In Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 646, owners and operators of a resort sued the publishers of a national magazine over an article which accused them of involvement with organized crime and sought to implicate them in the "Watergate" scandal, nationwide bank failures, securities frauds, criminal use of union monies and pension funds, as well as the swindle of many others, including churches. The court stated: "The state conditional privilege of section 47(3) does not apply to a publication by a magazine or newspaper merely because it relates to a matter which may have general public interest . . . . para. The word 'interested' as used in the statute refers to a more direct and immediate concern. That concern is something other than mere general or idle curiosity of the general readership of newspapers and magazines." ( Id. at pp. 664-665.) Distinguishing cases which applied the section 47, subdivision 3 privilege to defamatory comments related to public officials, and to publications "limited to a local or a special interest group and related to matters of special concern" ( id., at pp. 666-667), the court reasoned that "whatever privilege is accorded defendants under Civil Code section 47(3), it must yield to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights of privacy." ( Id., at p. 667.) The court found extended discussion of the inapplicability of section 47, subdivision 3 unnecessary "because the only basis upon which defendants seek the benefit of the statute is by saying that the public at large, and hence that part thereof which constitutes its readership, is interested generally in the fight against organized crime. There being no specific evidence of any particular or specific subject matter of communication, no recital of the inadequacy of the evidence on the application of the section is necessary." (Ibid.)