Goodish leading article in today's Times, arguing that the Crown Prosecution Service has struck a blow for public interest journalism by refusing to prosecute The Guardian's reporter, Amelia Hill.
The Times sees the decision as marking "the introduction of an important defence of press freedom against the use of state power."
It goes on to argue that the CPS has made "an important and constructive intervention" by introducing "freedom of expression into the charging process for the first time."
The paper further argues that "journalists sometimes have to break the law to get at an important truth." The key, of course, is all about the importance of that truth. In essence, it centres on a definition of public interest.
And here there is something of a difference of emphasis between The Times and the view I take in my column in the London Evening Standard today.
Here's the key Times passage about "the danger" of what it calls "broadsheet" bias.It says:
"It is easy to agree that Amelia Hill's work was in the public interest. It is important, however, that the public interest is not determined by a patrician elite.
This is not to defend stories that are simply interesting to the public, but it is to ensure that stories in which the general public has an interest — that is, a stake — can be fully and forcefully reported.
The phone-hacking scandal must not lead to a narrower definition or interpretation of the public interest. The methods of the press have, rightly, been brought into question. But not the purpose. The public deserves to know more, not less."
But how to do that is the problem facing Lord Justice Leveson. We have 'two presses' - serious and popular. And they have totally different journalistic agendas.
The problem is therefore in constructing a single, coherent and fair public interest definition that suits both kinds of press.
I conclude: "No formula can square the circle between these very distinct kinds of newspapers."
