She said lots of interesting things, spoke sweetly about her children and generally came across as perfectly lovely, but her reaction to Kirsty Young’s melodic probing on Leveson was striking. She gave the robotic precursor required of anyone who is about to defend tabloid practice – “OfcoursephonehackingiswrongBUT” – and then said something quite breathtaking.

She said she thought it was very unfair that all these celebrities were able to go round alleging that their phones had been hacked without any evidence.

Because that’s the main problem, isn’t it? Not that tabloids have appointed themselves to sit in judgement on anyone they deem to be “in the public eye”. Not that they think they’re allowed to reveal any detail of anybody’s private life, regardless of how distressing or invasive it might be. Not that they have taken upon themselves the right to dissect, deride and sometimes destroy the life of anyone they take a dislike to.

No, the real issue is those poor tabloids, being accused of doing something that they have actually done and don’t appear to be in the slightest bit sorry about. Life really is unfair sometimes, isn’t it?

Leaving aside the fact that I’m fairly sure that the last “most depressing day of the year” media story was only about six weeks ago – they seem to crop up with unsettling regularity – Blue Monday is a real challenge for me.

I work in mental health, and from that perspective, these sorts of stories are useful. They get people talking about emotional wellbeing, mental health and its interaction with our environment and circumstances, and all sorts of other useful and interesting things. They give us the opportunity to correct myths (including the myth that anyone can be properly depressed for just one day) and in general they are A Good Thing.

But this one is also junk science, as a number of people for whom I have a lot of admiration have been pointing out today. In particular, Ben Goldacre, whose book Bad Science was an eye-opener for me, blogged “Blue Monday is bullshit churnalism. Beware any journalist who promotes it”. He points out that it was originally invented to promote Sky Travel, and has since taken on a life of its own.

Basically, it is based on a nonsensical equation endorsed by a psychologist who was handed the whole story ready-made by a PR company. It’s bunk. But it is useful bunk. So should we ignore it, deplore it, or use it as a handy springboard for sensible discussions?

Last week, a poster in the Glasgow Subway caught my eye. It’s part of a Strathclyde Police campaign against domestic abuse. It features a child and the caption “I hear it. Every time Dad hits you, I hear it”.

There’s a slogan below it, along the lines of “Domestic abuse affects children. Speak out for you, for them”. (I can’t find the image online so can’t be sure of the exact text).

It’s obviously great that Strathclyde Police is trying to prevent domestic abuse, and the tagline is certainly arresting, if you’ll pardon the pun. But I’d be interested to know how this image was tested and what goals have been set for this campaign. Because I can’t imagine it achieving anything other than making women who already feel worthless feel even more so.

Women who are being abused know that it’s affecting their children. If they haven’t left, it’s because their self-esteem has been so thoroughly shattered that they believe what their abuser tells them: that they are stupid, they couldn’t survive alone and that above all, the abuse is their fault.

So telling her that she’s hurting her kids by staying just reinforces the abuser’s messages: this situation is her fault. Is that really likely to encourage her to leave, or will it just add to her belief that she is a failure?

I appreciate that the police are clearly trying to focus on what’s achievable. A woman can leave an abusive relationship, and so it’s reasonable to try to persuade her to do so. And I started to wonder, what might a more constructive campaign look like? I thought about positive slogans like,

“You don’t deserve to be abused. We will help you to escape.” And then I came across this campaign (at the bottom of the page), with the strap line,

“You’re not alone. We can help stop it” and a backdrop of common lines used by abusers, like “It’s all your fault”.

So it seems that it is possible to construct an anti-domestic abuse campaign that contradicts rather than confirms what abusers tell their victims. I haven’t yet found any data on the success or otherwise or such campaigns, but I’d be fascinated to know whether my instinct on what works is correct.