Is John Simpson right to lay into the tabloids?

John Simpson, the BBC's world affairs editor, has launched a full-frontal assault on the state of British journalism. He says it is dishonest and lacks moral purpose. He is particularly scathing about the tabloids and scorns the "lack of regulation". Simpson says: "What kind of country are we when we see all the false stories being printed, when we see the lies and interference into people's private lives?" He argues that the tabloids "regularly spew out stories about people's personal lives which are either not true or heavily misinterpreted" and names the News of the World as the worst culprit, citing its notorious naming-and-shaming of paedophiles as an example of unprincipled journalism. Then he weighs into the Press Complaints Commission for allowing the bad behaviour to go unpunished. He concludes: "My concern is for the future. We need to have cuttings, recordings and stories we are proud to to hand down to our grandchildren." Now Simpson is known for being outspoken, recently insisting that reporting in Iraq "isn't too dangerous". But is he guilty of overstating his case about the immorality of popular journalism? Millions buy the papers after all. Therefore, do they lack a moral purpose as well?