HELLO. My name is David and I am a “so-called” journalist. We reporters are used to having our credentials doubted in this new age of instant social media feedback. Some critics, usually staunch partisans, love to put inverted commas around our professional titles if what we write does not quite suit their political, religious or even footballing clause.

Now journalists, whether they are big shot opinion-formers or plain news grunts like me, usually love a bit of criticism. It is a sign, after all, that we are being read. And, of course, if we are factually wrong, we would rather know about that sooner than later.

But what makes a “real” reporter rather than a “so-called” one? Because this is not just a question posed in online banter. Serious people, such as politicians, police officers, judges, are now having to ask it for dull and practical reasons like media accreditation. And the answer is not obvious.

Is somebody, for example, who decides to live-tweet a court proceeding a journalist? Is a hyper-partisan blogger? Should they get a press pass and access to people with stories to tell and information to provide in the public interest?

Does it matter if they are journalists, with or without the quotation marks? I don’t know. But there is an interesting case study coming up. Because soon authorities in Scotland may have to make a decision on the reporting bona fides of another new feature of internet-age: employees of Kremlin propaganda channels.

Last week we reported on a Holyrood meeting to discuss such Russian regime media and their impact in Scotland. One Kremlin-funded and controlled outlet based in Scotland, Sputnik, was not able to attend. It complained, saying it should have had the right to challenge the very premise of the meeting: that it was a propaganda tool of an authoritarian regime.

BACKGROUND: Our package on Kremlin media

The Scottish Parliament recognises the distinction between bona fide journalists and other commentators. The former are provided with office spaces and passes in Holyrood. Should authorities grant press passes to Kremlin media? This is a tough call. Last month now French President Emmanuel Macron refused accreditation to his campaign for Sputnik and its sister agency RT after they threw the might of the Russian state machine behind his far-right opponent, Marine Le Pen.

UK political parties, including the ruling Tories in London and SNP in Edinburgh, generally shun such outlets. But representatives of both parties, and Labour, have gone on air. But should they do a Macron?

President Macron

The Herald: French President-elect Emmanuel Macron gestures during a victory celebration outside the Louvre (AP Photo/Thibault Camus).Green MSP Andy Wightman hosted the Holyrood meeting. Afterwards he talked of the dilemma facing politicians asked on such outlets.

He said: “It is in our DNA to embrace every opportunity to have our views heard in the media. But when that media is in service to a foreign power, we need to be very aware of how modern propaganda strategies can subvert otherwise honestly expressed opinions.”

As we head to a possible second independence referendum, more and more people in power are going to have to make a call on “so-called” propaganda.

The Herald, last week

The Herald: