not unique. "Although Ireland on Sunday has adopted a very robust approach and pushed out the privacy boundaries, other Irish tabloids could hardly be described as shrinking violets in this regard," he says.
A key influence is clearly the commercial pressure on newspapers, not least on Ireland on Sunday. Purchased from Scottish Radio Holdings by Associated Newspapers, owner of the British Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, in September 2001 for IR£9.4 million, the paper has since managed to increase its circulation to 151,899.
Yet, despite the sales growth, the paper is not profitable. Associated Newspapers Ireland posted pre-tax losses of €13 million in its last set of accounts, which covered the period from the end of September 2002 to the end of September 2003. So there is clearly a major commercial imperative at work in the paper.
Some would suggest the same dynamic is at work in Independent News and Media, owner of the Evening Herald. The Herald's circulation has been in decline for many years, with sales dropping from 118,942 to 92,510 in the last decade. While the two papers do not compete directly, they are drawing from similar segments of the market.
But such commercial pressures do not explain away the actions of certain reporters at certain times. They do not explain why there has been such an obvious change in tone and content in our newspapers, but give some context to the change.
There is no doubt that Ireland on Sunday has managed to move the goalposts, but as Mr Dooley has said: "It would be very wrong to say everything went wrong when the Brits arrived".
But are there now really any goalposts? Who is currently defining what is acceptable and what is not?
This week the newspaper industry said it was seeking a meeting with the Minister for Justice to discuss its proposals for a press complaints system and a code of practice.
The Press Industry Steering Committee, which includes publishers, editors and representatives of the National Union of Journalists, said this week it had submitted its proposal "for the establishment of a press complaints system together with a code of practice to the Minister for Justice".
Until there is some kind of code and means of enforcement, newspapers alone will be left drawing the lines between the public and the private.