by David HassThe Labour peer Clive Soley is criticised today for linking the latest parliamentary lobbying scandal with a newspaper backlash targeting politicians in the wake of the Leveson Report.A series of stings by the Telegraph, Panorama and the Sunday Times caught some parliamentarians apparently ready to accept cash in exchange for asking parliamentary questions, hosting functions or putting down motions on behalf of clients. (It's worth noting that one of those behind a sting is an investigative TV programme which operates within the heavily regulatory framework of the BBC and OFCOM, systems far more restrictive than what is proposed by Lord Justice Leveson.) All of those accused deny wrongdoing and say that they were acting within the rules. Nonetheless, the cloud of sleaze, if it ever left, has returned to Westminster.Lord Soley told BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend that he had warned colleagues that the press was “trying to target” MPs and peers. He said:“I’ve said it to both MPs and peers at times, be very alert at the moment, because there is a call for proper regulation of the press. There is no doubt in my mind that the press is trying to target both MPs and peers at times... That doesn’t justify anything that may or may not have happened but I recognise there is a Leveson agenda here.”Lord Soley is entitled to his view. It is not one that Hacked Off shares. Here is what Lord Justice Leveson said about public interest journalism, on launching his report:“The press, operating freely and in the public interest, is one of the true safeguards of our democracy... A free press in a democracy holds power to account.”There could hardly be a clearer example of the media holding power to account than an investigation into whether parliamentarians abide by their own rules. And the cross-party Royal Charter sets out an explicit requirement for a recognised regulator to take into account in their code...“...the importance of freedom of speech, the interests of the public (including but not limited to the public interest in detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety...)”There must be a thorough investigation into each allegation before judgment can be passed on any of the accused parliamentarians. Nonetheless, on a point of principle, it is clear that this sort of journalistic inquiry is wholly justifiable and at the core of what the public expect journalism to do.There are plenty of examples of newspapers bullying, smearing and undermining their opponents. There have been a number of examples of this in recent months, against those associated with the Leveson process. But on this occasion, it is wrong to blame a “Leveson agenda” for what appears, on the face of it, to be a legitimate and welcome example of public interest journalism.David Hass is Director of Communications at Hacked Off.