Today's Levenson session revealed all sorts of inconsistencies in approach by the inquiry. Why did Lionel Barber undergo questioning for more than one-and-half hours?

The Financial Times is a paragon when seen beside almost all the other daily newspapers. So why spend so much time with him?

Why did Daily Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher escape scrutiny on the merits of his Vince Cable story?

I am pretty certain that, under oath, he would have found it necessary to say what he really thought of the Press Complaints Commission's censure?

I'm fairly sure he thought it wholly wrong and, therefore, it would have been instructive to hear why. Whether one agrees with him or not, the issue raises central concerns about ethics and regulation - supposedly the inquiry's remit.

Yet the chief executive of the Telegraph Media Group (TMG), Murdoch MacLennan, was asked about the case (along with MPs' expenses) and, as he had made crystal clear, it was nothing to do with him.

Why did counsel fail to push former Daily Telegraph editor Will Lewis to answer a question he plainly avoided about his alleged role in the leak - to the BBC's Robert Peston - of the Cable story?

I don't think the inquiry counsel, Robert Jay, would have given such a weak cross examination in a legal case.

Why was Chris Blackhurst, The Independent's editor, not asked to spell out exactly what he means by the licensing of journalists?

And with the greatest of respect to Andy Mullins and Manish Malhotra, respectively managing director and finance director of Independent Print Ltd (publishers of the Independent and Standard titles), where was the value in calling them to give oral evidence?

Similarly, what was the point of demanding that TMG's finance director Finbarr Ronayne should attend?

It's fine to accept their written evidence and good to consider the role of corporate governance, but it's totally unnecessary to do more than accept their responses to the inquiry's questionnaire.

It would have been of much more value to have heard from Peter Oborne, for instance, and other senior working journalists.

Also noticeable was the difference between the questioning of Barber and The Sun's editor, Dominic Mohan, yesterday.

Mohan handled himself well, but he was given an extraordinarily easy ride. He wasn't asked, for example, why his paper has no page 2 corrections column.

As for Kelvin MacKenzie - and again with the greatest of respect - why was he called to give evidence? He hasn't edited for two decades. And, for that matter, why was he invited previously to make an address at one of the seminars?

It doesn't make sense. There is so little logic to what's happening.