Begun, the media snark has

The News of the World is dead, and no sooner has it gone than The Sun believes it has identified the foul conspirators who sealed the doom of this bastion of journalistic integrity and honour.

It's blaming the BBC, the Guardian and a smattering of others. But mostly the BBC and the Guardian.

It's worth remembering that the reason the BBC is roundly loathed by some of the press is because the BBC is a public service broadcaster and a major news outlet. It also makes some rather excellent television programmes. But mostly the reason News International and the Daily Mail hate the BBC is the news output.

There's quite a lot more. I've linked to one item from Paul Mason, which explains something about why this whole story is a lot more interesting than just an expose of shoddy journalism.

He notes that the broadcast media in the UK - notably BBC News, ITN News and even Sky News (which is part of BSkyb, the organisation that News International has bits of and wants to buy outright) have all played a part in keeping the whole mess in the public eye.

The Sun is attempting to remind people that the BBC is funded by the Licence Fee and that 'fat cats' waste public money. If you want to know how that money is spent, click here. A News International publication is attempting to motivate it's readers to feel incensed that the BBC could participate in taking out a rival.

Of course, now that people are aware that News International wasn't beyond lawbreaking and bribing police, they're looking at how other News International publications have behaved, and there's the possibility that they may have played less than fair.

Some of the questions this issue asks are huge.

How far can the press go in finding information to substantiate stories?

Should the freedom of the press be limited by government?

What is the Public Interest?

Should one organisation ever be allowed to become so powerful that it is capable of manufacturing consent?

How comfortable are we with our politicians owing favours to companies or organisations that do not represent the population as a whole? - because let's not forget that although Dave Cameron is most likely in hock to Murdock, generations of Labour politicians ad close ties to the Trade Union movement and it's alleged that Ed Milliband still does. Is that actually OK?

It's all worth thinking about, in an assortment of serious and careful ways. Because however nice it is to see "your side" win one, this story is more than just two media organisations going to Handbags at Dawn...it actually affects how the last election was fought, how much power people are allowed to have and how this country is run. It's like lifting up a stone to catch a glimpse of what scuttles away.