As exposed in the Times today: I don't get the fuss tbh. Sure, the provider of the back-up audio feed has probably breached its contract (unclear from the article) but surely if something is said in a news conference with the press it is instantly "public information". The fact that someone knows this a few seconds before someone else seems irrelevant to me, if the words have been said in a press conf the information is surely instantly public. Comparing it to "insider trading" seems like bollocks (from a strictly semantic point of view, I realise it just isn't cricket).
Puts me in mind of, I think, a Pratchettism, which states that nothing travels faster in the universe than royal succession. As soon as old bess shuffles off the coil, big chuck will become king faster than the speed of light. (From one of the witches thingys I think.)
I realise those best placed to comment may not be able to so do.