Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!

Blair knew he was going to get an earful from the commentariat when he gave his speech on the modern British media today.

"I've made this speech after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters," he told the crowd.

And so it has been. Quite why Blair chose to target the Indy, why he singled out the lobby press and why he lambasted an "impact agenda" is beyond me. Firstly, there are surely more deserving targets. He gives merely a nod to his own administration's impact on political reporting. The courting of the Murdoch press recieves no attention, nor his fawning over the tabloids in the early years of power. The handling of the David Kelly affair and the shameful bullying of the BBC is likewise, a galling elision.

Secondly, has not is always been so? "News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light" is no more true of the media in Blair's Britain than it has been of Fleet street for the past century. And this year alone what of the light shed by the Sunday Times and cash for honours? Or the Guardian and BAE bribary? Light and heat go hand in hard, Mr. Blair, and you should certainly be feeling hot under the collar.

"Right sermon, wrong preacher," editorialized the Guardian. They're right. A lot of what Blair said bares careful scrutiny.

"A problem is 'a crisis'. A setback is a policy 'in tatters'. A criticism, 'a savage attack'," said Blair. Today, read about the UN's damning verdict, or bonds soaring and plunging or MP's scorching private equiteers.

Sometimes the words are proportionate, other times not. Political journalism suffers for its art in this respect. It's tricky to convey the impact of what's being said, off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush when you've got a ten minute slot to fill. Nick Robinson's news on the BBC is ten minutes of his well-informed opinion; not ten minutes of hard news. Of course, Nick Robinson often hits the mark, but Blair does nonetheless have a point in identifying a shift in political coverage. What Nick Robinsons says is the news. The medium has become the message.

It's a shame that the media's reaction to Blair's comments hasnt been as carefully couched as his speech was.

"This speech is not a complaint. It is an argument," said Blair.

Simon Kellner hasnt been so prudent. Instead, he has used the front page of the Independent to respond to Blair's remarks. Kellner seems completely oblivious to the fact that his actions are the clearest valedation yet that the Independent is "avowedly a viewspaper." His broadside is territorial, narrow and hot-blooded. "we feel our readers today want more: a diverse range of commentary, colourful debate, provocative front pages and, yes, the views behind the news." Well quelle horreur, Mr. Kellner, that's exactly what Mr. Blair said.

This blog is, of course, just as guilty of being a part of the creeping commentariat. But it is worrying that a national newspaper should feel that it knows what opinion's it's readers "want to hear" - even more so for the eponymous Independent.

Blair, for all his mendacity, got one thing right. "The way that people get their news may be changing; but the thirst for the news being real news is not."