In Which I Fail To Understand Peter King's Perspective

Peter King appears to be taking the position that by releasing the audio of Gregg Williams urging his players to injure other players -- and offering money to do so -- filmmaker Sean Pamphilon did something immoral:
"Pamphilon betrayed the wishes of a dying man and a former very close friend by releasing the tape" ... "By blowing the whistle, though, what has Pamphilon accomplished?" ... "I can't get over the way the material was acquired and made public. It's just not right." ... "I cannot find it in my heart to quite call Pamphilon a rat, but I cannot call him a hero either."
I realize that modern journalism -- especially sports journalism! -- has become an entity in which the protection of insider sources is far more important than the public's right to know.  But just because that's the modern state of affairs doesn't mean it's moral, or right.
Steve Gleason didn't want the material published.  And Steve Gleason is dying. But Steve Gleason dying doesn't make his opinion about protecting the reputation of Gregg Williams and the New Orleans Saints corporation somehow inherently right.
What Williams did -- what he was doing in that recording -- appears to have been criminal.  A felony, in fact. By sharing the recording, Pamphilon correctly took action against that felony.  It's sort of vaguely sad that some of Peter King's friends are suffering because of this. It's genuinely sad that Gleason and Pamphilon are no longer friends about it.  But sometimes doing the morally correct thing makes people sad. Pamphilon should be praised for making the hard, right decision.