Bernard Ingham: This high-minded hypocrisy over phone hacking doesn't tap into the genuine issues

The problem with this apparently desperate striving by militants after notoriety was that all too often the spooks would have looked culpable if they had not been keeping an eye on them – or an ear glued to their phones – so hostile were they to the British economic interest and adoring of the Soviets.

The collapse of Communism put paid to all that. So now, for MI5 – or whoever was monitoring certain telephones – read the News of the World. For national security, read dirty capitalist press.

Today it seems you are not worth much if sometime in the near past your mobile has not been hacked into, starting with the royal princes.

Again, you can understand why if all that matters in your world is next week's scandalous front page scoop.

Given their past activities, Lord Prescott, chipolatas and all, and Labour MP Chris Bryant, publicly flaunting himself in his underpants, would seem to have been eminently worth a hack or two. Why, however, they should bother with Bryant's phone when he advertises his Y-fronts over the internet is another matter. But you get the point. Prurience is all.

I do not, of course, ignore the fact that a police inquiry has put two men associated with the NoW in prison for illegal interception. Nor am I unaware that the editor at the time was Andy Coulson, now David Cameron's director of communications, who says he knew of no telephonic skulduggery during his stint at the newspaper, though he took responsibility for it and resigned.

In these circumstances, Coulson does not seem to have been entirely in command of his ship. It does not say a lot for editorial control in Rupert Murdoch's empire. I cannot honestly say I am surprised. During my 24 years trying to cope with Fleet Street, as was, I often wondered if the great men in charge of our national organs knew what their staff got up to.

Neither the Prime Minister nor Coulson can be surprised that this has come back to haunt them. In my experience, it will from time to time and for the rest of their natural lives together. Presumably, Cameron thinks Coulson is worth all that the Guardian, Independent, New York Times and BBC have so far thrown at them.

This splendid little high-minded, though richly hypocritical, campaign has achieved its interim objective. We now have not one but three more inquiries – by the police and two Parliamentary committees – into the whole wretched affair. That will keep it going for months and usefully divert attention from Labour's political bankruptcy.

Whether it will have the slightest effect on the British public is entirely another matter. They may tut-tut over dubious newsgathering methods, but they will continue to lap up all that they dredge up, whether lawfully or otherwise. What are red top tabloids for but to provide sensational opium for the masses – and to permit the so-called quality national newspapers to retail every detail that the coarser tabloids unearth in a suitably holier-than-thou manner?

It may be that Cameron is absolutely determined to face down the media. If so, splendid – provided Coulson is innocent. As one who has earned at least part of his wages from journalism for more than half his working life, I think my trade, with the heroic assistance of Tony Blair, has got too big for itself. We must not be ruled by unelected, entirely commercial scribes.

I have had enough of the Daily Mail and Guardian telling the police how to do their job and of Labour MPs who, having lost Murdoch's coveted patronage, now have it in for the "Dirty Digger" and all his works.

Perhaps I should also remind MPs that both before and since the May election they have not exactly set the nation a shining example of probity or the willing acceptance of machinery to prevent further

lapses.

We would do well to content ourselves with demanding that the police uphold the law – and be allowed to do so – and refusing to patronise media who indulge in criminal activities, however juicy the results.