Leveson Inquiry shines light into gutter journalism….

What a sad state of affairs when some tabloid journalists can’t distinguish between stories that are in the public interest and those which are not….

What is the public significance in a story about the lovelife of comedy star Steve Coogan or Charlotte Church? Or what Max Moseley is getting up to in the privacy of his own home? Or cropping a photo of Sienna Miller lying on the floor at a charity ball and claiming she was drunk, when in fact she had been playing with a disabled child?

As someone who worked as a regional newspaper journalist and editor for over 20 years I am both saddened and angered by such methodology.

It belongs in the gutter. There is no place for that in responsible British journalism. It certainly ignores the codes of conduct and ethics taught to trainee journalists about balance and fairness.

Press freedom in the UK is partly what makes this country so great. There is no censorship – but equally, it is what makes us in the media look so tawdry when irresponsible journalists go beyond what is both decent and sometimes legal to justify a steamy, sordid or shocking front page headline. Phone hacking is the worst personification of this practice.

Some editorial managers will weigh up the cost benefit of increased casual sales against the likely litigation costs – if it stacks, they publish and are happy to face the consequences.

And yet, some tabloid journalists have unearthed hugely important stories which are very much ‘in the public interest’ and which often bring our government and those in authority to account for their actions. We must protect that precious press freedom for all it is worth. It is the cornerstone of our democratic society.

I have no problem with journalists hiding in bushes or going undercover to unearth stories that are plainly ‘in the public interest’ – but let’s be absolutely clear on the meaning of that phrase.

The Leveson Inquiry is rightly shining the light into the darker corners of the British media and maybe this will provide the opportunity for all those in national newspaper journalism to review the meaning of the words ‘in the public interest’ – and if they need help, perhaps a more forceful Press Complaints Commission or similar body can assist. The alternative - a censored or heavily regulated British media - would be an erosion of our democratic freedom and a disaster for us all.

Peter Corder

Managing director