Forget the recession, is Max Clifford killing journalism?

It is not the most startlingly original theory to suggest Max Clifford might not be a good thing for journalism.

But there was an excellent debate on today’s PM show about Mr Clifford’s role in representing the first British swine flu victims (note to the World Health Organisation – we will never give up this name in favour of  H1N1a. Never!)

The thrust of the argument was that whereas Max Clifford’s usual clients are concerned with stories which interest the public, this is without doubt a story of  real public interest (a distinction anyone who has ever been in a journalistic ethics lecture is all too familar with).

 So the argument ran, he had no business getting involved and the Askhams’ story must be available to everyone, immediately.

The thing which struck me about the debate was that Max Clifford accepted the public interest/interest to the public dichotomy – and still maintained he should get involved.

This could potentially be very problematic for the industry. We have accepted kiss and tell hussies and Big Brother “stars” using men like Mr Clifford to maximise their shelf-life and prolong their media stay.

But if that now becomes the rule rather than the exception, if everybody caught up in current affairs now turns straight away to a PR manager, then our work is really going to be cut out.

We have got used to celebrities and business people holing up behind press officers and spkespeople and we have becoem accustomed to playing their (often) tiresome game.

But if we cannot even get access to ordinary members of the public then the game starts to become impossible.

But why might this be happening? Journalism students are also used to lectures about our abominable trust rating as a profession. Perhaps this is far more damaging than we previously realised.