Putting aside the problematic nature of the claim that inadvertently letting one single person (who turned out to be quite a gossip) figure out that he was staying in the same hotel room as a woman is "broadcasting" - you've missed the larger point.
As I pointed out above, if he had gotten a fully papered divorce from his wife on court letterhead, then had a nice church wedding with his new girlfriend and then stayed in that hotel room - he would still be committing adultery under the Gospel standard.
Unless, of course, we have proof that his actual wife committed porneia as per Matthew 19:9.
All the "conservative Biblical evangelicals" who are currently engaged in fraudulent "second marriages" are just as guilty as D'Souza of adultery.
What is a hypocrite, rmlew?
Someone who pretends to be one thing and is actually another.
World magazine's editorial staff claim to be Biblical literalists, but their literalism is very fluid and flexible when it comes to the Biblical standard of adultery.
Their pillorying of D'Souza is highly selective, and interestingly timed.
At least the Pharisees of John 7 were wise enough to drop their stones and walk away quietly, instead of writing up a fancy article on the woman taken in adultery in Olam magazine.