The Tiny Lights script continues to be batted back and forth. Captain Pete is full of bright ideas and I'm surprised by how easy I'm finding it to play second mate, twice removed. I watched the Captain's new film, ‘Endgame', again tonight. It's such a smart and edgy piece of work. He clearly knows his onions. 

Tiny Lights is, of course, a conspiracy thriller, so one argument we keep returning to is the competence of otherwise of MI5 - funny against the backdrop of recent events. I've long been the cheerleader for MI5 uselessness, but I can't decide whether I feel mostly vindicated or unnerved by the latest examples that prove my point: like Bob Quick resigning after revealing intelligence tactics through a clear plastic folder - I can't imagine the Captain would have stood for that if I'd tried to pass it off as a plot beat.

However, I'm personally less perturbed by Quick's indiscretion than the implications of what followed. Look at the timeline: the Assistant Commissioner tic-tacked the tactics, the operation was brought forward, and a dozen were arrested, we're told, for plotting the most horrifying atrocity since 7-7. Then, a fortnight later, every one was released without charge. I mean, if Quick were going to resign, shouldn't it have been for being at the helm of such a hare-brained mission in the first place?

There is something deeply sinister about all this. Do you remember the media coverage - the CCTV images, interviews with apologetic Pakistani diplomats, talk of populous targets like shopping centres and nightclubs? And yet, of course, the eventual release of every single ‘suspect' was barely a story at all. One day we were in danger (loudly), the next we weren't (oh-so-quietly). I'm not (particularly) suggesting a deliberate manipulation of the public consciousness by politicians, media or intelligence services, merely observing the way the so-called ‘war on terror' is open to such. How long will it go on?

The most intriguing aspect of all this for me is the light it throws upon our information culture. After all, the received wisdom is that a diversity of information sources should generate diverse viewpoints and, therefore, the probability of balance. And yet the opposite seems to be true. We have more access to more sources of information than at any point in human history, and yet the media that most people consume is more homogenous and, therefore, toothless than ever.

I assume this is a product of the market imperative. Imagine living on a high street with half a dozen restaurants - a couple of bistros, a Chinese, an Italian, and two fried chicken joints. The chicken joints are the cheapest and most unhealthy, but they're what people want. Within a year, five restaurants sell fried chicken and the sixth is a vegetarian that's highly recommended in Time Out, but dying a slow death.

This is, in fact, a description of the Goldhawk Road. But it's also a description of the present state of our media. Restaurants don't care about the quality of their food, but our appetite for it. Media outlets don't care about the quality of their information, but our appetite for it. This makes neither fast food chefs nor journalists bad or dishonest people. But you clearly shouldn't consume fried chicken or the mainstream media if you want to preserve a healthy heart.

I'll get off my high horse in a minute, but not just yet ...

In the light of the above, isn't it ridiculous that we keep trumpeting the freedom of our press with such pride? Freedom, after all, is relative. I'm free to fly out of my window but, lacking any wings, I'm likely to end up with a face full of pavement. So too our media is free to say anything, but only as restricted by that market imperative (even as The Times and Sunday Times lose £1M a week).

Of course, truth, in all its complexity, is also relative. Therefore, I've concluded the best I can hope for is to watch Al-Jazeera, read the Pakistani papers online and even tuck into those conspiracy theory blogs that are mostly exploitative and despicable. There's every chance that such resources are wrong too. But at least they're wrong differently.