Martin Hannan: Don't beat us all with same stick

It's not a fun time for the press, but I could not help remembering that old joke about the little boy in his first days at school who is asked by the teacher to say what his daddy does for a living.

"He plays the piano in a brothel," says the boy, and the teacher is so shocked she calls his mother.

"Well, he does have a bit of an imagination," says his mum. "And, anyway, would you want to admit your dad is a tabloid journalist?"

It's one of those transferable jokes. The paternal occupation over the years has changed from lawyer to banker to expense-fiddling MP and now to journalist, and many people do not differentiate between tabloid and broadsheet journalists.

In truth, there is not much difference between the two. The sentences may be shorter, the words different, the headlines certainly so, but the actual practice of journalism is much the same across the range of newspapers.

Journalism is not a profession. No entrance qualifications are necessary, there are no regulatory institutes, the only person who decides if you are good enough to survive is the editor. It is at best a craft or a trade, though the very best journalists can make a real difference in the world.

Almost anyone can become a journalist. As long as you can read and write and are prepared to be trained in, and continuously learn about, a range of fields - basically, whatever takes your fancy - then you can become a journalist.

These days it usually takes a university qualification to enter the trade, but not exclusively so.

The best journalists all have the same qualities: they have a nose for a story, they write well, they know their subjects comprehensively, they explain things clearly to lay people, they have good contacts and sources, they are tenacious in the pursuit of facts and truth, and they become authoritative by getting it right time and again.

Most journalists I know are just people doing a job, often for not a lot of money. They may enter the trade with the highest intentions, but after a few years very few are motivated by a desire to change the world and, sometimes, a few bad apples let down the rest of us in the barrel.

This week, 200 journalists who worked for the News of the World are looking for jobs in an industry that has been reducing employee numbers for years.

Most of them are innocent of the disgusting practices in which the newspaper indulged, but they are being sacrificed as pawns in a power game as Rupert Murdoch tries to save his bid to take control of BSkyB.

The ramifications of this whole phone-hacking scandal are yet to be fully felt. I suspect many more journalists and newspaper executives are going to be jailed. Police officers, too, will be prosecuted. More London-based tabloids are going to be exposed for their extremely dubious tactics.

Given Andy Coulson's arrest, it might well be that Tommy Sheridan will walk free. I have no doubt the Lothian and Borders Police officers who investigated Sheridan for perjury were not in the pay of the News of the World or anyone else, but if the jury had known what Coulson and his paper were up to, would they still have convicted Sheridan?

After all, the jury was split 8-6, meaning only one person needed to have a change of mind. No doubt their Lordships in the Appeal Court will decide wisely.

And wouldn't this be a hoot - the News of the World may have to pay Sheridan compensation for hacking his phone. Would 200,000 be enough? That's the sum Sheridan originally won from them . . .

Prime Minister David Cameron may yet have to resign. His frankly ludicrous championing of Coulson has called into question his fitness to govern the country.

Cameron talked of giving his mate "a second chance", but he had enough doubts to have his bona fides checked out. To then employ Coulson as his communications chief despite warnings from plenty of people shows a lack of judgement and basic intelligence that is simply not permissible in a Prime Minister.

Cameron has bought himself time with his inquiries, but he should prepare for resignation if, as is possible, the forthcoming court cases and those inquiries show that he backed a Coulson who was at best deeply suspect and at worst corrupt.

No-one in journalism is proud of what has happened at the News of the World. We all know there will be siren calls for stricter controls of newspaper and broadcasting journalism.

That would be a big mistake. Britain is already a country of great secrecy where cabals do deals against the public interest. Who will bring such matters to light if new laws restrict the freedom of the press?

Lest it be forgotten, it was journalists who took on the "Magic Circle" at the News of the World. It was journalists who proved how sickening the antics of certain other journalists were.

We need journalists to expose the rotten, seedy and corrupt. We do not need journalists who are rotten, seedy and corrupt.

Lawyers, politicians, bankers, journalists - we all need to raise our game collectively as the public just do not trust any of us. Can you blame them?