Are we too close to them, or are they too close to us?

On Desert Island Discs last week, Andrew Neil spoke of the dangers of intimacy between press and politicians. He meant editors basking in the aura of power as PMs took them into their confidence. Nowadays it is more likely to be PMs basking in the aura of power as Rupert Murdoch confides in them.

It is as worrying when editors are lobbying ministers or giving evidence to select committees. Too much proximity. It smells of trouble - of one of those moments that occur from time to time when the politicians feel the need to "do something" about the media, usually whipping up some anti-press feeling.

Last week it was Freedom of Information (FoI), where the Government is planning changes. A posse of newspaper editors went to see Baroness Ashton, the Constitutional Affairs Minister charged with delivering less openness. Quite separately, next Tuesday, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee takes evidence as part of its short, sharp inquiry into privacy and self-regulation.

The Freedom of Information Act was a long time coming and in a short time is starting to be eroded. For the past two years, it has allowed the public access to information previously kept confidential. The media are responsible for many requests, as are some commercial concerns. FoI has led to the publication of stories about ministerial entertaining, MPs' expenses, Greg Dyke's resignation from the BBC, when Tony Blair met Rupert Murdoch, and much, much more.

Not all of these are sensational or shocking. That is not the point. FoI is about changing the culture of secrecy that has always prevailed among those who rule this country. FoI is about a public right to information, rather than a presumption of secrecy.

The editors told the minister they were opposed to the proposed changes: a limit on the number of requests for information from one source; and a limit (£600 for government, £450 for other organisations) on the amount of money spent processing the request. The Government is concerned about serial requesters such as commercial businesses interested in tender details in areas like the NHS.

In both cases, the Government has things upside down. If the information sought is going to be provided ultimately, why not publish it, thus saving time, money and effort? Baroness Ashton said how surprised she was at the interest in NHS stories obtained through FoI. She was opposed to any special treatment for journalists, and she stressed that the Government's concern was not saving money, but saving the time of public servants.

The government mindset is wrongly tuned. New Labour has gone off the idea of freedom of information after a few minor embarrassments and a few serial requests. As one of the editors who met Baroness Ashton put it: "Blair's fingerprints are all over these proposed changes."

Which provides some hope that they might be dropped. The consultation period ends on Thursday, after which the minister has three months to distil what she has heard, after which it's summer, after which different fingerprints will be on the No 10 doorknob. Having waited all this time for the top job, does Gordon Brown want to make watering down FoI one of his first actions?

And in the autumn does he want to see a report on his desk from the select committee recommending government intervention in press self-regulation or measures to combat invasions of privacy? Those are the areas the committee will pursue.

These are cans of worms, as past governments have found, but the shock of the royal phone- tapping and the jailing of the News of the World's Clive Goodman have set the MPs on the trail of the press again. They will learn that the Press Complaints Commission has reacted to the phone-tapping, that editors everywhere have condemned the bugging, that Goodman is in jail.

Two issues. Same advice. No action needed. Gordon probably agrees.

Peter Cole is professor of journalism at the University of Sheffield

Interesting? Click here to explore further