I’VE not paid much attention to the debate on super injunctions. To be honest I haven’t a clue who half these co-called celebrities are, let alone why I should be interested in their private lives.

Super injunctions are for the super-rich.

They’re sufficiently well-heeled and well-connected to take whatever the world and the media throws at them.

I save my sympathy for people who don’t have the money or friends to enable them to fight back.

The people who find their words and actions woefully and willfully misinterpreted by a media that, at times, is out of control.

I’ve got no personal complaints. I think I get a fair press most of the time. When I think I don’t, frank exchanges of views take place and we move on.

Not every section of the media is the same.

I write for this newspaper because I believe it is a takes its responsibilities to its readers and the truth seriously. Neither would I be writing words so critical of his trade, if it didn’t have an editor who respects free speech and plurality of opinion.

But others are going down a different route. They are propelled by a number of forces. There can’t be an editor in the land who in the last year hasn’t had an owner or managing director waving sales figures and pruning their budget. There can be few who haven’t woken up to the threat of the internet and social media.

Some have reacted positively, redesigning and reinvigorating their product.

But others have chosen a quicker fix, one that might boost sales but which will ultimately be disastrous for media freedom. Because believe me, if the media doesn’t put its own house in order, the Government will.

There are three stand-out factors. Firstly, headlines. Are they there to introduce a story and give a reader a flavour of what’s to come?

Or is the purpose of a headline to compel people to buy the paper at any price?

The second is the selection and presentation of facts. Unless we want newspapers the size of Bibles, we have to give journalists licence to sift the evidence and decide what information is relevant. But if that exercise isn’t done fairly and objectively, but to prove a point or set an agenda, then it’s an abuse of trust. It’s no different from a detective suppressing or planting evidence.

Lastly, there’s the line between fact and comment. None of us want media that is bland and unwilling to take a stand. But neither do we want one that has own unshakeable views about an issue, or individual, and takes it on itself to make up our minds for us.

The justice system in this country is flawed but trial by media is no substitute. It will be a sad day if reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities are replaced by “guilty because it says so” in the paper.

What are the solutions? Firstly strong, principled editorial direction that will give us a media that stands up for itself, but also stands up for the truth.

Second, proper self-regulation. If the Press Complaints Commission wants to remain as watchdog it must have real teeth.

Finally, and here’s the hard part, we also have to change.

We get the media we deserve. So if they deal in stereotypes, instant condemnations, flawed evidence and set people up to knock them down, then to a large extent we’ve asked for it.

When we pick up a newspaper or look at a screen, we’re really just looking in a mirror, and at the moment it’s not a pretty sight.