The Stork Fountain in the middle of Copenhagen in Denmark, which depicts three storks about to fly off, has been a famous landmark in the city since 1894 where tourists and locals alike gather around it as a meeting place.

About 10 years ago, a Danish psychologist, Anders Jorgensen started a Facebook page on which he implied that the city council was planning to dismantle the fountain and shared the news with 125 friends.

It wasn’t true, there were no such plans and he made it up as an experiment. But the post started to spread, immediately to 1,000 members, then within three days over two new members a minute shared the post.

Within a short time, the group reached almost 28,000 people joining the campaign for a cause that didn’t even exist. It probably would’ve gone further but Mr. Jorgensen took the page down having proved his point. Which presumably was that people will believe anything on Facebook and spread it without checking.

In Ireland last week, Twitter reportedly banned Bishop Kevin Doran for outlining his opposition to an assisted dying bill being discussed at the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, “Assisted suicide…is not an expression of freedom or dignity,” posted the Bishop.

But Twitter insisted the post come down because he was “promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm".

Er, no he wasn’t; he used the term assisted suicide to oppose it, but lost his appeal. Twitter seems to have acted much quicker in this instance than in the case of a certain Donald Trump.

Just two examples which welcome us to the crazy world of social media. And that’s even before we get to the bile from racists, homophobes, misogynists and any other angry keyboard warrior who wants to spew out their hatred.

Don’t get me wrong, I use social media a lot, but I try to do it carefully and with the perspective that it isn’t the real world.

How many times, though, do you hear of the attitude “I read it on Facebook, it must be true”. Especially, of course, if a post slots in nicely with your world view.

And yet, the very same people will scoff at the “mainstream media”.

We now live in an era where there has been an erosion of trust in our media, in my opinion thanks to some cynical undermining of it by the powerful with repeated negative remarks.

And we know that negative remarks usually get more traction than anything positive said about anything, media included.

I’ve often said that in a world of misinformation, we now need a free press more than ever; but a responsible free press.

The psychological attack on the press, however, is taken to a whole new level when journalists are directly threatened. We’ve seen in the last few weeks alone, instances of this in Northern Ireland.

After the threats to BBC Panorama team for their exposé on the alleged involvement of crime in boxing, there are now the very disturbing cases of two women journalists.

Trish Devlin, of the Sunday World has received a number of death threats and again has been warned in recent weeks, and Allison Morris, of the Irish News, was the subject of menacing graffiti in Belfast. Both women are brilliant journalists, forces of nature in their profession and have had to show tremendous courage now and in the past in unearthing stories which some people don’t want told.

The threats to them are a disgrace and certainly not “part and parcel” of their job, and not acceptable in any decent society. It was good to see it widely condemned by politicians, even though a part of me couldn’t help wishing some of our politicians were always so supportive of a free press in an open and democratic society.

The pressure on Stephen Nolan wasn’t as directly threatening, but an online petition which campaigned for his show to be cancelled received thousands of signatures and there have been calls for the controversial BBC man’s show to be boycotted.

I’m uncomfortable with boycotts, indeed totally opposed to them. During my time as editor of the Impartial Reporter, there were several clumsy attempts to boycott the paper by bullies who didn’t like some of our content. Censorship is wrong, full stop.

That doesn’t, however, give Nolan a bye ball.

All of us shouldn’t take freedom of the press for granted and block out any criticism. I think there is a genuine discussion to be held about his style of journalism, particularly in a public service organization such as the BBC which is in a privileged funding position and holds itself up as an example for its values and principles.

The BBC was quick to defend Nolan, understandably so, and countered with the claim that the petition was an attempt to “smear and censor” its journalism.

I thought that was rather disrespectful to many people who may have genuine concerns and were entitled to have the free speech to express them. I stress I’m not referring to the trolls or opportunists.

I wonder did Nolan look at himself in the mirror and question the way he does things, or did the BBC management privately discuss their management of him?

The BBC in London was quick enough to disapprove of Emily Maitlis over claims of a lack of impartiality on Newsnight, but the management in Belfast seem to give Nolan free rein to be controversial to chase ratings.

I know some people say, just switch off if you don’t like him. Ok, yes, but remember this is the BBC and I still have to pay my licence fee. If you don’t like what I write or don’t like the paper, you don’t have to buy it, it’s your choice to spend the money.

Even if I never listen or watch the BBC, I still have to fork out.

From my point of view, over the years Stephen Nolan has been robust in uncovering many public interest stories and given voice to many people who would not otherwise have had it. I used to listen to him fairly regularly, but much, much less so now.

For two reasons; I think he puts on a dramatic shouty “performance” now more than ever to perpetuate an image which has become a caricature of himself.

And, I think his format and content has become tired. He runs to the same well for material, and there’s still plenty of material in that well and, it has to be said that people are drawn to controversy and the listening figures are still high.

But with his audience figures and his undoubted talent, he could be a force in many other stories of public interest.

Has he considered calls to cover the story of the tragic Noah Donohoe? The treatment of fellow-journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey had major implications for the profession, including Stephen Nolan, but I don’t remember much coverage of the issue by Nolan.

And what about the hyponatraemia inquiry and the campaign in particular by the Roberts family whose lovely daughter died in hospital?

Would Stephen Nolan not ask serious questions of the Department of Health, who he seems to get plenty of information from?

I don’t want Nolan banned, far from it, or boycotted or censored in the world of a free press. But I’m entitled to the opinion that he could do far more and be more responsible.

As Mr Jorgensen proved in Copenhagen with the Stork Fountain, you can stir a controversy quite easily. Build one and they will come.

Press freedom is precious, Nolan is entitled to operate under its freedom, but I also think someone in his position has responsibility to use that freedom better than he does.