The Question Time special last night was compulsive viewing, which threw up a dozen interesting points. But one particular issue that came up was the fact Gordon Brown was unelected as Prime Minister, and so lacked the popular mandate needed to lead the country. While there is nothing massively original about this accusation, it was interesting to see how Labour’s opponents are suddenly dredging this matter up again.

Leaving aside my own personal view on whether the accession of a new PM should automatically trigger a General Election, I think it is worth pointing out how little the majority of the media made over Brown’s coming to power in 2007.

The majority of the broadsheets, swept along in a pro-Gordon anti-Blair jubilee failed to address the constitutional issues at stake. As such, some two years later when there is a genuine Parliamentary crisis, the matter raises its head, rubbing salt into the wounds inflicted on our body politic over the last couple of weeks.

If the press are still to claim a role as the Fourth Estate, then we have a duty to examine complex poitical issues as and when they arise, rather than wait until things blow up and others are able to use them to fuel some already very fierce political fires.

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.

And it proved to me  again that journalism is the best job in the world – the feeling of covering covering something that will directly effect everyone in the country’s lives is almost indescribable; thrilling and nerve-wracking in equal measure.

As with Vietnam veterans, to understand journalists I think you have to have been there. The rush, the focus, the pressure and, ultimately, the satisfaction have to be experienced.

Once tasted, the newshound never forgets the scent of a truly world-changing story.

Shame we’re all going to end up on the dole, despite Mr Darling’s best efforts.

PS This is in no way relevant but I need to get it off my chest. There is currently a Pot Noodle advert which is the most shameless rip off of Kiwi icons Flight of the Conchords. The whole thing infuriates me. How stupid are advertising people? Do they think this will appeal to the same demographic who like the Conchords? Do they not see that anyone who likes the Conchords will be riled by such a pale imitation of the band and be royally p**sed off? Probably not. They’re all too busy congratulating themselves on being down with the kids.

 As Chuck Klosterman put it, advertisers do a job that’s half as hard as journalism, for twice the money.

But more than all this, it showed again why print journalism will always have a place.

Intelligent, eloquent football writing has flourished over recent years – Henry Winter and Martin Samuel in particular are a joy to read. 

And quite simply this is not something the digital revolution is ever likely to render obsolete. With its emphasis on speed, convenience,  and squashing everything into 140 characters it is hardly a real threat. Some might argue the capacity to pick and choose articles on the web means the reader can go straight to a Winter, or a Samuel, and so our business model remains as worrying as Aston Villa’s loss of form. Maybe in theory, but I stumbled across both the Guardiola article and this piece on Alex Ferguson in the today’s Independent by chance. If the broadsheets continue to invest in quality writers I will still buy newspapers to see who might surprise me.

In the same way that I love Chuck Klosterman’s writing on popular culture, there is something fascinating about really good football writing, the ability of the author to see beauty in the seemingly oafish or mundane being the characteristic I most admire in all my artistic heroes.

And where else but a newspaper would you get it? I like the various football podcasts, particularly the Guardian’s, but they rarely soar any great intellectual heights. Television?  Hardly. It is usually possible to count on one hand the number of incisive, or even interesting points made on Match of the Day. Rarely does the level of punditry, be it Shearer (now mercifully removed from our screens to play out his God complex), Lawrenson, Pleat, even Hansen, rise much above the “Well he’s looked up and had a go and he’ll be delighted to see it fly in” level of banality. Say what you see lads.

My friend Will  posed a fantastic question yesterday when we were watching the FA Cup. What would be my dream time Match of the Day lineup? After some deliberation I went for Eric Cantona and Henry Winter. He went for Russell Brand and Gavin Peacock. Clearly we are both craving something different from our football coverage.

There are great swathes of the football following population crying out to for their minds to be engaged. It is the newspapers who are answering that rallying call.

My Cardiff colleague Hannah Waldram added her voice to the argument via a guest post on Telegraph Communities editor Shane Richmond’s blog and did a good job articulating the journalism student’s defence.

One of Hannah’s gripes concerns Lacy’s patronising style and, as I said before, utter smugness.

But though I agree with the thrust of Hannah’s argument, I do think Lacy’s (ahem) divisive writing style has deflected attention away from some of the points she makes which might just on closer inspection merit further inspection.

When an article carries such a needlessly aggressive headline, it is not surprising some of the subtleties of her argument might be lost in translation, as the frothing-mouthed Lacy turns her points of view into polarising invective.

This paragraph is a perfect example of this:

Journalism schools are like foot-binding. They force you into a style that a bunch of dinosaurs all agreed was acceptable a zillion years ago. So in an age of blogging, you have no voice. In fact, if I were in J-school now, I’d have my knuckles rapped for using the rhetorical “you” in those last two sentences. 

The foot-binding simile, “dinosaurs”, “zillions”, it all smacks of trying far too hard. Hey this girl’s crazy! Two fingers to the squares who make up the Establishment and no mistake! She doesn’t care who she upsets. 

But hidden within is the kernel of an interesting point. As Hannah points out we are very lucky that Cardiff has embraced the digital future and our multimedia training is first rate.

But in terms of language and style there are rules imposed on us by tutors which I would question. Writing with flair is rarely encouraged in a training environment which is a shame.

On another level BBC Trustee and Director of Cardiff school for journalism Richard Tait gave an excellent lecture last year in which he deplored the slide (as he saw it) from newspapers to viewspapers. Personally I am not convinced this is such a bad thing.

With short, factual news updates available everywhere, from trains to coffee shop screens, it may be that newspapers should now be brave enough to increase their opinion pages. 

Say what you like about Sarah Lacy (and goodness knows people have) but her piece has stimulated a fascinating debate across the blogosphere. Writers with such an ability can only be a good thing for our industry.

High stupidity considering the film is a 20th century Fox production, and Friedman must have known what he was doing would lose him his job.

But when journalists are being urged to embrace every technological advantage at their dipsoal to keep our industry relevant, is there a moral grey area here?

I suppose the answer hinges on how many people who would not otherwise have done so were encouraged to download the film after reading this review?

The media were full of stories about the leaking of the film, so it seems unlikely many people were alerted to it by this review.

And what would have happened if the film was made by one of Fox’s rivals? Would they have acted in the same way?

There were bound to be other reviews available on blogs and other sites across the web, but praise should go to Fox for refusing to compromise the ethical correctness which should remain the hallmark of the big media organisations.

The second point is that I do not recall seeing a rational, reasoned defence from a member of the banking community. Have they been given the opportunity to do so? Here all we have is the odious report of leering bankers waving money out of their windows at the march, followed by this desperate quote. 

“I think if we had our way we would not necessarily dress down, we would rather carry on as normal.

“You feel a bit aggrieved having to change for the protesters, but the company asked us to dress down so we did.”

So said James Hughes of CMC markets. Almost everything about this quote is incendiary to the general public; the idea of carrying on as normal, the stroppy tone.

This story on peerless comedy website Chortle offers an interesting commentary on the brilliance of Twitter and the reason why ultimately its brilliance may well be stifled.

My colleague Rachel Quigley wrote on her blog about the relative ease with which she contacted Rob Brydon on Twitter, and managed to persuade him to do an interveiw for our student arts’ supplement, an offer “his people” would almost certainly have sniggered off the line.

The kind of direct access Rachel enjoyed was fantastic, and Rob’s interview a great success. Likewise hearing Robert Webb rant against a reviewer in exactly the way he did last Friday was brilliantly refreshing, so rare has real, forthright opinion from people in the public eye become.

But how long before the insufferable PR minions of the rich and famous take over their Twitter accounts? It is already well established that many of the Facebook profiles of celebrities are actually the responsibility of some work experience underling at their PR company.

If Twitter goes the same way, then it will lose a huge part of its appeal. If it doesn’t, then it will strike the first real blow against the over-managed, overslick PR mechanisms which control our access with such precious,self-importance.

And if they do take a hit, then we might be able to start talking about a digital “revolution” less in hyperbole and more in hope.

But it got me thinking (how Carrie Bradshaw have I become?)…

This week’s G20 summit and the accompanying demonstrations will pose an enormous challenge for journalists.

In the past, the prevailing prosperity pulled the rug from under would-be world-savers before they even waved their placards. When they were afforded column inches at all, journalists would at best patronise them, and at worse savage them.

But this year it’s different. For the first time idealism doesn’t seem so naive. Firstly because more and more people are struggling and in agreement with the principle that certain things need to change.

And second because the Obama election, showed the world that bitter, cynical resignation was no longer an acceptable position to cling to.

The British press on the whole jumped on the Obama bandwagon and rode it all the way to the White House, safe in the knowledge perhaps that though a fun diversion, a messianic politician wouldn’t last five minutes this side of the pond.

But this week ideas about hope and change are going to be articulated right here in our back garden.

How the media choose to cover it will be interesting to see. I said in my last post the press need to be careful against whipping up public frenzy. But by the same token derisory dismissal or (even worse) patronising head patting of the protesters does the public a disservice. We can’t have it all on our terms.

It’s easy to sit in front of a computer and tap out excoriating leader pieces calling for change, but it’s a damn sight more difficult to get out on the  streets and do it for real.

The press has been goading politicians for months about letting down the country. If they now abandon those in the streets at the first hint of trouble, or passion, then they too should hang their heads in shame.

PS Cripes, this is all rather heavy. On a lighter note I heard the Babybird song You’re Gorgeous today which made me smile.

But on reflection, I cannot help but wonder if journalists need to ask themselves whether they might be to blame. Goodwin has come to personify the evils of boom and bust, and that smug photo of him on the phone has been splashed across papers, TV and webistes for weeks. All of society’s frustration, anger, and sense of injustice have been poured into one figure and Goodwin has taken on all the attributes of a pantomime villain, except the confidence on our part that ultimately he will meet his comeuppance.

I wonder how much we have let the particularly precarious position of our own industry feed our Fred-frenzy? This week’s attack may prove that the anger we have stirred up is now out of control. Shame on any journalist who now piously condemns Bankers for Criminals (shame too on opposition politicians). Between us we have goaded the public to the point where an act like this became inevitable.

Study most revolutions and you will find journalists whipping up public anger to the point of no return. I am not saying we are heading for a revolution. But we must acknowledge we are playing with fire, and Sir Fred’s Mercedes may not be the most serious casualty.