NO journalist wants to become the story, goes the old adage. Following the horrific treatment of Laura Kuenssberg over the last couple of weeks, however, we in the trade may want to update to the following: no journalist wants to become the BBC’s political editor.

The current incumbent, of course, has been subjected to a hurricane of hate, much of it on social media, by a small but noisy lobby who have got it into their heads that she is not only biased against Jeremy Corbyn, but a Tory plant sent to thwart the Labour leader’s path to power.

Now, I have no idea what Ms Kuenssberg’s political views are, and no particular wish to find out. They don't matter to me. Her job is to ask politicians of all persuasions tough questions, and from what I can see this is pretty much what she does. End of. What numpties fail to understand is that as journalists we are able to separate our private views from professional endeavours. That's what we are paid to do. 

Nonetheless, the conspiracy theory reached a dangerous peak last week when the BBC had to hire bodyguards to protect Ms Kuenssberg while she did her job reporting from the Labour conference. Then, to top it all, came the so-called news story on pro-Corbyn online platform The Canary (which regularly attacks “fake news” in what it likes to call the “mainstream media” or MSM, such as the BBC and The Herald), reporting that she was to speak at this week’s Tory conference, thus proving their theory.

The whole thing was utter drivel, of course. In reality Ms Kuenssberg, like many journalists attending party conferences, was invited to take part in a fringe debate. But, like most hacks - and certainly BBC reporters - she turned it down.

This didn’t stop The Canary peddling their fake news on social media, however, racking up hundreds of shares and prompting a glut of sinister abuse by those who want to believe the story because it fits their ideological position. (One of the worst tweets I saw was: “Blatant Tory propaganda once again from gruppenfuhrer Kuenssberg, she really is a disgusting fascist bi*ch isn’t she.”)

The misogyny and personal nature of the attacks is bad enough. But what depresses me most is where all this leaves journalism in our increasingly fragmented digital age. Didn’t any of those who jumped to believe and share this fake story stop for a moment and ask themselves whether it was likely that a broadcast reporter at a party conference would actively contribute to its agenda?

If the answer is no, there are likely to be two explanations as to why, and both are downright grim. Admittedly, some folk maybe don’t know the difference between news and comment, broadcast and other forms of media, and genuinely don’t understand why even the premise of the story in The Canary – a publication, lest we forget, that pays its writers by the click - was utterly ridiculous in the first place.

Others, however, do know the difference but choose to wilfully misunderstand what journalists do because it fits with their ideology and allows them to shout “fake news” whenever anyone says something they don’t like or agree with. The Canary is not alone in this, of course. Donald Trump and his supporters regularly react to the media in this way, as do right-wing activists in the UK, and those on both sides of the EU and Scottish independence referendums.

Increasing numbers of online publications have been set up to serve all these interest groups, run by activists rather than journalists, peddling comment as news and vice versa. At the same time, social media entreats people to stay in these divisive bubbles, only reading and sharing things they agree with, only debating with those on their “side”. So rarely do they go outside and read or watch something in the “MSM”, when they do and it doesn’t chime with their position, they instantly feel outraged. We see this on university campuses, too, where students increasingly “no platform” those whose views they disagree with, under the auspice of causing offence.

Knowing that people agree with you is now seemingly more important than having accurate information, and that’s an extremely worrying portent.

At a time when there has never been more need for accurate and probing media coverage, we in the “MSM” are constantly being accused of lying. How did we ever reach this terrible state of affairs? And how can those of us who work within it ever hope to renegotiate the contract of trust between journalist and audience that existed even a few years ago?

Well, for a start we – and by that I mean respected outlets like The Herald - must try to tackle the two problems I referred to earlier. With regard to lack of knowledge about how the media works, perhaps we should open up the process more and let the audience see behind the curtain so they can understand how news works. I’d also like to see schools offer lessons to students on how to navigate the modern media, tell the difference between news and comment, and spot fake news.

The wilful misrepresentation of journalists and journalism, however, is much harder to tackle, especially since it has become a strategy for political activists to deploy, just like any other. Fake news, it seems, is not only on the ascendancy, but winning. Meantime, I await the trolling that will inevitably accompany this article with a sinking heart.