I hate to grumble, but I don't think Tony Blair's assessment of the state of the media industry is entirely accurate and frankly, it's rather depressing.
While I'm sure that the stress of dealing with what he describes as a more intense media must have taken its toll, the fact that news machines now operate 24/7 is hardly a new observation.
"The media world - like everything else - is becoming more fragmented, more diverse and transformed by technology. The main BBC and ITN bulletins used to have audiences of 8, even 10 million. Today the average is half that. At the same time, there are rolling 24 hour news programmes that cover events as they unfold. In 1982, there were 3 TV stations broadcasting in the UK. Today there are hundreds. In 1995 225 TV shows had audiences of over 15 million. Today it is almost none."
He continues:
"Newspapers fight for a share of a shrinking market. Many are now read on-line, not the next day. Internet advertising has overtaken newspaper ads. There are roughly 70 million blogs in existence, with around 120,000 being created every day. In particular, younger people will, less and less, get their news from traditional outlets."
What is he on about? People aren't watching TV news, and newspaper circulation is dropping? It sounds like Grandad's lament about having to walk 15 miles to school.
Fewer people might be watching TV news and reading, but to take an example from homebase, the Guardian website is read by 16m people around the world online. Blair goes on to say that the web is crucial to the modern BBC and that newspapers have podcasts, but the tone is negative and without any hard stats that back up the ultimately positive trends of immediate, relevant and powerful online news. Not to mention the potential of reaching an unprecedented number of people and that elusive younger audience. No?
