Again, empirical evidence for this claim is not so much thin on the ground as non-existent.
Meanwhile, to see this debate about (alleged) newspaper influence from the editors’ perspective, consider the arguments they advance. It is their contention that their coverage of the EU, whether of Brussels “red tape”, monetary crises or supposedly unjust decisions by European courts, echoes the real concerns of their readers.
They point to widespread complaints from the public about the intrusion into their daily lives of EU regulations and restrictions. And their job as journalists, they say, is to disclose issues of concern to their readers.
What is rarely mentioned in this tit-for-tat debate is that the positive aspects of EU decisions get little or no coverage, whether in newspapers or on TV.
David Cameron has promised an EU referendum by 2017 (Picture: Getty Images)
Carl Court/Getty Images
That glaring omission will make it difficult for Cameron and the pro-EU members of his Government and party to sell a Yes vote to an increasingly sceptical public.
Then again, it is possible — if unlikely — that publishers and editors might change their tune and come out against Brexit.
If they do, will this not in itself suggest that they are tacitly aware of their influence over their audiences?
Roy Greenslade is Professor of Journalism, City University London, and writes a blog for the Guardian