The behaviour of the media is under scrutiny like never before and some have been found severely wanting.

But every one of us should dismiss calls from politicians and lawyers to overthrow centuries of tradition in order to curtail press freedom.

Trust has always been at the heart of what we do.

Day in, day out, our readers turn to us because they know the news we produce is truthful and gathered honestly without fear or favour.

They know if we get it wrong, we will put out hands up and put it right. They know we would never knowingly deceive.

This is a tradition we are extremely proud of. We realise that without that trust we are nothing.

So it will come as no surprise to you that our reporters do not hack into people's phones or computers, we do not make corrupt payments to police officers and others, we do not rifle through the rubbish in people's bins and we certainly do not fabricate quotes or facts. You would not let us get away with it nor would we want you to.

We have the privilege of living and working among the communities we report on - a sobering fact if you were ever tempted to play fast and loose with the rules.

Our journalists care about what they write and care about the people they write about.

As Lord Justice Leveson prepares his report for prime minister David Cameron into how the press should be regulated into the future, all of this seems to have been forgotten.

Because of the actions of an extraordinarily small number of rogue journalists, there is increasing talk in the Westminster bubble and in the exalted land of media commentators of a new regulatory regime that includes the introduction of new rules backed by a new law.

This regime is backed by some politicians keen to divert attention from the fact they got far too close to the Fleet Street power brokers and who would benefit from muzzled press unable to expose their mistakes, investigate their expenses and to effectively hold them to account.

This regime is backed by a vast array of lawyers who, let's not forget, have an interest in the introduction of new laws that give them fresh opportunities to litigate.

Related stories

Journalism Prof Tim Luckhurst on restrictions facing the press

Our political editor reveals the facts they didn't want you to know

Scandals exposed by the press in the past

What counts as the press?

How the Press Complaints Commission works

What our MPs think Leveson should decide

This regime is backed by a band of celebrities - some of whom have been shown to have behaved badly and who want the publicity when they have a film or book to promote, but not when they have behaved in ways which their adoring public would not approve.

And this regime is backed by a band of academics who fail to see the inherent dangers in chipping away at press freedom.

If Lord Justice Leveson advocates we abandon the current system of self-regulation in favour of statutory regulation, we start down the road of state control becoming a question of not if but when.

Once politicians and governments decide what should be written in the public interest rather than a press that polices itself or the courts doing so, the self interests of ministers, councillors and political parties can hold sway.

This website and its journalists do not always get it right and will make poor judgements, will cause distress to some of those subject to its reporting and infuriate its readers.

But when you consider the enormous benefits a free press brings to our democracy, that has to be a price worth paying.