"You promised that. And a promise is a promise. And with all due respect, you didn't keep that promise."

That was Jorge Ramos, as quoted by TIME magazine, talking to the most powerful person in the world.

Ramos is a journalist. Unlike the myriad calling themselves such, he actually seeks answers and therefore deserves the title.

Journalism over here is undeniably in a pitiful state. The choice of combatants leaves much to be desired: we have no Ramoses, no Fallacis, no champions of truth, no rabid fact-finders. You have the many that are fooling nobody, and then you have a couple who are fooling almost everybody, but who, in the end, are no more journalists than the former.

Watch a political debate hosted in a supposedly neutral fashion and you will inevitably come to a point where time stands still and an awkward silence triumphs. Watch it with an open and critical mind, and you'll quickly realise what a charade it all is. The best of the hosts or interviewers chairing the debate will try to press their distinguished guests but, when they do succeed, it feels as if it were all done by accident and, having realized their mistake of actually asking a question which pulls the interviewee out of their comfort zone, they quickly lose interest and change subject. I can't recall the number of times I listened to a "journalist" asking uncomfortable questions that his interlocutor evidently could not answer without causing further discomfort, only to simply cut the chase short when the latter made his wish to evade the question evident.

That would be precisely the cue that a Ramos would be waiting for.

Sitting on the edge of my seat, I would pray, beg the interviewing journalist to press his guest further - "you got him, you got him! If only you would continue and press on!" But no, lo and behold the journalist promptly asks another question, easing the tension. Good players know you can never win a game of chess by easing the tension.

Of course, there exist on our small island journalists who press and press, but I hardly consider them members of the press. They are the political journalists, the ones whose questions are scripted by their puppeteers, and who do not seek truth but rather seek to sling mud. The questions are meant to put those being questioned in a corner, but generally the questions themselves need to be questioned and scrutinized, as they skew the truth in favour of gaining political advantage over opponents.

The debates therefore become childish question and answer sessions, where one already knows both the question and the answer beforehand, in some instances before the title screen even comes up on the screen.

And what is it with the debates themselves? The guests in question, and under question, are almost always politicians. Are they the only people who have an opinion? How come we always ask the politicians themselves whether they are doing their job well? Can this country get any more ridiculous? We need to ask experts, independent columnists, people in the street what they think about politicians. By "asking the people in the street" I don't mean the trite and contrite vox-pops either, but rather educated people discussing the political scene without tingeing the debate with the usual partisan politics and without letting guilt (of actually having an opinion) affect their judgement. That is what I mean by public opinion.

But that state of affairs would not be felicitous, would it? No, there's a much better arrangement in place.

The politician is interviewed by the sympathetic party newspaper journalist, the artist by the friend.

How many times have we suffered the miserable antics of dismal performers, only to be told they are the next big thing? Indeed, most of the articles populating local publications are no more than PR exercises, sometimes intentionally timed to negate the negative effects of a recent bad performance.

A politician made a gaffe? A singer sang out of tune? An artist's long-awaited exhibition serves only to expose his lack of talent? Not to fear. Here comes the journalist to save the day in the nick of time, reminding us all, through timely praise, how hard-working the politician is, what an accomplished career the singer has, and how misunderstood the artist is. The journalist understands the latter well enough though, presumably because he's sipping tea in her little giardino at four every Saturday afternoon.

Restaurant reviews are a whole Pandora's box we shall not open.

One should not think this behaviour endemic to our islands: acclaimed philosopher Roger Scruton had written a pamphlet denouncing the World Health Organization's campaign against smoking without declaring an interest - an interest, as it turned out, of several thousand pounds paid by the Japan Tobacco International which had indeed been present.

The famous letter - written by his wife - asking for an increase in the payments has been quoted as abhorrent reading: "We would aim to place an article every two months in one or other of the WSJ [Wall Street Journal], the Times, the Telegraph, the Spectator, the Financial Times, the Economist, the Independent or the New Statesman."

Both the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times did the right thing and sacked him. Scruton might be an accomplished professor of aesthetics, but he certainly needed a lesson in ethics.

As do most of our so-called journalists. It's all quite meaningless to be claiming your self-important role in society while harping on the virtues of the fourth estate and spouting such other pompous drivel if you then go and abuse that power to further your own interest. For this to happen, a wrongdoing need not even take place. Abuse of power in the field of journalism does not even necessitate an action to be taken; merely not doing the job properly is enough. An inept journalist robs society of its right to information. It may well be that this comes to pass through no fault of their own, as inadequacy is hardly ever intentional. Be that as it may, the right course of action is to move along and make space for those equipped with the mental fortitude.

A journalist does his job properly by not giving in to intimidation, even of the psychological kind, which is after all the most common; by pressing hard, and pressing harder once the realization hits that the questions have made their interlocutor visibly uncomfortable.

Few people can look powerful or famous people straight in the eye and question their policies or their talents. Fewer still can do so without faltering, commenting not harshly, but justly, without stuttering, in asserting their right to know and explore matters affecting the public: the res publica.

Reportedly, Ramos relentlessly presses for answers when these are nowhere to be found, and is not content with the facile replies typical of someone intending to skirt the issue. TIME reports that when President Obama tried to justify the delay in dealing with the immigration issue, the journalist pounced on his wounded prey: "I don't want to get you off the explanation," he ordered.

I do not follow Ramos, but I would certainly like to follow local journalists endowed with the same zeal and rigour. As it stands, I have to look beyond our shores for that- ironically, I do tend to follow magazines like The Spectator which deal almost exclusively with local, that is to say, British affairs. Yet I must admit that I enjoy reading about these affairs far more than wading through excruciating reports of local ones. Bar a few columnists, and the occasional contribution from the mostly mediocre rest, I tend to steer away from the latter. Quality journalism, with quality writing and thought-provoking pieces, is something we sadly lack and desperately need.

It may be argued that recent events falsify my claims - on the contrary, they confirm them. The events were only divulged by politically interested parties and only because doing so served a political agenda. I can easily envisage the roles being switched, with those clamouring for an open society suddenly becoming secretive, and that is not something I should be so easily allowed to imagine.

The search for truth has one finish line, and just like any other race, it should not end before someone reaches it.