We are clearly in the pockets of the Yes camp (take a bow, George Foulkes), or the Better Together camp (the so-called CyberNats), sometimes both in the same week, or even in the same story.
On the one hand, we are dismissed as irrelevant in a debate which has moved to the blogosphere; on the other we are poisoning minds with our astonishing influence.
It seemed a good time to examine the role of the media in the independence referendum with a debate in the Spiegeltent in Edinburgh's George Street last Tuesday, in the middle of the Fringe frenzy.
And so it proved, with extra seats having to be found to accommodate the crowds of people who turned up, and a good supply of tricky questions coming from an engaged audience.
It was a large panel that attempted to cover many of the main areas of the current debate. Sunday Herald and Herald columnist Iain Macwhirter chaired the event. Joining me on the panel were media commentators Lesley Riddoch, Kevin McKenna and David Torrance, and online bloggers/activists Michael Gray (National Collective) and Kate Higgins (Burdzeyeview).
With hindsight it would have been a good idea to have included the BBC, as many of the questions focused on the role of the national broadcaster. Maybe next time.
For my part, I had wanted to bring out the main strands of criticism levelled against the mainstream media and to explain what I felt was the media's responsibility, and how different news organisations, including this one, were attempting to meet those responsibilities.
So I was pleased, for instance, to get the chance to counter untrue accusations that the Sunday Herald's proprietor had laid down an anti-independence editorial line.
But other complaints required more time to fully investigate than was available on Tuesday.
Riddoch, for example, made a fair point when she complained at the prominence given to male voices in the referendum debate. There was also unhappiness in the audience at, for instance, the importance placed on the views of the BBC's Andrew Marr when he complained of "Anglophobia" in the independence debate.
There were suspicions voiced on the media's supposed bias against independence and the SNP. Even when it was pointed out that Scottish newspapers - including this one - backed the SNP at the last two Holyrood elections, Higgins insisted they had done so only at the last minute and they had calculated they were backing a winner.
The increasing role played by online commentators and activists clearly exercised minds, too. National Collective found itself in the middle of controversy when it posted details - already in the public domain - about business activities of the company Vitol, whose president and chief executive Ian Taylor gave £500,000 to Better Together. National Collective's coverage attracted legal threats and was seen as a sign its coverage was initially more rigorous than that of the mainstream media.
Tuesday's debate also took place just after a crowd-funded poll by pro-independence online campaigner Wings Over Scotland was ignored by much of the mainstream media. Time restrictions prevented a full discussion on those topics.
There is a lot to be said for giving a public platform to allow these criticisms to be discussed and debated, but there remains a lot to be said on the issues.
There is a clear gulf between those committed to a position on independence and a mainstream media with a responsibility to present both sides of the debate and to give a platform to a wide range of views and voices.
Our debate certainly didn't bridge that gulf - but it hopefully will lead to more discussion. We'll certainly hold another one.