Two events above all others have given this newspaper much to report and analyse over the past year. The Arab spring exposed ugly truths for western leaders. The west champions not any old democracy, just western democracy: better the devil you know. The collective post-9/11 siege mentality means we seem to have jettisoned the Geneva conventions. A bit of torture, a few human rights violations by a friendly dictator, and denying the due process of law by using drones to kill suspects. When Barack Obama was elected, he said: "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." Well done on that one, Mr President. The doublethink of "we will throw away our values to defend our values" was eloquently expressed in George Orwell's 1984. The inconsistent, hesitant, nervous response to the Arab spring by western leaders eloquently expresses it today.

The second big story is the phone-hacking scandal, over which this paper's dogged tenacity was as heroic as News International's foot-dragging was utterly shameful. The Times in particular has yet to recover from the most naked example of proprietorial interference when it repeatedly refused to cover the story until that position became untenable. It was either that or abject fear of its owners, and I don't know which is worse. But Nick Davies, along with other journalists and a few individuals with balls and cash, saw things differently. Together they pulled at a snag in the thread of the Savile row suit that clad News International and, bit by bit, inch by inch, it started to reveal the naked truth. The more it tried to run in the other direction, the more quickly it unravelled (you see, the snagged-thread analogy really does work). And it's still unravelling.

No amount of respectable, well-modulated management-speak from James Murdoch can disguise the direct link between increased circulation and, literally, going through people's rubbish bins. This intrusion into people's lives has been the way of things for the past 40 years.

History teaches us that it doesn't matter how plainly wrong something is; if you do it systematically, unblinkingly and for long enough then it becomes accepted, part of the zeitgeist. That is Rupert Murdoch's toxic legacy. We should not allow his son to carry forward the mantle.

We have an opportunity for a fundamental cultural change. It happened in the way MPs claim their expenses and it can happen with the more unscrupulous members of the tabloid press. Are you listening, Paul Dacre? How we achieve this is yet to be determined, but it is about ethics, common decency and treating people with respect – not press freedom. That myth is propagated by those who have no interest in exposing corruption in high places, and the broadsheet journalists who encourage the simplistic polarisation of this argument become the unwitting stooges of Murdoch Inc.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. The tabloid press have enjoyed all the freedoms but exercise few of the responsibilities. If the freedom they loftily espouse is not to do with titillation and tawdry fascination and everything to do with exposing duplicity and corruption, why were they so slow to expose the whole hacking scandal or its questionable relationship with the Met police? Because it doesn't suit their interests. I became involved in this saga because, apart from a few notable exceptions including this newspaper, no one was giving NI as hard a time as they give everyone else.

The more sinister aspect of intrusion into people's personal lives goes beyond respect for an individual's right to privacy. It is used as a weapon against those who get in the way of News International.

Its behaviour is not unlike a protection racket: be nice to us – that is, let us conduct our business unencumbered by scrutiny or indeed regulation – and we will return the favour by publicly supporting your political campaign. Be nasty to us – ie subject us to too many checks and balances, or curtail our plans to expand our empire – and you will feel our wrath. Of course senior management don't get their hands dirty. No one gets beaten up; they just drag your name through the mud. It's a word in an ear and a life is ruined.

Beneath this scandal is a more important debate about morality, ethics and the notion of public service. None of these things really register very highly with a company like News International. Their priority is their shareholders. The reason James Murdoch would like to see the demise of the BBC is because its very existence gives succour to those who champion the idea of an institution that serves the people first.

This sticks in his craw because, by contrast, his worldview – driven purely by commercial interest – looks, well, a bit depressing. At the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival in 2009, he said the only way to guarantee independence is the market. No, Mr Murdoch, the unchecked market leads to the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone. Your god should be treated with a little less reverence.

At the heart of this scandal is the wholly undemocratic alliance between newspaper proprietors and government. In a hundred years, the relationship will be seen as corrupt as the Corn Laws and rotten boroughs of the 19th century. Make sure you are on the right side of the debate. The Guardian is.

This is an edited version of the foreword to the Bedside Guardian 2011, available for £9.99 with free p&p from the Guardian Bookshop (0330 333 6846, or visit guardianbookshop.co.uk)