In some respects we might expect this reflex from pundits whose very news-value is their close links to those in power. That they should seek to protect their friends in high places is hardly surprising. They move in the same professional and social circles. These relationships can become especially problematic when public life is characterized by small scale, dense and overlapping networks, centered on a dominant political party. Does this resemble life in the Scottish political village?

The connections between our politicians and the media have been the subject of much comment since devolution. With the creation of the Parliament we suddenly had many more politicians, and a corresponding increase in journalists writing about them. There have even been several well-known couples straddling the media politics divide. The emerging political culture in Scotland is generally accepting of these relations, perhaps sensing that it is rather difficult to keep secrets and hide conflicts of interest in such a small community. Nevertheless, the routine contacts between journalists and their sources can shape the diet of news that the Scottish public receives. It is not unknown for journalists writing critical copy to find themselves starved of news.

Last year Henry McLeish’s resignation was dubbed 'murder by media'. However, the press was actually rather slow to investigate the detail of the story, and it was more a case of Henry committing political suicide, live on Question Time. The parallels between ‘Officegate’ and McConnell’s current plight are revealing in that they both involve cash and charges of petty corruption which are apparently endemic in Scottish politics.

Like McLeish, McConnell chose to meet his critics head on last week, offering himself live to both Scotland Today and Reporting Scotland. This may have helped him clear the air, although the spectacle of the First Minister repeatedly refusing to accept responsibility for the mess did not bury the widespread view of him as a 'machine politician'. That day the STV news operation had decided that this was not a big news story and - until McConnell approached them - they planned to bury it deep in the bulletin. So McConnell's PR advice seems to have got the story more prominence than it would otherwise have had. This episode highlights the difficulty that television has in properly covering Scottish politics. With no 'Scottish Six' and constrained budgets, both Scotland Today and Reporting Scotland are unable to offer primetime, in-depth coverage of Scottish and UK politics which could more effectively hold politicians to account. The only example of devolved broadcasting that we have is Newsnight Scotland and it has been virtually alone in television broadcasting in its willing to investigate and hold both Executive and Parliament to account. Every day last week Newsnight sought interviews with McConnell. Unsurprisingly, but disappointingly, he refused on each occasion.

Whatever the First Minister's responsibility in his own constituency, the disclosure of party funding is an extremely serious issue. Key elements of the Scottish media prefer to concentrate on ephemeral party squabbles rather than report on issues of importance to the public. It has to be said that many MSPs go along with this and make party political points just for the sake of it. There are very few MSPs across the parties who will refrain from entering the media fray in the wider interest of the Parliament and Scottish democracy. Scrutiny of the new political institutions requires a vigorous and robust media. Investigative journalism is expensive, and is unlikely to advance many careers. It needs commitment on behalf of broadcasting companies and their staff. There are certainly broadcast journalists in both BBC and STV would to take up the challenge of holding politicians more effectively to account, but it can only be done with serious investment in Scottish news - a Scottish Six would begin to remedy this problem.

The story itself is clearly being fed by McConnells many enemies in the party, but in some ways the media have given the First Minister the benefit of the doubt. To begin with journalists repeatedly downplayed this story. There has also been little reporting of how this affair links back to the First Ministers previous skirmishes with sleaze. In 'Lobbygate' Scotland's largest PR company Beattie Media employed McConnell as a lobbying consultant. Later Beattie Media were revealed to be offering access to McConnell to prospective clients. The crux of the issue was whether McConnell's PA (also a former Beattie employee) Christina Marshall had entered an appointment in the Minister's diary at the behest of the lobbyists. Marshall admitted 'pencilling' it in, but claimed she removed it after conferring with McConnell. Christina Marshall is also at the centre of the current allegations as an authorised signatory to the constituency funds under investigation. These funds were used to pay for her five star hotel room during a party conference. In the past week media reports have noted that in the ensuing Standards Committee investigation McConnell was 'completely exonerated'. But this is not quite right. The committee concluded that it could not decide who was telling the truth in the matter. It was clear that the lobbyist and Marshall had given conflicting accounts. The official report noted that 'the committee is concerned by this conflict in the evidence' but given their powers to examine only the conduct of MSPs 'it is not in the remit of the Committee to pursue this matter further.' In the absence of such evidence the committee declared that it was 'satisfied', that McConnell had not breached the code of conduct, but only as the report pointedly states 'on the basis of the evidence placed before it'. Like Lobbygate, the current matter involves similiar insider connections which the media has a right and duty to explore. While in both cases the impetus for the stories can be traced back to people leaking information to the press, surely there is scope for the press to play a more proactive role scrutinising public life.

The insider view is that the criticism of McConnell or the Scottish Labour party inherently undermines devolution and the Parliament. Nonsense. The Executive, the Labour Party and Parliament are all separate entities. No-one suggests that criticising the Blair government undermines Westminster. If anything both the Executive and the Labour Party need further scrutiny by the media. It is certainly true that some Tory papers hope to undermine devolution, but the best defence that Parliament has is the openness it fosters and the due attention it receives from the media. The Parliament should not be immune to criticism and accountability, but again, many in the media duck this responsibility.

The recent controversy over the Scottish Parliament Business Exchange, largely ignored by the mainstream media, is a case in point. Again, the story revolves around the role of money in Scottish politics. The revelation that three quarters of those involved in a 'non-lobbying' exchange with MSPs were lobbyists showed both the naiveté of some MSPs and the Sir Humphrey like approach of the Parliament's own chief executive Paul Grice. In a roasting before the Standards Committee Grice opined that the exchanges did not offer 'privileged' access to MSPs for corporate lobbyists 'in any sense of the word'. Yet the SPBE offers lobbyists the opportunity of spending 26 days with MSPs in parliament and in corporate headquarters. Since such an opportunity is not open by any other means, it appears that Grice's understanding of privilege differs from almost everybody else's. The reputation of the parliament is a precious thing but as an institution it should not be immune to criticism from the media. In this case and others, though, the media miss the real story and concentrate instead on party spin and set piece squabbles.

What the public can rightly demand of the Parliament and all its members is that it lives up to its founding principles, chief among which are openness and transparency, words not readily associated with MSPs constituency funding. In fact, it would be far more harmful to the Scottish Parliament were such matters to be ignored. Full public disclosure of party funding is essential if we are to have a transparent political process. The public are well attuned to the influence money can buy in politics, and for this very reason it is essential that politicians declare the detail of their finances, and that the media investigate and report these matters without fear or favour.