That's interesting about the visitor figures of the Tate Modern compared to Arsenal, I would have thought it would be the other way round (I was going to say it might be down to their performance, but they beat us this week, so I won't). Saying that, if you added the people who watch or listen to tv and radio coverage of their matches, the figure would be considerably higher.

I saw the tweets about the Carter-Ruck affair. You're right, it was a smokescreen. Apparently, there are still injunctions against the Guardian. I've no idea if they relate to the same case, but it seems likely whatever they're covering up is far more serious. However, it's also true that it's harder for such things to remain secret now; as Carter-Ruck discovered, it only takes a hint of a cover-up to slip out and the news can spread like wildfire. I also agree about corruption corrupting; we do seem to be entering an age when people who use the law as a blunt instrument against us and to protect themselves are being uncovered and those in high places are finding themselves held up to more scrutiny than ever before. They no longer have to simply keep a lid on papers such as the Guardian, there are blogs, social networks etc. where people are only too willing to publish things they'd rather keep hidden. And the global nature of the internet makes it hard to control that because if someone is outside the jurisdiction of the country concerned it's not so easy to shut them up.

However, I'm inclined to question the validity of a case for a golden era, inasmuch as msm output has to my mind long been the highly effective veil certain power-bases have drawn over their interests and aspirations.

Last night's edition of The Book Show, featuring Melvyn Bragg, former Times Editor Harold Evans and Shappi Khorsandi touched on the notion that far from being a dumbed-down society with blame firmly at the door of msm, we ought to acknowledge a rennaissance in intellectual pursuits, theatre, the arts and reasoned thinking, championed by certain media luminaries. Bragg put forward a succinct argument, citing the capacity audience as evidence for the defence, asserting more people visited the Tate Modern last year than watched the football team Arsenal.

The problem I see is that this broadcasting, no doubt complete with follow-up commentary in this morning's papers (which I do not buy) represents a dualistic sideshow distracting the masses from what is really going on. Anyone notice another story last week involving Stephen Fry's Twitter lead contributing to the forced overturning of a Guardian gagging order? Carter-Ruck, lawyers representing the British oil trading company Trafigura, were accused of parliamentary contempt after insisting an injunction be obtained against the paper to prevent reporting of a question tabled by MP Paul Farrelly. Outrageous? Well, I think even THAT is a sideshow.

Woodward & Bernstein were rightly canonised for their diligence in pursuing Watergate in a fashion we may consider as exemplary journalism. Kronkite was a towering anchorman. But perpetuated over decades is the rampant misuse of a monetary system, pharmaceuticals, the escalation of wars – someone tweeted the other day that the US military spend is $65b on a country with a GDP of $125m so why not just give them the cash and go on home? – the removal of presidents, holes in the official 9/11 account so large that emperor's new clothes spring to mind and much more. We are overwhelmed with the minutae you so eruditely posted on Kate, that the perpetrators of henious policies can almost get clean away with it. Fortunately, almost is not completely. I cannot speak in absolutes and I'd like to think I do a balanced take on conspiracy but I have faith in the wisdom of corruption corrupting absolutely. We are bearing witness to the fall of the empires, even though it looks like they're winning. We win because for the most part, we have nothing to lose. They force fear upon us, projecting their own fears of losing power over us. Power over self is all that matters, which Jan Moir clearly has yet to learn.

I agree about the next Walter Cronkite being a blogger. Brush aside all the dross and there are some incredibly talented and deeply principled people in the blogosphere. Blogging is probably in the equivalent of the early days of newspaper publishing, there are a lot of bright-eyed idealists who want to make a difference. I don't see that in journalism anymore.

I think this is the basic problem. We are down to one newspaper in a city of close to 4 million. There is no longer any investigative reporting, with or without fact-checking. The best reporters have been let go, as well as the best national columnists, and replaced by what seems like journalism students who cannot write (there is no copy-editing either). I no longer read it except for the weather page, and that has never been reliable.

Two of the best local columnists have gone to the newspaper's web site where they are indeed blogging. To give them their due, they allow unedited comments like most of us peon bloggers, which is not possible in the print version.

Will there ever be another Walter Cronkite, or an Edward R. Murrow before him? Yes, but he or she will come from the ranks of bloggers who have integrity.

Now we find that there are journalists writing blogs in their own newspapers. That makes them just bloggers. Nothing more. They have to fill some space or else they will lose their coveted position as a blogger with a mainstream media masthead.

Circulation doesn't make their opinion more relevent. In fact, the oposite is true since that circulation comes from a hundred or so years of brand awareness, unlike bloggers who have started from scratch.