I enjoy a laugh as much as anyone and the newspaper industry – and it is an industry – has done much to contribute to my mirth over the past two months with a series of pre-emptive strikes ahead of publication this week of recommendations from the Leveson Inquiry.

Since I'm writing this the day before the report is issued on Thursday (29 November), what Leveson will recommend remains unclear, though the money has been on some form of beefed-up self-regulation with a statutory back-stop since day one.

That outcome is obviously what newspaper editors fear, as readers have been subjected to many a pompous tirade about the dangers of letting politicians control our brave media. Since there has been no realistic prospect that such a reform would be enacted – even in the unlikely event Leveson called for it – this has been cant and misdirection on an epic scale.

As a long-time business journalist, you soon develop a nose for the unmistakable whiff of self-interest, industry-specific moral relativity and complacency that professions and trades give off when trying to defend the dodgy. And, my word, that scent is in the air right now.

The irony is that there are arguments for avoiding the reform of media laws. Chief among these are the law of unintended consequences and the strong case for resisting the urge to legislate for every aspect of life. It is also true that much of the problem lies in lack of enforcement of existing laws.

But these are largely not the arguments marshalled by newspapers. We have heard that excesses were historical, that the press is putting its house in order on self-regulation and – contradictorily – that the rise of social media makes regulation irrelevant. My personal favourite, which I heard spun to approving nods at a recent Media Lawyers Association debate, was the argument that you can't separate the excesses of the press from its role as a robust watchdog. Sounds good, but I have never seen a shred of evidence to back it up. Newspapers have also simply ignored public opinion on the matter, which strongly favours tougher regulation.

From a lawyer's perspective, it is striking the extent to which the debate regarding press ethics and regulation remains largely driven by the press itself. This was witnessed by the tabloid-driven hysteria during last year's 'privacy spring' but also during the passage of the Defamation Bill. That bill, combined with costs reform, is in danger of returning libel to a rich man's game while weakening options for redress for individuals of limited means.

Yet there has been little discussion of what is most important: a low-cost means of amends. If tougher regulation underpinned by law provides that remedy, preferably with stronger protections for public interest journalism, then fine. And we can file the self-interested pleadings of newspapers where they belong.