It is true the media doesn't expect, and is often surprised by, bite back from politicians. But when coverage is unfair, inaccurate or both, it's a reasonable response. It's one thing to robustly disagree with the line that a party is taking - when the issue is seen to require it, that's good journalism. It's another to distort and insult. It's also worth remembering that at the heart of democratic values is respect for the fact that the views of people will often be at odds. Mind you, politicians need to be on solid ground when they challenge the media. Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey came under deserved criticism last week for suggesting, wrongly, that a journalist's question had been supplied by the government.

Some of what happens in the media amounts to little short of bullying. Remember the Alan Jones interview in which he berated the PM for being late? It's a tough judgment for Julia Gillard or other Jones targets whether to appear on his show. Politicians forced into confrontations on air can sound bad. On the other hand, they should not be intimidated by presenters behaving grossly and some listeners will empathise with the interviewee.

One problem is that there are inbuilt incentives in certain markets for presenters to behave badly. Over-the-top shock jocks can attract audiences; that in turn can lead competitors to try to match or outdo them.

The politicians try to put on shells for protection in their interaction with the media. They have centrally prepared ''lines'' that they reel off, frequently looking silly when the TV news bulletins splice footage of several ministers or shadow ministers saying exactly the same words.

Another device is to deliver a set answer regardless of the question. This is different from refusing to answer a question. The latter is frustrating for journalists but obviously the politician's right, not just a tactic out of some ''how to cope with the media'' training session. If the politician's refusal is unreasonable, media and public will judge accordingly.