THERE is something unsettling about the daily, gaudy procession of celebs giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry.

But before everybody starts writing to me in green ink to accuse me of not taking seriously the problem of freedom of the press versus respect for privacy, let me say that I have no doubt that this is a very serious matter and it should be discussed intelligently and thoroughly. If the inquiry can recommend a change in our present laws which would, if not solve the problem, at least improve things, then all to the good.

But, honestly, we face a catastrophic public sector strike and a deteriorating economic scenario. The Eurozone is on the verge of collapse. And the Middle East and North Africa look as if they might go up in flames any minute. Meanwhile, terrestrial and satellite TV offer wall-to-wall visions of celebs for us to gawp at and their names, with huge pictures, of course, make the front pages even of those newspapers which ought to know better.

Is the “debate” about press freedom and privacy really improved by coverage of such as Hugh Grant, JK Rowling, Sienna Miller and the rest? Theirs were just little cameos which were hard to distinguish from publicity shots. Perhaps those who live by the PR man must expect to live also with the hacker.

It’s called a debate, but it isn’t a debate. It’s a photo-opportunity for self-publicising celebs arranged, of course, by their agents.

Only it is turned tasteless by getting all mixed up with people who really have been victims of aggressive intrusion such as Kate McCann.

We hear a lot about debates these days. I heard part of a debate about whether one tedious TV soap opera is better than another.

There is the debate concerning the Occupy protestors versus capitalism, which by no stretch of the English language can be called a debate. Every real debate necessarily involves the engagement of the mind. It requires that people will listen to what the other side is saying and then think about it.

I’ll tell you what made me laugh, though.

The BBC website promotes its daily exploitation of this important issue with the advertisement: “The Leveson Enquiry and Privacy – Daily View.” It reminds me of the deceased News of the World: “The Vile Sex Trade That is Making Our Girls into Slaves - see pages one, four, five, nine, 11 and 18, with exclusive pictures.”

Privacy – Daily View? If they could only see this pantomime, those great satirists Jonathan Swift and Karl Kraus would be chuckling in their shrouds.

And I would really like to know what a celebrity is. What do you have to do to become a celebrity? The answer seems to be only that you appear on TV. What you appear for is irrelevant. Some years ago I did Epilogues for Tyne Tees TV. One day in my village parish, a lady stopped me in the street and asked when I would be on TV again. She said she would make a point of staying up late to watch me. I said: “There’s no need to stay up half the night. If you come to Evensong on Sunday you can see me in the flesh.”

There used to be fame (good) and there used to be notoriety (bad). Nowadays, there is no distinction made and there is only celebrity.

Perhaps, as Andy Warhol said in 1968: “One day everybody will be famous for 15 minutes.”