This week’s newspaper circulation figures as reported by allmediascotland.com look disastrous for the Scottish press – which in turn is disastrous for the state of Scottish democracy.

The rate of decline of the Sunday Herald and Scotland on Sunday in particular is alarming – but not that much of a surprise to those who buy, or have bought these papers. 

I badly want these titles to succeed but they just don’t offer value for money.  We can all complain about the content of newspapers (as I do too much) but the bottom line is that neither of these titles have enough content to complain about. The are far too thin for a Sunday newspaper. 

The Sunday Times by contrast has actually put on sales -   for no reason other than it is better value than its rivals. There’s just a lot more of it. Sadly it’s hard to argue that its comparative success has anything to do with its Scottish coverage – those who write for the paper are stuck in the mindset that Scotland is basically crap, that the SNP is an illegitimate government and that anyone who works for the public sector is a useless scrounger.

I guess that many people who buy the paper do so in spite of, rather than because of, its treatment of Scotland. 

This matters because despite the rise of blogs, large-scale daily newsgathering -  the watchdog function much derided by leftist media theorists – is fundamental to democracy.  That means having lots of reporters – something that even the best and biggest blogs are never going to be able to invest in.

This is why much of the recent debate about blogging and newspapers simply misses the point.  Bloggers are in competition with professional commentators and (apart from the occasional spectacular) not reporters. We need both. 

I have some sympathy with Kezia Dugdale’s post on this subject. In Andrew Marr’s book on UK journalism, he describes newspaper columnists as journalist aristocrats. In fact I have always been sceptical of general opinion writers who expect to write with authority about Iraq one day and school reform the next – they may be elegant but can’t possibly have the specialist knowledge required. 

This tradition is not common across the world – in Denmark for example newspapers opinion pages have usually been reserved for genuine specialists – most of whom are not professional journalists.

But Kezia’s post throws up, as she I think recognises, why bloggers are not the same as reporters. At one point, in a reference to David Cameron, she  reveals real misunderstanding of the defamation law (ironically supporting  her own earlier point about some, but not all, bloggers’  lack of knowledge of this area).

Another key difference is this: in a reply to Iain Dale, she guesses at the circulation of The Sunday Herald – something a reporter would never do.  Interestingly in the comments section, someone posts the details (although  now  out of date ) an example of those who say the internet lends itself to fact-checking and correction.

The real point is this: the threat to newspapers (particularly Scottish ones) does not come from bloggers. It comes from under-investment and cost-cutting – a trend  that may now require some form of public subsidy – although I am yet to be fully convinced of this -  in order to maintain the newsgathering role,  something that’s far more important than commentating  - whether on a blog or in print.

Supermodel and privacy campaigner Naomi Campbell today admitted assaulting two police officers at Heathrow Airport. The news would not have come as a surprise to readers of The Sun who were told by the supersoaraway in a front-page splash on April 4 that NAOMI SPAT IN COP’S FACE. Although the intro to the story included the word allegedly there were no quote marks or qualifications around the headline. The main story went on to say that Naomi was crazed and had gone berserk.  This is interesting because as every student journalist knows, reporters are in danger of falling foul of the Contempt of Court Act if they publish anything that could create a substantial risk of serious prejudice once a case has been deemed active – eg if an arrest has been made. In this instance Campbell had indeed been arrested, as the copy pointed out, when the April 4 story was written. I don’t want to see The Sun being prosecuted for contempt – I’ve always thought that jurors could be trusted to try cases on the basis of evidence before them, rather than what they may have read in the papers. Important factors such as the time between publication and the likely date of any trial (and indeed whether there would be a jury trial) would also have been taken into account, but cases such as this one show that the contempt legislation is looking more and redundant. When it comes to alleged terrorist cases, it seems that any amount of information can be published before trial with no danger of contempt proceedings being brought.  

Traditionally judges in Scotland have been tougher on contempt than the courts in England – although high profile cases in the late 1990s relaxed to a large extent this traditional strict view. The European Convention on Human Rights – with its free speech article – has been particularly important in this regard. There was another interesting example this week when The Sun’s front page splash on Thursday carried the headline GOT HIM over the story of the arrest of a suspect in the Moira Jones murder case. 

For those of us who teach law for journalists all this makes the area of contempt of court very challenging – indeed given current practice is it not time this aspect of the law was looked at again so that there is greater clarity of what is and is not now acceptable?