JOURNALISTS rarely like to become the story, not least because stories that feature them tend to mean bad news, both personally and for their profession.

This was certainly the case over the weekend as the fate of The Scotsman hung in the balance. On Saturday, the Edinburgh-based newspaper was put into administration by its then-owners, Johnston Press, alongside a slew of other UK titles.

The papers had been put up for sale a few weeks ago, but no potential buyer was willing or able to cover the £220m of debt attached, which was supposed to be re-paid next year.

For a while, it looked as though the end was nigh for the 200-year-old Scotsman, as well as the Edinburgh |Evening News, the i-paper and the Yorkshire Post, another of the oldest papers in the UK, which serves a population the size of Scotland. Scores of other loyal local titles were also at risk.

Later, a statement confirmed that a new company had been formed by Johnston’s bondholders which, it seems, will preserve jobs and titles in the short-term. Whether there is a medium or indeed long-term future for the business remains less clear.

Like most of those who work in the close-knit Scottish newspaper industry, I felt sad and a bit angry as the events unfolded. Sad that so many good, decent colleagues would be worrying about their jobs and wondering how they would look after their families, angry that they and the readers they serve had been put in this precarious situation in the first place.

Make no mistake, those of us on the inside know all too well how the newspaper industry has struggled to respond to the huge challenges of the digital age, seeing our newsrooms reduce in size and scope as consumers stopped buying print products, advertising revenues fell and shareholders continued to expect big dividends.

But we also know how hard and tenaciously the journalists work to give readers quality news and comment in an increasingly uncertain world, how determined we are to evolve and carry on. Those of us who work for long-established brands are very aware that the trust our readers put in us, the authority we carry, has never been more valuable or vital than now, in today’s fragmented, confusing world.

With this in mind, journalists from up and down the land tweeted and retweeted messages of solidarity and empathy with colleagues at the Scotsman, while public figures from across the political divide, including the First Minister, also voiced support.

It was shocking and dispiriting, therefore, to see others react with joy and even glee at news of the Scotsman’s struggles, rushing to link the paper’s constitutional stance – it was against independence in the 2014 referendum - with recent misfortunes, seemingly delighted to see two centuries of national journalism go down the tubes, all because they don’t agree with an editorial line.

Taking aside the plain nastiness of revelling in the misfortune of others, the hubris and naivety inherent in this narrative is equally depressing. Do the authors of such social media threads truly believe failure to endorse a Yes vote in 2014 has been instrumental in bringing down a mainstay in what they insist on calling the “mainsteam” media, as opposed to economics and/or poor management? Surely if it was a simple as this, my excellent colleagues at The National would be the bestselling newspaper in Scotland?

They seem to believe consumers buy newspapers solely on the basis of constitutional affiliation. I’ve got news - they don’t.

Isn’t it blatantly obvious that no publication is solely about its editorial stance? That’s simply not the way journalism or journalists work. Open any paper, tabloid or broadsheet, local or national, and you will find stories on an endless stream of subjects, written by people from every background and age bracket, race, gender and political persuasions, with a staggering array of interests, contacts and areas of expertise. The folk who write and edit newspapers are not perfect by any means – they are human and sometimes make mistakes. But in my experience the overwhelming majority thrive on interrogation and scrutiny. Indeed, that’s why they became journalists in the first place.

Those who relish the thought of newspapers disappearing should be very careful what they wish for. Do they honestly want to live in a society where only their own viewpoint is reflected, where positive coverage of the party, cause or person they support - be it independence, Brexit, Nicola Sturgeon or Donald Trump – is all they can cope with? That’s a dangerous and self-destructive road to go down, that is already blunting critical faculties and making us unable to handle complexity. It also makes us less kind.

The digital world has given us a capacity for pluralism across newspaper brands, broadcasters and online outlets that is breathtaking. Ironically, social media is simultaneously driving us to shut down those we don’t agree with. We should resist this urge at all costs.