Yes, I think that the press is only out to get people to watch there shows, so they might as well go ahead and run a story before they let any person know about their actions. I do not think that there is nothing wrong with throwing the facts to the public.
The press should be able to report on allegations made against a person even without consulting with said person first. An allegation is not a conviction of a person. It is simply just an accusation made by another party/individual regarding a situation. As long as the press is respectful, it is not illegal.
The press has the right to report on things as they happen, with or without permission and consultation of the accused. However, this does not mean that the press has the right to report false information. The press can't publicly announce that an accused person, who has not yet been found guilty, is in fact guilty. They can not print slander.
Yes, I believe that the press should have the freedom to report on allegations without consulting the accused, because the fact that a person is accused is a fact in and of itself. As long as the media is careful to report the allegations as allegations, the people have a right to know what accusations are out there.
The press has an obligation to report the facts to the people. If the accused were given the right to censor the news of their allegations, which of them would not exploit that opportunity to keep their names out of the papers? Imagine a politician accused of wrongdoing. Would he let the press report on any possible malfeasance if he could avoid it? But the people have a right to know.