Andreas Whittam Smith: Don't panic, Mr Blair - if you were braver, you'd realise this pressure is good for you

It is quite a compliment, I suppose. Mr Blair, the Prime Minister, gives a lengthy speech about the changing relationship between politics and the media, heartfelt in tone, and mentions only one publication by name, and that not very flatteringly, The Independent. I'll come back to this poke in the eye.

Mr Blair is right that technology has transformed the media in the past 20 years. Once there were three TV stations, now there are hundreds. Once the news was over by 10.30 pm, now it continues 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Once there were distinct media forms, now they all merge on the internet. Blogs? Nobody had heard of them 10 years ago. Now there are 70 million.

Related articles

• First he conquered the press. Then it rebelled
• The Sketch: He is right that cynicism has infected public life - but wrong about where the blame for this lies
• Steve Richards: A courageous attack that will lead to reprisals
• Simon Kelner: Would you be saying this, Mr Blair, if we supported your war in Iraq?
• The Full Speech: 'The media is a feral beast, tearing people to pieces'
• Blair's attack provokes anger among newspaper editors and broadcasters

It is also the case, as Mr Blair argues, that this development could scarcely be more important. The Prime Minister puts it this way: a vast aspect of our jobs in public life today is coping with the media, its "sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points, it literally overwhelms." And by public life he means senior people in business, in the armed services, even in charities as well as in government.

Interestingly, the Government has been the least successful of any public institution in keeping its balance. May I give some personal experience. I was chief film censor for five years: my signature was flashed up as every screening began. I was regularly attacked for being either too liberal or too strict, often in furious terms. I took it as part of the job. The experience made me think carefully, be sure of my ground, but, if a boast may be excused, it didn't cause me to lose my nerve.

One more example: as First Church Estates Commissioner, I see a lot of the archbishops and bishops who themselves are subject to constant media scrutiny, sometimes denigratory. These Church leaders are always aware of the serious consequences of misjudging media reaction. Sometimes they have bruising experiences. But like everybody else in public life, except the Government as I shall explain, they have learnt to cope. The reaction of Mr Blair's government to the same pressure has been to panic. Diversionary news stories are launched to draw attention away from the point at issue. Old announcements are repeated as if they were new.

As if in explanation of these frantic reactions, in his speech the Prime Minister gave an example of what media pressure now means for the conduct of government business. "In the 1960s," he said, "the government would sometimes, on a serious issue, have a Cabinet lasting two days. It would be laughable to think you could do that now without the heavens falling in before lunch on the first day." It isn't laughable. That Her Majesty's ministers dare not shut themselves away for two days because of the media has only to be spelt out to see what a back-boneless proposition it is.

Worse still, Mr Blair's governments have constantly responded to media pressure by making rapid, unconsidered policy announcements. And that in turn is why so much legislation has been hastily presented to Parliament, often poorly prepared, debated too swiftly and then found faulty in practice.

But surely the business of government is different? Comparing being a film censor or a bishop to being a government minister or even a prime minister is ludicrous, isn't it? I agree that the scale of things is hardly comparable. The Government has a much longer frontier to defend. But it also has the resources to match. And there are also two significant differences, both of them weaknesses, between government and other institutions.

The first is something that one isn't supposed to mention in polite society, which is that states often tell lies. Most non-state institutions never make statements they know to be untrue. All states have always done so. It is almost part of the nature of states. They justify themselves by arguing that the interests of the state have an even higher value than being honest with, say, one's national parliament or the media.

And so as to demonstrate the impartiality for which The Independent is famous, I shall take my one example from a Conservative government. In 1994, the then minister William Waldegrave, a gentleman to whom you would lend your gold watch, told a Parliamentary committee: "In exceptional circumstances it is necessary to say something that is untrue to the House of Commons."

Now consider what effect this periodic deceit has on media coverage of the activities of government. It means that the relationship at once becomes more adversarial than it would otherwise be. Unconsciously the media cast themselves as unofficial tribunals - these people are wont to lie, let's test what they say very rigourously. Rightly so, I believe.

The second difference is intrinsic to the way democracies work. The political process puts into ministerial office people whom, whatever the qualities which enabled them to ascend the greasy pole, have little or no management skills. They are asked to run vast enterprises such as the NHS or the Ministry of Defence without having any more training than having run a medium-sized charity (Patricia Hewitt) or having been a partner in a small firm of solicitors (Desmond Browne).

It is inconceivable that the heads of large companies, or chief constables or even director generals of the BBC would come into office so woefully unprepared. When politicians become ministers, they make mistakes, lots of them. What is the press to do when it finds that, say, a new system for recruiting doctors has had to be abandoned or that British soldiers in Iraq lack essential equipment? It can't excuse ministers, it points the finger.

Yes, but doesn't the media also make use of inexperienced, under skilled people whom likewise make lots of mistakes, some of them very damaging to institutions or private individual? Undoubtedly, how could I not plead guilty? And the Prime Minister's charge that The Independent mixes up comment with reporting? Let me take The Independent front page before me as I write. It reads: "HAY FEVER: THE CURE... pill promises to transform lives of sufferers AND THE CATCH: NHS trusts say it is too expensive to be prescribed". Then, as well as the illustration, there follows 60 words of text before turning on to page two.

Certainly there is an implied opinion. Undoubtedly devoting the whole of page one to a single story expresses a strong sentiment. But what is the difficulty here. That the newspaper cares? That it raises an issue? That it believes NHS trusts should think carefully before denying the new drug to sufferers? I don't have a problem.

Andreas Whittam Smith was the founding editor of 'The Independent'

More from Andreas Whittam Smith