Only in the past couple of years have the rise of digital networks really facilitated the internationalisation of press... Not only are consumers reading online newspapers in growing numbers, but interestingly, their primary online newspaper is increasingly likely to be based in a country other than their own.
If you think this is only a Scottish issue, you'd be wrong. On 21st of June 50000 anti-austerity marchers hit the streets of London and the BBC didn't produce a single word about it. By contrast in 2011 a pro-Austerity march by the Tax Payers Alliance which totalled 350 people was covered in detail. It's not only our BBC that is at fault here - it's your BBC too.
David Cameron understands the power of images over words in government policy such as the introduction of pictures of disease on cigarette packets, he knows how advertising works and he cannot feign ignorance of the daily conditioning impact of Page 3 and other similar sexualised images of women in the U.K. tabloids.
The Daily Mail's attack on Ralph Miliband is so preposterous that there must be a hidden motive behind it. But what? One is that it is based on anti-semitism. That would put the Mail in the same category as Hitler who defined a Jew as anyone with one Jewish grandparent - nothing to do with faith and purely according to their birth.
Editors, we hear, are filing one by one through the door of Downing Street, bending the prime minister's ear about royal charters and press regulators. You must do something, they warn him, or there will be an impasse, a stalemate. They are wrong. There is no impasse; there is a process. Lord Justice Leveson foresaw that some editors and proprietors would stubbornly resist change and he made provision for this.
The Media Reform Coalition are pressing for something Curran refers to as the "elephant in the room". A 15 percent cap on cross-media ownership, giving up 20 percent of any given news market to public service obligations, and in the case of the 15 percent threshold, diluting share ownership to further undermine the power of publishers.
There has always been comms. There has always been public affairs. There has always been PR. There has always been spin. Read the bible for heaven's sake. What is new is not spin but the reality of a globalized media age, an information economy, a world where technology is accelerating the pace of change on an exponential basis.
The 18th century was a Golden Age for newspapers. The Georgian press delighted in cataloguing the vices of the age, and playwrights, politicians, actors, and courtesans were all afforded celebrity status by magazines and popular prints of the period. The parallels with today's media are startlingly obvious.
What business is it of ours if Mr David Sherborne, barrister to the victims of phone hacking and other alleged press abuses at the Leveson Inquiry, stamps his feet, warbles his throat and unfurls his tail feathers to attract a mate? If a relationship is explored during a public inquiry between two counsel on different sides of such a high profile event then there is a genuine public interest in the timing and extent of those rituals.
The Royal Charter on the press that was approved by all parties in Parliament on 18 March will benefit the public in many ways. The Charter, which is based on the recommendations of the year-long Leveson Inquiry and has the support of many victims of press abuses, creates a framework for press self-regulation that meets basic regulatory standards.
In fact it's always timely to be reminded of the fact that journalists are a vital pillar of any properly functioning democratic society. And this is notwithstanding the recent hammering that some parts of the profession have taken in this country over phone-hacking and other illegal activity. The fall-out from Leveson shouldn't distract us from the extremely serious work that journalists regularly do.
As a practicing lawyer frequently representing a cross-section of victims ranging from A-listers to politicians, while at the same time also having a significant number of journalists and publishers on my client list, I often have to change hats when arguing for press freedom on the one hand, and striving to protect the basic reputational and other rights of the ordinary man on the street on the other.