I WOULD like to applaud the Gazette for its recent campaign to draw the public’s attention to the growing problem of fake news and for reassuring its readers that it abides by standards of journalistic practice and integrity that we can all trust and believe in.

The fear of a viral spread of false ideas, swaying public opinion in all sorts of disturbing ways, is a very real one, but perhaps not so new.

Ever since the invention of the printing press, free-thinking individuals have had to develop tools of intellectual self-defence - healthy scepticism being one of them - to counter "false propaganda" (the old-fashioned name for fake news) - whether they live in a free and open society or under tyranny and dictatorship.

Anyone who has ever read George Orwell’s 1984 will appreciate what I mean.

As chief executive of Colchester Council I know that fostering mutual trust and good relations with the media is the best way to ensure the public obtains full and transparent disclosure of the work we do and the services we provide.

Most of the time our positive relationship with the media serves all sides well, including the public.

But, occasionally, headlines may be deceiving, and then the truth may not be told quite so well…

It’s known that most people are hooked by a story within the first five seconds of reading a headline.

Which means, if they don’t read down the page, it’s only the headline they’ll remember - however exaggerated or misrepresentative of a more complex or nuanced story it may happen to relate.

Nowadays, of course, thanks to social media, when a headline doesn’t equate with the story, or manages to twist it, the internet can quickly become an echo-chamber amplifying misperception, misunderstanding and mythology.

I hear a number of myths repeated by residents who have "read it" and "believe it".

I’m not saying this is a persistent problem but it does happen, and when it does a false impression may be quickly spread about what the council has done or what it is planning to do, which then becomes the accepted "truth" the public believes in.

In a world of 24-hour news yearning to be filled, and with the media engaged in relentless competition for scoops and exclusives, it is understandable the long term and the wider context can sometimes get lost in a story.

Before we know it and have had a chance to think about it, we are ushered on to the next headline, the next story, and so on, ad infinitum.

Does this enable us to be truly "informed"?

It was ever thus, I suppose. They do say today’s news is tomorrow’s chip-paper - or so it was when I was a lad, before hygiene regulations banned it.

But it is the sheer velocity and volume of the news these days that can mean the long-term perspective, the one we as a council often have to consider and plan for, is entirely missed or simply overlooked.

What appears then to the reader as the "whole truth" may in reality only be the "partial truth", even if it cannot be described as deliberate "fake news".

I have no doubt the press performs an essential role in our democracy, by holding those in power to account.

But I think we would be naïve to believe it performs its duties as self-appointed guardian of the truth in a perfectly impartial and objective way.

Whatever claims to neutrality the press makes for itself, a cursory look at media ownership suggests another story – one perhaps never more palpable than in the run-up to a general election.

As the journalist Ferdinand Mount said: “One of the unsung freedoms that go with a free press is the freedom not to read it.”

I would add that it is to everyone’s benefit that fake news is treated exactly the same way.