The trend is undeniable: US newspapers and weekly magazines have shed around 30 film critics over the last two years, either by sacking them outright or by forcing them into early retirement. Some - such as veteran David Ansen at Newsweek - are likely to be replaced; but many more, especially on regional papers, will not.

A survey of the spate of articles, op-eds and blog entries sparked by this critical cull reveals two main lines of argument.

One, which we might call the proprietorial view, is: 'Print revenues are shrinking, and we can't worry too much about film critics when we don't have enough staff to cover the presidential campaign.'

The other, which we might call the new-media view, sounds a familiar refrain: 'People don't read print reviews any more - they go to the web.'

Connecting both positions is the lament that critics today don't have the same influence they had, say, 20 years ago.

The fact the Library of America - home to the definitive editions of William Faulkner and other dead literary greats - recently dedicated a volume to 'American Movie Critics' could be further proof serious film criticism is being given its lifetime achievement award and shuffling offstage for good.

And yet what few of the op-edders have pointed out is that, as festival press-accreditation figures prove, more people than ever seem to scrape a living by writing about cinema. The late Alexander Walker, eminence grise of British film critics, liked to tell young upstarts like me that in his day, all the London reviewers could fit in the back of a Mini.

The spate of lay-offs in the US has probably as much to do with the contraction of its newspaper industry, and its relatively late conversion to flexible freelance contracts, as the demise of the critic. Indeed, the fact regional US newspapers are increasingly syndicating reviews from critics such as Roger Ebert or Carrie Rickey could paradoxically lead to a gradual return of the superstar 'name' reviewer.

To take the ongoing critical downsizing as proof there is a shrinking audience for film criticism is to indulge in a classic piece of false logic. I would argue that more people are reading more film reviews than ever before.

Teenagers who would have never bothered to visit the library to compare and contrast the views of 10 newspaper critics connect regularly to sites such as Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes to make judgments about what to see. OK, most may simply look at the approval ratings, but some will read the reviews and that means large numbers of schoolkids are engaging with a critical debate that only a tiny elite of their peers in the 1960s and 1970s would have been able to access.

Is the web so different'

The paradox, of course, is that critical overview websites derive their authority from the assumption the reviews they collate are written by unbiased, dependable professional film critics.

Of the 47 publications monitored by Metacritic, only eight are web-based. The less finicky Rotten Tomatoes posts reviews from 663 websites, compared to 285 newspapers and magazines. But tellingly, just four of its 45 'cream of the crop' outlets exist online exclusively, and only one of these - James Berardinelli's ReelViews - could be described as a self-funded film-fan's site.

Web users not only recognise reliable criticism when they read it, they are also increasingly aware of, and resistant to, the industry's attempts to stir and steer buzz through the use of trailers, dedicated teaser websites, fake blogs and carefully dosed fansite revelations.

So although the current dip in the number of salaried US film critics is more a reality-check than a recession, it does mean critics, and their employers, are facing the same dilemma as quality film-makers: how to make a decent living out of geographically diffuse audiences with eclectic, long-tail patterns of consumption who are used to getting things for free. And this hiccup comes at a time when good criticism - which illuminates by entering into an informed dialogue with its subject - is as relevant, necessary and sought-after as ever.