I was reading these attempts at better analogies, kept wondering why someone wasn’t making an analogy akin to writing or books, left to read the article, then came back and saw your comment.

Your analogy is much more apropos. Nothing was tampered with or “pulled” from another location, virtual or otherwise. Everything the reporter saw was already there and accessible (the public website), they just knew how to use their lens (browser) in a perfectly legal way to see it.

I regret having contributed to this analogy-storm. I thought I was just making a helpful remark, but now it's got out of control.