Up to a point, Mr Davies

The figures look appalling: 80 per cent of news stories in quality newspapers are based either on PR handouts or agency copy; fewer journalists are producing three times as many pages as they did 20 years ago; as a result the quality of reporting is in decline. Thus, concludes Nick Davies, standards of journalism are lower than they have ever been. It's a fair conclusion - but it's wrong. Or rather, it misses an important point.

Twenty years ago, we had a far more deferential press than we do today. Interviews with politicians and stars tended to recycle the views of their subjects rather than challenge them. News from government sources was published all too often without criticism (remember the subservience of the Downing Street lobby under Mrs Thatcher?) And there was a natural respect for institutions like the police and the law.

All that has gone, and, whatever your

views about it, we have a far more combative press than we used to. Agency copy, for most newspapers, is the foundation on which much news rests, and, if it is accurate and informative, there is nothing wrong with that. What matters is how you build on it, and a good newspaper will treat it as source copy rather than the finished article.

Davies is right to bemoan the decline of investigative reporting, but we have been complaining about that for as long as I can remember. For better or worse, the agenda has changed - we are more interested in lifestyle subjects, pop, television and celebrities than we were before.

What matters is papers like the Guardian, Times and Independent are well written, which they are, and continue their function of being combative and challenging; in addition, I believe they are more varied and eclectic than their predecessors. After all, flat earth news has one major drawback. If readers no longer believe it, they will eventually give up on the newspapers that peddle it.

To buy this book