Amid all the international outrage over the sentences pronounced by the Egyptian court on journalist Peter Greste and his colleagues, it is worth articulating why this issue matters - over and above the personal tragedy for the accused and their families.
Journalists constantly proclaim the importance of what they do - the vital role of a free media in a democracy. Yet at the same time, there is reason to believe most Australians regard these proclamations as little more than self-interest.
Survey after survey tells us that the media are held in low regard and, crucially, most Australian media outlets are not trusted by their audiences.
“Perhaps the best way to perceive the importance of journalism is to imagine its absence. Imagine if we were not able to find out what is happening in the courts, in parliament or in business. Imagine if our only source of information on politics was the PR spin of the parties.”
Yet today the news of Greste's conviction is rated more highly as a news story, at least by some outlets, than climate change, global poverty or reaction to the budget. Is this simply because journalists identify with their colleague?
I don't think so. Journalism, and more broadly the ability to share news, is vital to our ability to tackle any issue, from climate change to trains running late.
The importance of journalism is constantly asserted, yet empirical evidence is surprisingly thin on the ground. As the president of the USA not for profit investigative outlet ProPublica, Richard Tofel, remarked recently, there is "no single algorithm that can be devised, no magic formula to load into a spreadsheet or deploy in an app" by which the impact of journalism can be measured.
Yet the lesson of history is that the sharing news and information is very important. We always do it. Even in the preliterate age, news was shared whenever human beings came together - for trade, ceremony or by accident.
In our own age, we share news constantly, from the international to the purely personal, through social media.
Perhaps the best way to perceive the importance of journalism is to imagine its absence. Imagine if we were not able to find out what is happening in the courts, in parliament or in business. Imagine if our only source of information on politics was the PR spin of the parties.
Imagine if the problems we experienced in our day to day lives - petty corruption, broken infrastructure, workplace bullying, domestic violence or late trains - were never acknowledged, shared or amplified with our fellow citizens.
Imagine if a citizen engaged in what we might describe as a random act of journalism - Tweeting or blogging about their experiences - was suppressed and deprived of voice.
Take this forward five, ten or twenty years and imagine what kind of society would remain.
News would get out, episodically, shared by word of mouth. But it would be hard to know what was true and what was false. As a result, society would fracture.
From day to day, journalism can seem corrosive - always amplifying conflict and problems, rarely proposing solutions. But the lesson of history is that over time, sharing news and information has a cohesive effect. It keep us connected, thinking about the same things and worrying about the same issues.
Ever since the birth of the newspaper, professional journalists have been central to this process - not the only people in the news ecosystem, but a vital component.
This is why their freedom and safety is important to us all. It is also - and this is a side of the equation self interested journalists can tend to neglect - why the responsibility is so great.
“From day to day, journalism can seem corrosive - always amplifying conflict and problems, rarely proposing solutions. But the lesson of history is that over time, sharing news and information has a cohesive effect. It keep us connected, thinking about the same things and worrying about the same issues.”
It is why it is important that journalists do their jobs well, holding out against the self interest of governments, the powerful and even their own proprietors to give the best available version of workaday truth.
Any practicing journalist knows how contested this freedom can be, even in a country such as Australia.
Almost every story of importance causes angst, pressure and anger. There is little doubt that most governments and corporations would be tempted to suppress journalism at times, if they were able to do so.
That is why so many journalists and commentators - myself included - opposed the central recommendation of the Finkelstein media inquiry a couple of years ago. It recommended legal sanctions for editors who refused to publish corrections and apologies.
But it is also why editors and journalists should be held to account, through a non-legal process, for their failure to correct and apologise when it is warranted.
The aim is the sharing of accurate information. Without that, we fracture and are impotent. We are more likely to be carried away by rumour and fear.
We are more likely to tend to the extremes, our individual agendas less moderated by the views of our fellow citizens.
Without the sharing of accurate news, there is a sense in which we cannot be citizens.
This is why the sentencing of Peter Greste and his colleagues matters, and is about much more than events in an unjust regime far away.
