A few years ago I was privileged to meet the great journalist Jim Pringle who returned to Scotland for the independence referendum. His successful career had taken him away from his native land and he lived between Paris and Cambodia. His early work had seen him cover the Vietnam war and subsequently Cambodia as the Killing Fields were exposed. Later sojourns saw him with Peron in Argentina and in Poland as a Soviet invasion was feared with the rise of Solidarity.

A very modest and unassuming man he was remarkably brave. I recall asking, in my ignorance, if he’d had Kevlar type body armour when he’d flown in US military helicopters into combat zones. “Not invented,” he replied and he explained how he and colleagues tended to wear American army uniforms though carried no weapons other than their pens. If in civilian attire, they were likely to be presumed to be CIA and targeted for assassination.

His pain at the loss of colleagues who died reporting the war or other conflicts was evident. Yet he and his colleagues there and elsewhere did a remarkable service for the world. They reported impartially on what they saw and brought home the horror of the war.

More recently, I was fortunate to attend the opening of Harry Benson's photography exhibition at the Scottish Parliament. Many pictures captured important moments in American history such as the Civil Rights Marches and the assassination of Robert Kennedy. They, too, were not without risk as Harry explained when tear gas was fired or other threats were made. Nor indeed were they without controversy. The photographs of the dying Kennedy caused outrage for some but as Harry explained there was nothing he or indeed anyone could do to save the Senator. Instead he did his job in a professional manner and recorded the moment for history and a wider public. He was right to do so.

Though financial pressures have curtailed both journalism and photo journalism, their courage and tenacity lives on in efforts by others at home and abroad; and whether in print journalism or in other media outlets. They bring home the horrors of the Middle East or elsewhere and can help expose without fear or favour wrong doing at home. They are to be commended and protected.

A recent spat between politicians and a journalist has highlighted the differences, though, between journalists and commentators. A minor story but some points of principle at its heart. The former are neutral and factual whilst the latter, of which I am now one, are personal opinion with information that is more selective. Indeed, commentators can often be in the position of politicians without the accountability to party or electorate. It’s a fortunate and privileged situation. There has therefore to be a difference in how journalists and commentators are treated, though courtesy should be expected and abuse disparaged in whatever walk of life.

Journalists need protection and should be free from criticism, if reporting fairly and accurately. They are doing, the wider public a great service and sometimes at great risk to themselves. To threaten or intimidate them is a restriction of democracy whether done through social media or by the state.

However, commentators are in a different category and should expect a response or at least be able to take it. After all they are often seeking to provoke it and can be acerbic in their comments on public figures. They should expect no less in response and be prepared to accept it unless it is offensive and threatening.

This paper has many commentators from both the Left and from the Right. Some are pro-union and others for independence. Others, still, simply write insightfully and entertainingly. All are accountable to the editor but are given free rein to express their opinions. They need not, and in my own case haven’t, always adhered to the editorial line. Readers are therefore entitled to comment and indeed the paper welcomes that.

Times have moved on when it would have been a typed letter to the editor expressing outrage, opposition or even support. The internet and social media have revolutionised that, as digital photography or laptops have changed the world of Jim and Harry for their successors.

The days of fans with typewriters have passed. It’s not partisan support of the national team but political views being expressed. A few journalists have moved from reporting to opining or interspersing the two. When that happens they move from factual reporting to personal comment and lose protections afforded their profession. Threats and abuse are unacceptable but criticism isn’t. They should be able to be challenged for the views they opine.