MANY years ago, a Mayor of High Wycombe came up to me and snapped: “You run a very nasty newspaper, Mr Cohen.”

I replied instinctively: “Why thank you. That’s the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me.”

And in a way I meant it.

Not that I enjoy causing offence, but it is the job of every decent newspaper to stand up and challenge authority when appropriate.

It’s actually the role the public expects us to play. That’s why we came in for a bucket-load of criticism recently when we took a neutral stand on a major local issue, the stadium plan at Booker.

I don’t regret that stance in that instance, but acknowledge most readers expect us to pitch in and throw our weight behind community campaigns.

So that’s why I am particularly worried about the repercussions of the News of the World scandal.

Local newspapers are a million miles away from ‘Fleet Street’, so this shouldn’t have any impact on us.

But if some politicians have their way, I am sure all media will be muzzled and neutered because they will ensure legislation exists to stop any really effective journalism.

You may laugh and say you feel no pity, but this will hit many of you as well – because in time they will extend this to the chat forums and social networking on the web, especially since the terrible events of this week.

The powers-that-be will find new and effective ways to stop anyone saying anything offensive.

It’s not necessarily bad to curb the worst excesses of the internet forums, particularly in view of the social network rumours which caused widespread false fears of rioting in Wycombe earlier this week. But the web has for the most part enhanced our democratic freedoms. Many politicians loathe the fact that normal people can broadcast their unwashed views so easily to the rest of the world.

Sadly, the excesses of the News of the World could in time bring the whole show crashing down for all of us, because phone hacking and payment to police officers may be used as an excuse to gag everybody.

I have had a lifetime of meeting officials and politicians and know their idea of ‘responsible journalism’ usually equates to boring, fawning articles extolling the virtues of public bodies. Whenever the Bucks Free Press or Star is praised by these people, I begin to worry.

The fear for the future is that newspapers will become inhabited by journalists all too happy to regurgitate press releases, rather than look for stories. I receive countless calls every week from PR companies trying to push products or clients and, while there is certainly a place for this material, it’s all too easy to fill up entire editions with it.

That’s why, a few years ago, we made two new rules for reporters to follow.

Firstly, we instructed them to always try to find out and publish the name of press office people quoted in stories, rather than simply say ‘a spokesman’.

This was a simple concept, but it created a furore initially among some press officers who were appalled they couldn’t hide behind anonymity when giving corporate quotes. Eventually, most relented and later admitted we were right because having to give their names in stories meant they felt more responsible for the quality of the quote.

Secondly, we banned journalists from cutting and pasting facts across from emailed press releases. It may sound easy and practical, and it makes the process a lot faster, but in reality it leads to lazy and unchallenging journalism.

I always know when cut and paste has been used in one of our stories, because it sounds like it’s come from a police textbook, ie: “The incident happened as the offender proceeded in a north-westerly direction…”

Yes, these are only small steps in a giant battle to keep true journalism alive. I can’t pretend the press IS perfect, but if the Government is ever allowed to regulate us, then it will be a disaster for free speech.

Like it or not, newspapers need to stay ‘nasty’ and independent – or they will truly die.