A week ago they were in denial, insisting there was no deep-seated problem; now, almost certainly to their surprise, Britain's tabloid editors are accepting that the way their industry is regulated is about to be transformed. If the old metaphor can bear another outing, after 20 years of clinging to the bar in the last chance saloon, they are suddenly contemplating where to go next.
One man changed their minds. It wasn't David Cameron, to whom they would not listen. And it wasn't Rupert Murdoch, whose influence is not what it was. It was Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail for two decades and by far the biggest beast in the tabloid jungle. So great is his influence now that when he speaks, the rest can only listen and nod.
This week he spoke at the Leveson inquiry on phone hacking, and though there was plenty of railing at liberals, judges, politicians, academics and other familiar targets, he also quietly killed off tabloid denial about the consequences of phone hacking. Not only that, but he put forward proposals for industry regulation of a kind that editors have hitherto portrayed as monstrous intrusions on freedom of expression.
To the central problem of how to persuade the whole industry to engage with regulation, Dacre offered this response: "While I abhor statutory controls, there's one area where parliament can help the press. Some way must be found to compel all newspaper owners to fund and participate in self-regulation."
He also had an answer to the problem that is most obvious and troubling to the public, which is that the so-called regulator, the Press Complaints Commission, is toothless and fails to challenge the industry on its most flagrant failings. He proposed appointing a newspaper ombudsman, and he went into some detail:
"An ombudsman, possibly a retired judge or civil servant, and possibly advised by two retired editors from both ends of the newspaper spectrum, could have the power to investigate, possibly with specialists co-opted on to his panel, potential press industry scandals. The ombudsman could also have the power to summon journalists and editors to give evidence, to name offenders and, if necessary, in the cases of the most extreme malfeasance, to impose fines."
To paraphrase Dr Johnson's comment on the dog that walked on its hind legs, what is remarkable here is not that it is done well – there are plenty of problems with these suggestions – but that it is done at all.
Up to the point at which these words were uttered, everything – including Dacre's own opening remarks about the hypocritical political classes ganging up on the press – pointed to a long, stubborn and probably vicious rearguard action by editors and proprietors defending the status quo. Yes, the Mail's leader columns had spoken of a need to strengthen the PCC, but no one expected proposals of this kind at this stage. Indeed Dacre's initiative left other tabloid editors looking foolish.
What are the problems with his ideas? They are, in the first instance, ones of vagueness. My reading of those lines about parliamentary assistance is that he wants, not statutory control of press content (which nobody is asking for), but a statute that prevents proprietors from simply pulling their papers out of the regulatory set-up, as Richard Desmond has done with the Express and Star.
This begs some questions. Such a statute would have to define the "press" that was to be regulated, and this would surely extend into the internet and beyond the traditional print titles. How far should it go? And how far would a statute go in defining the role and responsibilities of the self-regulator to which it was giving authority? As for the ombudsman, if he or she is to be able to oblige witnesses to give evidence, and impose fines, then, merely to make the system workable, those powers will have to be explicit in statute too.
Dacre made clear that he wanted to preserve the PCC while strengthening it. He did not say in so many words that he was ready to move to a middle zone between self-regulation and statutory regulation (of the kind represented by Ofcom), and yet that appears to be the implication. Yesterday's press taboo is suddenly open for discussion.
The inquiry is, as Lord Justice Leveson put it this week, at "the beginning of the beginning", and there is a great deal still to be argued about before it can reach conclusions about the best ways of upholding press standards. At least, after Dacre's speech, it no longer faces having to fight a bruising battle to convince editors and proprietors that change is necessary at all.