...general election news conferences are curious animals, much removed from ordinary journalism, not least because they are a televised showcase not only for the politicians but also for the star political journalists.

Sound-bite quality

It is almost as if they run to a pre-prepared script. The first question always goes to the political editors of either the BBC or ITV. Then it is the turn of their counterparts on Sky News, Channel Four News or Five News.

They ask good, tough questions - although sometimes the question is as much honed for its sound-bite quality as the answers are - but it is a badge of journalistic independence that they almost always ask about an agenda which is quite different to the theme of the news conference.

Of course, there are usually specialist journalists (education, health, or home affairs correspondents) at these events too. But they rarely get a look in as they are not regulars in this Westminster circus.

Indeed the specialist correspondents sometimes feel they are intruding on a private show. A specialist question, seeking clarification on policy, often brings a collective sigh of annoyance from the political journalists who, perhaps, see it as playing into the hands of the politicians.

In case this is sounding sanctimonious, let me add that I was certainly guilty of the same sort of thing

The trouble is that these daily news conference have become theatre. A gaffe here, a momentary loss of memory there, and that becomes the "story".

That is fair enough, up to a point, but the whole event often becomes little more than a jousting match between political correspondents and politicians.

In case this is sounding sanctimonious, let me add that I was certainly guilty of the same sort of thing when I was a political correspondent.

The truth is that Westminster-based correspondents do not know the ins and outs of policy in areas as diverse as education, health, and welfare. But tax and spend, and political personalities, are their bread and butter.

Clear choices

The only way issues such as health or education ever get to dominate these events is when there is the emotional appeal of a dramatic case study - a child denied an operation, a patient left on a trolley in a hospital corridor, or a parent facing the closure of their child's special school.

Yet surely issues such as classroom discipline, class sizes, and tuition fees are very important to many voters? There are clear choices on offer between the parties on each of these, and other, education issues.

Of course, voters can read the manifestos themselves. But the role of the media is not just to try to trip up weary or unprepared politicians but also to explain, compare and contrast policy issues.

One of the worst aspects of journalism is the pack mentality - it is safer to hunt together than to rove independently. If the big beasts of the journalistic jungle are going on one issue, others will follow.

And even the big beasts must feel constrained. They usually only get one question at these events (although they are usually canny enough to say "my question is in two parts...").

So, while they might like to test out the details of the class size policy, they dare not miss their one chance to try to wrong-foot the politicians on an issue that has cropped up elsewhere.

Many commentators are concerned by the public's lack of interest in the election campaign

I fear, and I speak as a television journalist, that this problem is largely the consequence of the daily news conferences being broadcast live on 24-hour news media. Journalists like to get their questions on the air almost as much as they want to hear the answers.

Indeed one or two political journalists, not necessarily broadcasters, produce long-winded statements as preambles to their questions. It is almost as if they are standing for election, not the politicians.

They are often witty, and occasionally they land a metaphorical punch on the politicians, but - call me old-fashioned - I thought the point of news conferences was for journalists to ask questions about the issues being presented to them, not to inject their comments into a memorable sound-bite question.