This morning's Today show featured the latest installment in the ongoing, possibly eternal, battle between police and the media over the latter's role in preventing and solving crime.
John Battle from ITN argued quite sensibly that the police shouldn't be allowed to simply demand their footage in a "fishing expedition" for possible crimes at the Dale Farm standoff.
Chief constable Andy Trotter, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, came right back with some pretty coherent points about the fact that they could only request this information with a court order.
This little vignette is a microcosm of the frenzied re-examination of the role of the media in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.
It demonstrates why, as a country, we should re-evaluate how the media functions within our society.
Those who dislike the tendency (some might say deep-seated desire) of some sectors of the media to drag up highly personal information and parade it as news would love to see strict rules of accountability for print media.
Editors, and not just those who particularly trade in muck raking, are outraged by the idea of politicians decreeing what they can and cannot print.
Somewhere in the midst of all this execration is a compromise position.
Journalists should be held to a high standard of accuracy, honesty and responsibility for their work. This includes not invading people's privacy unfairly, which is a judgement call and therefore always open to interpretation.
I believe this could be addressed by establishing a genuine journalists' qualification and oversight body along the lines of the GMC for doctors. All newspapers would be obliged to employ only journalists who are registered with this body, and it should have the power to train, strike off and fine its members
However, with such demands should come rights. Journalists who are members of this body should be allowed free access to a wider range of official public documents and events than is the case for the general public. In her well-argued piece last year, Heather Brooke pointed out that British journalists simply do not have the same level of access to such information as their American counterparts and are therefore less able to report freely.
Similarly, clearly defined rights to confidentiality with sources should be enshrined in the same way as doctor-patient confidentiality.
There are many other areas which might be addressed, including the sanctity or otherwise from police seizure of recorded material, but the fundamental principle is this: the media is immensely powerful and its journalists should be recognised as such. Grant a genuine, legislated balance of rights and responsibilities to journalists and newspapers and then a framework exists for the industry to function and grow effectively.
It will never be perfect and mistakes will always be made on both sides, but it is better than ineffective self regulation or heavy handed legislation which seeks only to limit and control.
