These ideas from San Deigo seem great to me, but they do show that there IS a difference between writing for print and the internet. Newspapers are still think of themselves as a "broadcast" medium. They don't aim for reaching the experts in the field, but somewhat educated people who might become interested in a particular topic. Often, blogs are of a personal nature, or narrowly focused. That lends itself to a completely different kind of discussion. The important question for critics, is not just "Do I know what I writing about?" but "Do I know who I am writing FOR?"

Also, expanding the logic used in some posts, it would seem that some people here have predicted the end of paid arts journalism, as newspapers cut space, and the hordes bloggers take over. Is that what you really mean?

Newspapers should not be 'textbooks' where the under-educated masses go to receive an introduction to art. Remedial arts education does not equal news.

Furthermore, newspapers should not be cheerleaders for the arts, arts organizations or for artists. (Given that we seem to be stuck in a morass of sports analogies, I'll point out that most major newspaper sports sections are really, really good at not being boosterish.)

There is nothing about seeing an opera or a Matisse that is 'better' for someone than, say, sanding a table or climbing a mountain. Proselytizing and educating should be left to the education departments of arts organizations, schools, etc.

Art critics and arts journalists ought evaluate and examine, critique and contextualize, investigate and judge.

I don't know how closely related Australian media are to the US press (significant differences certainly in concentration of ownership etc, though you could think of us as a kind of Petri dish - trends can happen quickly here). I come from a sports fanatic country. In Australia, the wittiest, most informed and sometimes the most lyrical journalism happens on the sports pages. Moreover, nobody is ashamed of being an expert discussing abstruse or even arcane aspects of a sport, because they assume anyone interested in the sport will understand these complexities as well. This simply is not the case for arts journalism, where expertise is considered, if anything, grounds for suspicion, a bit of a wank, and critics hold themselves at arm's length from practitioners because of fear of "influence". Complex ideas tend not to get space. Most critics - I have sat on endless panels "criticising the critics" - consider themselves part of a dialogue, but they do so for the most part in an extremely limited way, exercising their judgement from on high as a fiat. Very few - I can think of one, a dance critic - involve themselves actively in a dialogic way with arts practitioners.

There are exceptions, of course - the arts coverage in The Australian, for example, where ideas are explicitly encouraged, and in general expertise in the visual arts, such as a knowledge of art history, is considered permissible. Performing arts, and especially theatre, are treated as entertainment, and there is little decent, informed coverage of the artform in the mainstream daily press. Because the coverage is so dull - a problem reinforced in many cities that have only one daily newspaper aside from the national paper - it reinforces the prejudice that the artforms are dull, merely worthy, at best a minority or elite interest, although surveys have shown that Australians are among the most enthusiastic arts consumers in the world. This is the context where I feel it's worthwhile doing my blog.

The people who write about sport are all fans; a job on the sports desk is absolutely coveted. It is not so true of arts journalism, which is where they tend to assign people not considered good enough for hard news. Although those with an arts bent will get assigned there too, this can be just as bad - a fuzzy liking for the arts doesn't necessarily translate into sharp, informed or critical reportage.

Personally, I think the first duty of arts coverage anywhere is not to be dull. If mainstream coverage is inadequate or arrogant, those who want something more will look elsewhere. The internet is beginning to provide that elsewhere. The question - here in Australia at least - is whether traditional media will pick up the challenge that it represents. I don't think it's a question of either/or - the situation is much more interesting and complex than such a simple binary.