While I make no pretence to be an authority on the tabloid media, the escalating events of this week that culminated in the shock closure of the News of the World (NoW) do say much about an area I know a little more about: the collision between the law and media.

This has been building for a long, long time. Though they were largely ignored by much of Fleet Street, the initial allegations regarding the NoW date back years and it was two years ago that The Guardian first made credible claims that phone-hacking was taking place at the tabloid on an industrial scale.

Oddly, it was not until the start of 2011 that the saga built much momentum, with the NoW engulfed by mounting legal claims resulting in an attempt by News International to start settling claims en masse.

But phone-hacking was only the bloodiest skirmish in a conflict that has been building for years between sections of the media and the rule of law. This was painfully obvious in the ridiculous furore regarding injunctions during 'Privacy Spring', during which the tabloids waged a guerrilla campaign for the inalienable right to print shag 'n' tell stories with no public interest justification, while most of the broadsheets bravely sat on the fence or helpfully pointed out that Schillings is a pain to deal with.

This involved demonizing judges for making up privacy laws and many a claim that such court-ordered remedies no longer worked in the age of social media (the former point being largely wrong and the latter a vast exaggeration but a convenient fiction). Other manifestations have included the discussion over the current Defamation Bill and the continued lack of bite at the Press Complaints Commission.

What is striking is that despite the phone-hacking scandal mounting and prolonged revelations about excesses in sections of print journalism, the media has remained hugely successful at framing the debate regarding freedom of expression in their terms.

In this regard the Defamation Bill is a good example. While it introduces some laudable attempts to protect public interest journalism, it signally fails to provide effective low cost recourse for those of limited means on the receiving end of unfair and aggressive press treatment. It's a similar story with the extent to which the concept of a privacy law has been demonized, with few credible arguments for such assertions.

With the scale of the current revelations regarding abuses at the NoW becoming apparent, in retrospect the terms of that debate a few months back regarding privacy and libel look utterly absurd (and they did seem pretty daft even at the time).

But this wider saga has brutally exposed many of the contradictions regarding attitudes in modern Britain towards the rule of law and the media. Shocking as this week's developments at the NoW have been, it shouldn't take such stark allegations regarding the hacking of phones of murdered children and dead soldiers for people to become concerned. There is a disquieting attitude in respect of injunctions and phone-hacking displayed by politicians and the general population that it was fine if rights are taken away and laws flouted as long as the victims were rich or unsympathetic. It's not fine.

Aggressive – and sometimes illegal – practices have been tolerated for far too long with a poisonous impact on public life in this country. In this context, it's clearly time to usher in statutory legislation on privacy and a model of defamation reform that actually protects those of limited means, rather than returning libel law to the status of a pliable tool of rich men.

If there's a case for legal remedies protecting privacy – and I'd argue there clearly is – then they should be available to more than rich footballers. Such legislation would allow strong protections to be built in for public interest journalism – the legal status quo allows too much space for muck-raking and not enough support for serious reporting. Too many people that have shaped the debate preventing such legislative steps have been shown to be simply not credible. If there is a move in such a direction, something positive can come out of a depressing day for British journalism.

I hope lawyers will also feel emboldened to make a more robust case for effective media laws. In that regard, I recommend the excellent blog Inforrm as a focal point for intelligent legal discussion on the matter and would urge Legal Week readers to take a look at the site. And, of course, it goes without saying that we need a credible inquiry into the whole sorry affair.