Posts Tagged ‘Adrian Monck’

The debate around Adrian Monck’s forthcoming book, Can You Trust the Media? (hence: CYTTM. I’m not typing that out every time) is starting to get going, ahead of the launch event this Wednesday. Stephen Pritchard (The Observer’s Readers Editor) is not a fan. Charlie Beckett, of POLIS, is more positive. Time for me to pitch in, methinks.
(more…)

Adrian Monck generously shared a PDF copy of his forthcoming book - “Can You Trust The Media?” with me, obviously in the hope that I’d direct some of my many thousands of unique blog visitors* towards purchase. I’ll be posting my thoughts, for what they’re worth, in the next few days.

For now, though, Monck’s book reminded me (i.e. directly referenced) an idea on information from Hal Varian - who, incidentally, is the author of the textbook which saved my bacon when learning information economics.

The idea is based on Malthus. The amount of information presented through media outlets grows exponentially, but the time available to consume it grows (at best) linearly. As such, more and more information is produced but not consumed.

To quote:

“The supply of information (in virtually every medium) grows exponentially whereas the amount that is consumed grows at best linearly. This is ultimately due to the fact that our mental powers and time available to process information is constrained.

This has the uncomfortable consequence that the fraction of the information produced that is actually consumed is asymptoting towards zero.”

The theory is that as more news is produced, especially rolling TV and internet news services vastly expanding quantity of output, fewer people follow each particular outlet, and less content is actually seen. When news is competing with other forms of media too, the effect is compounded. There are only so many hours in the day, after all.

Of course, the classic malthusian catastrophe - that exponential population group coupled with linear growth in agriculture would lead to eventual starvation for all - turned out to be (thus far) a fallacy. The Malthus model underestimated productivity increases in farming, which have greatly increased crop yields over given areas. Population growth also didn’t continue quite as modelled - birth rates fall in developed countries. Agriculture growth is more-than-linear, population not-quite-exponential.

Is this the case for information too? To a certain extent, almost certainly.

Look back 30 years. The time available to watch television (for example) would be rather limited - evenings, when the family is gathered round. Radio, books and newspaper were less constricted in terms of time, but in terms of efficiency of gathering media, not great.

New technology is allowing media to be accessed more quickly: RSS readers allow users to pull in content from a variety of sources extremely quickly and efficiently. Mobile internet and video increase the time available to consume multimedia content.

Many users now multi-task media consumption: as I write this blog post, I have new RSS posts appearing in the bottom left of my screen, and the Today programme playing through the radio.

Software such as iPlayer and 4od - plus Sky+ - allow output to be watched at a variety of times, giving users more flexibility and access to media than ever before.

Enough waffle: the profileration of media is coupled with a variety of tools (and a change in usage patterns) to make consumption easier and more efficient. Talking about constraints of time as fixed and immutable is an over-simplification. The malthusian situation is a worst-case scenario, which in any case would not necessarily make the case for the influence of any given media source diminishing in influence.

Of course, it doesn’t quite sweep the problem away - media does seem to be fragmenting, and news channels seem to have pretty small audiences, relatively speaking. But Varian’s theory, elegant though it is, is unlikely to be the sole, or even primary, driving force behind it.

That said, he’s still an ace economist…

*Note well: The truth of this statement depends on how one defines “many”. And note the absence of time frame in the statement.

And so naturally, I watched the BBC’s offering. Funny, but coincidentally they had two big set-piece stories the same day ITV relaunched. Lucky for them, right? John Simpson has spent a week reporting undercover in Zimbabwe (the beeb, of course, is banned from the country) and presented the first of his reports tonight.

Then - smell the populism, folks - they ran an exclusive interview with Robert Murat’s mother, under perhaps slightly tenuous justification: Murat had a hearing to see if he would remain a suspect in the case. He will remain a suspect, so essentially nothing changed in a very old story. But, in fairness, there’s STILL a heck of a lot of public interest in the story, and it’s their show. *cough* Spoiler tactics? *cough*

This does bode well though: BBC’s 10′o’clock output is good, but has coasted in the last year or two with (basically) no competition. TV’s tribalism could mean both camps go all-out to beat each other. Which for news addicts like me, will be great stuff. I look forward to it.

Now to watch ITV’s effort on the digibox - though Adrian Monck’s given his far more distinguished opinion here. Apparently it’s running commercial-free. Interesting.

Update: Charlie Beckett posts his thoughts on the relaunch here. He says:
“Now it is back in the comfy old armchair of a 10pm slot (except on Fridays and weekends) and it looks, well, comfy. There was one new media reference but no gimmicks and little graphics…but ultimately things will not stand still and in the long-term ITN’s future will be secured by its tradition of innovation not nostalgia.”

To a good extent I agree, and it’s made me think. Every UK household will be multi-channel in the next four years, as the digital switchover proper takes place. For ITV to place a “mainstream” news show smack in the middle of its evening schedule seems strange in this context - it seemed more likely that ITV would try to ditch some public service obligations as competition opens up. News is not usually a great ratings-grabber (though gets a nice advertising demographic, making the lack of break even more baffling). The move smacks of nostalgia.

Or, perhaps, it’s a public service token. Grade is lobbying for more freedom from Ofcom advertising restrictions to help improve ITV1’s ad revenues. Compromising here may help him achieve commercial goals elsewhere. If that goal is reached, and news at ten struggles to get a good share of ABC1 news viewers from the BBC, it’s not impossible News at ten could be shelved in 2 or 3 years time…

Cynical? Me?

Last update: In the ratings, the BBC beat the news News at Ten by 1m. In a week’s time, that would be no big deal - the BBC’s established in the slot, after all. But the launch night of a much-trailed programme really should pull in more than 1.4m more viewers than the 10:30pm slot’s average. This does not bode well. Though, in honesty, I skip the 10 and head straight for newsnight - I can get straight news coverage far more quickly online.

If there’s a decent chunk of news “consumers” like me, then the 10′o’clock broadcasts will skip some eager news consumers and so only hit a more casual audience - ironically the aim to be more populist might lose them viewers. Just a (rambling) thought…

Professor Adrian Monck has thrown his hat into the ring in the current round of NUJ-bashing.

Having had very few dealings with the NUJ (short of binning the Journalist magazine), I’m in absolutely no position to comment of the merits of the NUJ. Indeed, I would be more than happy to take Professors Greenslade and Monck at their word and not join. But for one thing.

Professor Monck is the head of City university’s school of journalism, and Roy Greenslade teaches there. I, as most of you know, am a student of said school. And when we had out induction last month, we were “advised” in no uncertain terms to join the NUJ (at a bargain student rate of £25 - a 150 per cent price hike on last year).

In fairness, this advice didn’t come from Prof. Monck himself, but still: the blog post indicates quite strong longstanding opinions on the NUJ, from someone whose faculty then delivers some 150 or so new journalists into the organisation. Can’t help but feel that someone, somewhere down the line, needs to make their mind up, here. Union membership for students is all about getting the press card - but would the BAJ or some other body perhaps be able to do the job?

I hesitate to criticise (even flippantly) someone who not only writes a blog I very much enjoy, but also heads up my educational facility. However, I’m sure Adrian Monck is a very reasonable man. Here’s hoping.