It's interesting because intuitively I want to say it depends on the stolen data they are procuring but then who becomes the arbiter what stolen data is ok and what stolen data isn't?

We can probably all agree that there would be a moral case for a journalist to buy stolen data that reveals say a secret plot to steal a nuclear weapon. (I know this is a far fetched hollywood example here but you get the gist). Whereas we can probably all agree that it would be immoral for a journalist to buy stolen data that reveals some politician or business leader purchases Viagara from his local pharmacy once a month.

Unfortunately 99.99% of instances will not be this black and white so it is hard to say.