In a highly unusual leading article, The Times has claimed that the death of Welsh national football manager, Gary Speed - believed to be suicide - raises matters of public interest that need to be reported.

The fact that the mainstream media has not done so, says The Times, is attributable to a lack of confidence by newspapers in areas involving privacy because of the hostile atmosphere engendered by the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.

In its leader, headlined: ‘Untold story’, The Times says: “If this awful event had taken place, say, a year ago, it is quite likely that we would know a good deal more about it. More of Mr Speed’s story would have emerged, and with it, perhaps, an enhanced understanding of his motives.

“But, as it is, we - including this newspaper - know very little, possibly a great deal less than there is to know.

“In the past, tabloids would have hunted this story down. Doing this now, however, might not seem wise. The press is, after all, under investigation. And, because some newspapers have failed to make the public interest case for their stories, they have lost confidence in their ability to do so.

“Many newsrooms are also, rightly, questioning their methods. As a result, this story is being left alone.”

However, The Times questioned if this reticence was a good thing. Precisely because the case is such a hard one, it says Speed’s death provides a good test of the arguments being made in the debate now taking place on press privacy.

The leader continues: “It is difficult to think of something more delicate, more deserving of tactful handling, than this awful death of a young father. It could be argued that no possible public interest could be served by reporting any more on this subject. But we believe that this judgment would be wrong.

“Mr Speed was a person of power and influence. Almost certainly he meant more to more Welsh people than the Secretary of State and his reach went far beyond Wales. There is also the manner of his death.

“Suicide is, or at least should be, a matter of public concern. And since his death, the internet has lit up with unsubstantiated rumours. Mr Speed has been smeared, not by the press but in its absence.

“There is a legitimate public interest in responsible reporting of what happened and why. This does not mean that his entire life should automatically be open for scrutiny and publication. It does mean that reporting should be undertaken, proportionate to the story

“This is necessarily a matter of judgment, and a difficult judgment too. It is complicated because the extent of public interest in Mr Speed’s death is impossible to calculate until after reporting work has begun.”

The Times admits that there does need to be a public interest argument for investigating and reporting personal behaviour that might otherwise stay private, but it is critical that the definition of the public interest is drawn very broadly and plenty of scope left for discretion in inevitably difficult cases.

“Phone hacking was a disgrace, and demanded an inquiry. That inquiry has already exposed the poor way in which press standards have been maintained. It will doubtless, as it continues, expose much more that is of vital interest.

“But it is critical, too, that we do not live in a society in which rumour takes the place of reporting, and misinformation triumphs over truth.”

The Daily Mail, equally unusually, on Saturday reprinted the Times leading article in full and devoted much of a full page to a story headlined: “Warning over Gary Speed and peril of a shackled Press.”

The Daily Mail said: “The Times, MPs and lawyers all pointed to the fact that the internet had been awash with lurid, widely varying and totally unsubstantiated rumours about the circumstances surrounding the death of this father of two.”

It quoted Tory MP Philip Davies, who sits on the Commons culture, media and sport committee, as saying: “The problem is that we are seeing a chilling effect on the Press and the rest of the respectable media, leaving a large field clear to the unregulated internet and social media so people can peddle lots of things that are not true.

“These things are best covered in the respectable media so you get the truth, rather than unpleasant smears and lies.

“There is a danger that the Press feels feel they can’t report and this chilling effect are counter-productive for all concerned.

“We should be treasuring free speech in this country, not having a situation where news organisations are scared to cover stories.”

The Daily Mail also quote PR supremo, Max Clifford, who warned last week that tabloid editors are too scared to publish sensational stories about the private lives of celebrities because they fear a backlash from readers. Explaining that Clifford supported The Times argument, it quotes him as saying: “I know of three people whose reputations are being tarnished and damaged by false stories and allegations - all of which would have been clarified if people had come out with their exclusive stories.

“We all want a free Press but the reality is that at the moment the Press is not free. We have got a shackled Press.”