TRIGGERnometry - "Journalism Is in Crisis" - Tom Latchem

Episode Date: August 19, 2020

Tom Latchem is a journalist and broadcaster. Tom has just launched R.O.A.R: The '90s Rave Podcast, a new podcast series featuring interviews with DJs, MCs, producers, from the era. Subscribe at https://www.youtube.com/c/ROAR90sRavePodcast/ Support TRIGGERnometry: Paypal: https://bit.ly/2Tnz8yq https://www.subscribestar.com/triggernometry https://www.patreon.com/triggerpod Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello and welcome to Trigonometry. I'm Francis Foster. And I'm Constance and Kissin. And this is the show for you, if you want honest conversations with fascinating people. Our brilliant guest today is a journalist and broadcaster.

Tom Latcham, welcome to Trigonometry. How you doing that? I feel slightly overwhelmed by that intro. And also, given who you've had in the past, slightly cowed as well, you know, I mean, the brilliance of Peter Hitchens and Mike Graham. Hello, Mike, am you watching?

I know, Mike. He doesn't watch the show. Well, Mike gave me my break in radio. So Mike was the man that got me onto TalkSport for the first time, and I used to do a paper review with him every week on the overnight show, and then I end up getting my own show on TalkSport. So if you are watching, Mike, thanks, but it didn't work. All right, so if this is shit, you know who to play.

But I'll joke and decide, it's great to have you on the show, Tom. Just tell us a little bit about for anyone who doesn't know who you are, what is your background, like what's been your journey through life that leads you to be sitting here in this chair. So I've always been into, I've always been good at English, I suppose. My dad was a journalist for the BBC for 20 years. My younger brother is also a journalist for the BBC. He currently works for Five Live.

So there is very much a journalistic background in our family. And so I decided I wanted to be a newspaper journalist when I was about 14. I did work experience, all that stuff. Ended up getting on the Daily Mirror graduate training scheme, straight out of university, worked there for three years, pissed everybody off. They move me. And this is why he's on the podcast. Yeah, they move me to the people, which was like the runt of the litter, you know,

like in Trinity Mirror, you've got the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, and then the people, and all the wrong ones, works on the people. And basically, the Daily Mirror, they said, yeah, you know, you're a good journalist, but you're a rough, in fact, I remember my boss saying, you're a rough diamond and someone will knock the edges off you, but basically it wasn't going to be him, and he moved to the people. So I went to the people for a year, which was miserable, because, you know, I mean, the people has a proud tradition,

but I don't think that proud tradition has been there for quite a number of years. And I got head hunted from there, right at the end of my graduate training scheme. I'd signed a contract to be on the people to take their staff job, and then then used the world head hunted me just after I'd handed in my contract and said, do you want to come and join us on the features team? And so I had to go back and say, that contract I've just signed, can I not go through that? which again pissed people off.

I got put on garden leave, and then I went and joined the news of the world where I was a feature writer and then became TV editor quite quickly within about a year. And then, of course, the newspaper shut and thrust me out into the world. And I decided at that point

I'd try and become a radio presenter because I'd done some radio and really enjoyed it. I loved the thrill of broadcasting. And actually, when I'd started my career, I'd always thought I'll do newspapers, then radio, then TV. a nice sort of journey. And I worked on that, freelance journalism,

worked on the attempt to become a radio presenter. Mike Graham gave me that opportunity. And then a couple of years later, basically this is what happens at TalkSport. They had a big gap. And they were like, oh, we're going to do it? Tom, do you want to do it? And I was like, absolutely yes.

So I did the overnight show for the weekends for like two or three years. And thoroughly enjoyed it. I think the ratings were among the highest they've ever been when I left, but it became obvious that I wasn't going anywhere on the talk sport. So I decided to jump before I was pushed. And so I left a year ago. And now I do, I have everything really a bit PR,

a bit of a bit of broadcasting, just about to launch my own podcast on the 90s rave scene. If you want to check it out, raw, it's called, Raw, the 90s rave podcast. If you're into that, There'll be like one person maybe that's listening to this that might be. And I'd, yeah, just do all sorts of bit of journalism, a bit of PR and a bit of, a bit of broadcasting, a bit of everything, really.

So you were broad, so you were tabloid journalist for very many years? I was, I was. And even when I was a freelance journalist, I was generally serving tabloid newspapers because the money is not really there on broad. Broadsheets don't tend to pay for stories in the way that broad, that tabloids did. So I would, yeah, I mean, I've been a tabloid sort of, I would say, tabloid journalist. Tabloids Starford for five years, a freelance journalist working in tabloids for 15.

Yeah. And when you see tabloid journalists criticising tabloid journalism, what is your initial impression? Do you think they get a lot of unfair criticism, or do you think it's fair the criticism that they receive? I do feel, and this will maybe annoy some of my former colleagues, and I apologise to them if it does. Well, I do, I feel that newspapers are very old-fashioned.

I think that when the news the world shut there was a sea change there was a desire for newspapers to be more modern you know you look at just an example there was calls for such long time after that for the sun to drop page three and it took forever for them to do it and it was only when they were dragging

and kicking and screaming to do so and I felt that there was an opportunity after the news the world shut for tabloid newspapers to modernize to seek a younger audience. Maybe they just were never going to buy newspapers, I don't know, but they focused on, they sort of retreated and entrenched into their ever diminishing, aka dying, readership.

And I just felt that they became decreasingly less relevant. And so now, obviously, online, the rise of online is where you're saying. And you are seeing those big brands, male, the son, the Guardian, and you're still seeing those big brands dominating that market. But I think they probably started too late. There was no cohesion in how they did it. Some did a paywall, some didn't.

And the fact is you can get most of your news for free. You can't put the genie back in the bottom now and make people pay. And I think that's a big problem for the newspapers. And online journalism doesn't really pay very well. They get kids in. It's journalism. They're ripping off. articles. I should point out

they are doing some original journalism, the Guardian of course. The Sun does quite a lot of original online journalism. Telegraph as well I'd say on the broadsheets. Yeah, yeah. There is some original journalism but there's a lot of journalism and there's you know the

the talent, the experience has been lost out of newspapers and therefore the quality and the stories that they're delivering are lower and less good. And that's an issue. I think it's more about massive content than quality of content. And do you think that's mainly a technological transformation

where, as you say, people don't want to buy a physical newspaper. They might not want to buy one for ethical reasons. They might not want to waste the paper. A lot of people think that way as well. You know, you can't get them delivered anymore. Yeah. Oh, I mean, you can get the times delivered centrally. But you can't, generally you can't get,

and there's not many places that do newspaper delivery. So unless you go to the supermarket, and actually, this is another thing. that's just hastening the death of newspapers is coronavirus. Most people would get it when they went to the supermarket. Or they went to the shop of a morning. Well, coronavirus, people weren't going to the supermarkets or the shop every morning.

They would go once a week when they needed to because it wasn't essential. Well, therefore, newspapers, the newspaper sales just fell off a cliff over coronavirus. That plus online, they were doing ad blocking. I don't know if you know anything about this, but basically the advertising companies, basically have a list of block words where if there's a certain block word they cannot advertise on that page. You can fine tune it individually,

but one of the words was coronavirus. So all stories feature coronavirus. Even if you're interviewing a celebrity now, you ask them how their lockdown was. How has coronavirus been for you? So even if it's not, you know, because I understand why they might not want to advertise on a page about X number of deaths per day.

I totally understand that. But to blanket ban coronavirus seems absurd, particularly given that it is enveloping everything. And so they lost millions and millions of pounds. So again, that means there's less money to invest back into journalism. And I think it's just hastened the, probably hasten the death of newspapers. And I think newspapers, people like having something to hold.

A lot of the people have been speaking to, friends, they think they've probably got, like, 10, 20 years, but it will probably be the bigger brands that exist as newspapers, and then it will go all online. But we're a million miles from, like, they're made online monetizes it, but just about. But no one else, I think the sun online washes its own face just about, but that doesn't mean the next huge amounts of money. And, you know, the Guardian, as we've seen, it relies on money from, you know, the Scott Trust. They sold, they sold, they used to an auto trader, they sold that for just a couple of hundred million pounds, something like that. And so all that money is going, but when you've sell everything

and you haven't got any more Scott Trust money, you are unable, you have to monetize it. And I think they're doing an okay online, but certainly not making huge. Well, the Guardian, I mean, their section at the bottom begging people for money is now bigger than half their articles. But you know, I was asking you about the technological point, because I guess one of the things we've explored quite a bit on the show is that, what you might describe more broadly as the kind of decline of the mainstream media more generally. And the feeling among many people that the mainstream media don't seem to be offering the substantive stuff that they used to, which is where stuff like this comes in, where people actually have the conversations.

And that's obviously not a newspaper thing. It's more of an online, the radio, all of that stuff, TV. A lot of people now feel like the mainstream media is no longer doing the job that we think of the mainstream media as being, there to do. Do you know what I mean? I do. A good example is sport. So the sports coverage, it was certainly in the tabloids, it would be all about transfer rumors. Well, I mean, nowadays, if you want a transfer rumor, you'd get them anywhere. You know, you can get that stuff anywhere.

Like, all sorts of places are doing it. I don't believe half it anyway. It's all, it's all sort of, you know, agents who want to get something out there, you know, and hardly any of it, hardly anything you read exclusive transfer-wise is like really a, genuine exclusive. So what I was thinking was like, why don't they, and why don't they switch to analysis? You know, because that's the sort of stuff you can't get anywhere, because, you know, you need to be really in tune with the people who, who know what they're talking about.

You know, you need to be having those conversations on a daily basis. Those websites that run my kids don't have those. Let them do the transfer crap. Fine, whatever. But it's that sort of in-depth analysis, which is why you've seen the athletic, you know, be so successful, because actually it focuses on, I mean, they could do a good sub-editor because the article is way too long, but they do focus on in-depth issues and explore things, tactical side of things, all that stuff. And I just felt, why don't they do that? So, you know, there was an opportunity, for instance, in that area to provide something that is different and makes them stand out that they've got the budgets and the capabilities and the staff to do, and they haven't really done it.

So that's an example of how they're failing, I think. And it's also, do you know, I think as well, Tom, as the fact that people no longer have faith in what they're being told by the mainstream media, a lot of people no longer believe it. Yeah, I mean, there's definitely a trust issue. And then that goes across the board. Well, where that comes from,

it's probably partly to do with their own fault through a series of... Honestly, it's a series of things, isn't it? You know, phone hacking, which erodes, you know, erodes that sort of trust. It's the close links between the police. and the government and the newspapers, which again erodes that trust. It's the sourced quotes where you don't know where they come from and they're not named.

And that erodes the trust. And, yeah, there's just a series of things. But you've also got lots of people like Donald Trump and other people, not necessarily Boris Johnson, but, you know, Dominic Cummings, whatever, just telling people that this is, you can't believe this, it's fake news when it isn't. And I think there's just been a, there's just a sort of, series of factors, like a maelstrom of factors that have led to this position. And it's partly to do with the newspapers. It's partly their fault. But I wouldn't say it's all their fault.

And you don't think part of it is the fact that what we've got now, a lot of it is advocacy journalism. Like you go on to The Guardian, you know that they're going to give you a very particular outlook. And you know it's not going to be objective. The problem is, though, is that neutral journalism is boring. No one just wants to read neutral journalism. It's dull. Like, you know, it doesn't interest people, doesn't excite people. You know, the thing is when you work in the tabloids, one thing tabloids do well, historically have done well, whether they do so any more is it can be debated.

But the one thing they did do, particularly the Daily Mail, whether you like it or you hate it, well, it was always coached when I do my journalism training, is make this story like me. So it's like, when you read it, you're like, why are they going to live in a 450,000-pound house in a leafy suburb? You're like, what does that matter? It does.

It's subconscious. It's people going, oh, they're just like me. So you carry on reading it. You know, I was once told, and this is appalling, by the way, I was once told on one of my newspapers that I was working at, if you ever have a story about an Asian lottery winner, put their name in the seventh paragraph. Because if you put it in the top paragraph or the second paragraph,

whatever it's going to be, people won't read it. And the majority of newspaper, readers are, certainly tabloids are white, 10 million attention to be working class people. Now, whether that's true or not, I have no idea. I was appalled by the idea that they would do this and that it might be true, but that gives you an idea.

Their writing going, right, we need to angle this story, so it appeals to our readers. And that is what tabloids have done historically very, very well, and particularly the male under Paul Dacre, a long time, you know, particularly, you know, when it's at its pomp. they did they frame a story so it appeals you know and that's why there's lots of sexy stuff in tabloids

because whether you like it or you don't that does appeal to people it does interest people it gets people looking at it it gets people reading at it reading those stories if it's just plain and bland and there are paper I'm not going to name the paper

there's a particular paper I can think of that is run pretty straight and it isn't particularly political and it's not that interesting to read look I spend a lot of lot of time telling you what's wrong with the world. So let me tell you about something that's actually right. Sleep, specifically getting more of it, better quality, the kind where you wake up and feel like a human being, rather than someone who's been thrown down a staircase. Most mattresses

are just layers of synthetic foam and crossed fingers. You're spending a third of your life on the thing, and most people have no idea what's actually in it. Avicardo green mattress is different. Their mattresses are certified organic, built from natural materials designed to actually support your body properly rather than just hold you in one position until morning. The craftsmanship is real. These are mass-produced objects. Someone has put thought into them. I'll be honest.

I'm not the person who thinks carefully about where he sleeps. My dating history will tell you that. I'm the person who's been on the same mattress for eight years and called it fine. But the older I get, the more I notice that fine isn't actually fine. Your body tells you, if you're going to invest in anything for your home, your bed is the one that pays you back. every single night. Avocado products are made, not manufactured, and thoughtfully crafted with real materials

to deliver lasting comfort and support. Go to avocado greenmatress.com slash trigger to check out their mattress and furniture sale. That's avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. Avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. Yeah, so it's difficult to strike that balance where you've got to be, you know, as objective as possible.

but you need a little bit of the flavour. And also, they're owned by people who have political opinions. Yeah. You know, political views. So, you know, you look at, well, it was slightly weird with the Times and the Sunn of Times because one was remained and one was leave, which was always weird, which suggests, actually, that Rupert Murdoch's view wasn't as strong on it as it might have, as it might have, we might have believed. Because we all know that he, you know, I think we all know that Rupert Murdoch is that wanted to leave the EU.

The Sun was very strong on it. the Times, the Sunday Times, I think, was leave and the Times was remain. So, you know, but you do have these owners of these newspapers pumping money into it. You know, they're not doing it because they, you know, they might do it partly because they love journalism. But that's not reason why they're doing it. They're doing it because they want power, influence, they want to make change. And so, therefore, you have to reflect what your owner wants sometimes. Sometimes you reflect what you think that your reader wants.

So the sun was very much leave because most sun readers were leave. But there are factors that influence why a paper writes certain things in a certain way that are beyond just its politics. Well, let's pick up on that actually, because that's a thing that I think most people don't think about, which is all of these broadcasters or most of the broadcasters other than the BBC radio stations, newspapers, tabloid newspapers, they're all owned by somebody, and those people usually own them because they have very strong agendas. To what extent do you think that influences the kind of the direction of the publication? They're all different. Yeah, they're all different. But other people who are just like, you know what, I bought this thing, and you now do what you

or whatever you want? Who does that? Who buys a business and go, do what the fuck you want with it? Nobody. Nobody does that. Of course. I mean, that would be insanity. Well, probably the owners of West Ham, mate. Well, I mean, ultimately, also, I mean, you know, to be honest, they'd like to make money off it, but they're not making a huge amount of money of these papers anymore, are there? So why do they have them? Yeah. You know, when Rupert Murdoch dies, what will happen to the son?

I don't think his kids care about, particularly. It's something they're interested. So what will happen to them? No one knows. But it's something that you'd think about because he's, what is the 82? Something like that? You know, he's not going to be around forever. So what happens then? I honestly, I don't know. but I think that's a very interesting moment for

for newspaper journalism because he's one of the few people who does love newspapers, it's in his blood, you know, his dad was a newspaper journalist in Australia and stuff like that. So, but yeah, to go back to your question, some people do do it because they love journalism because it's important, but they also use it for influence, you know, for lobbying. You know, all the various different owners

like to be, like to know the prime minister. you know they like to be seen with all these people so therefore it's that and there's many reasons why they would do it but also they you know they don't do it to lose money and just allow someone else to just run it how they want but I would say as well actually is like I'm not sure because Rupert Murdoch gets probably an unfair reputation

about how much he influences newspapers and I speak to people who work there I've got very close friends who are very senior on some of the news UK papers now I don't think his influence is as strong as everyone thinks it is these days. I think he largely allows it to exist. He might, you know, once,

I mean, he's famously, you know, Pierce Morgan wrote in his diaries, was it back in 2006, talked about when he was the editor of the news of the world, when he was a kid about being flown out around the world to meet Rupert Murdoch, to be anointed, and then he would like

often ring up. I think there was one story, I said he had a story about one of the Emmerdale stars shagging someone or something. It was a lame story, and he was going to put it on the front and Rupert Murdoch rang up as he would do every Saturday and so what are you going to put on what are you going to put on the front page and he said I've got this story and he was like I can't remember the exact quote but it was like I mean that's a joke obviously isn't it you're not going to do

that and he was like I don't think he does that anymore and I wonder whether the news of the world what happened with that he probably was getting a bit his influence or his desire to be influential on it was probably decreasing and then that sort of that was a big paper that went. How much of an influence he has, I don't know, but I don't believe it's probably as strong as everyone, you know, your punter on the street, believes it to be. I could be wrong, by the way. You know, I mean, all of this is just from conversations I've had, but that surprised me. But, you know, you've got to, I've got to believe people who work in that building. But you look at the Times and their journalists are fairly balanced. You tend to get someone

from the right, whether it's a Melanie Phillips and you get somebody from the left and then you get somebody from the centre and all the rest of it, they tend to be quite balanced in their outlook, which... They do. What I will say is, and it's a person you might be able to get on, might want to get on the show in the future. A guy called Mick Wright, he's on Twitter. He's quite a prolific, sort of writer.

He's quite anti-papers. And he does this thing where he... So newspapers always say they want to appeal to a younger audience. So he adds up the ages of the columnists. And the averages, and the average is... usually men, generally, white men, generally, of, you know, who were in their late 40s, early 50s. Yeah. So you say they're balanced, but they may be balanced in terms of their politics, but they're not

balanced in terms of their ethnicity, in terms of their backgrounds, in terms of their ages, are they? And all that is impactful upon what they're right. Of course it is. So do you think they need to be more balanced if they're going to appeal to a younger generation? I think they've missed a boat. I mean, I don't think newspapers are going to appeal to younger people. I think they missed that opportunity. And I watched it happen. And I was like, go on, you can do it, you can do it.

And they just missed it as I was watching. I'm like, right, okay, fine. That's that then. I mean, online is a different beast altogether. And actually, online journalism is a fascinating thing to think about. I've never worked in online journalism. So I can't say how it operates on a day-by-day basis in terms of, of how they select the stories and whatever.

But from what I do know is, I mean, I know that they have real time. They can literally see in real time what stories doing well and what stories doing back. And a lot of the stories you'll see will be based solely around what is trending that day, right? So, or that week. What's big? So, you know, Game of Thrones, always massive. Anything you can link to Game of Thrones online because it comes up in the search engines. It comes up in the, you know, if you Google, the Sun or the whatever Game of Thrones stories on the carousel on Google, that's how they do it.

Now, what you could say is with that, you can, sometimes I'll pitch a story to them, and they'll say, it's not going to do anything for us. And you're like, but it's a good story. And they're like, it's not going to do anything for us. And you're like, right, so what's the judge of what you do? How do you judge what story you use? It's clicks.

It's clicks. So you could say, well, that is the pure democratization of newspapers, of media. Like for ages, we've just been reliant on one bloke, or woman, but largely a bloke. often white, often privately educated, sitting in an office, gets his news list, they come in, they present in conference, they say, these are the stories, he goes, that's the splash, that's the page three, that's the page five, you know, the four or five spread,

that's the page eight or the page six or the page eight opinion piece. Done. And you're like, what are you basing that on? Now you'd hope that they would do some sort of, you know, they're such massive organisations with such amount of money in them, or, you know, that they would do, sort of like, what would you call them, a group, you know, studies where they ask people,

what are you like, what are you interested in? So, you know, you've got a basis. But ultimately, it comes down to one person's decision. So have you been getting it wrong the whole time? Has this person been getting it wrong? And actually, this isn't what people are interested in. Oh, it's a great story, but it's not what people are interested in. Whereas now you know what people are interested in.

it's slightly skewed because a lot of you know some things are shared by facebook so therefore who's sharing that i'm not i mean on facebook but only just it's my mum it's my you know it's my army it's not young people anymore they're the ones that are driving the numbers so is it democratization so you know it it's it's an interesting sort of thought or the or discussion to have about is it is it is it pure journalism actually or or is it slightly bastard i don't know it's it it it's it The honest answer is I don't know the truth, but what I do know is that selecting things purely on the basis of one person's view of what is a great story and the best story of the day is not necessarily reflecting what the readers want. But the downside with that, the other model, which, you know, I write for a couple of opinion pieces for a couple of papers online. And they talk to me all the time about, oh, this article did this well and the article did this.

I suppose the problem with that is it kind of, we talked about echo chambers for last four years, because it's Brexit and Trump and stuff like that. It pushes people, I think, and that's the danger, is it pushes people into more and more of the same thing that they already like. And also, if you look, so I don't know what articles you've written and how well they did,

but I suspect. They were fucking amazing. Of course, the singers. Writing more, are you? Yeah, always on the phone. He's doing very well at BuzzFeed. I don't think BuzzFeed's doing very well. Certainly not the news.

Certainly not the news department. Sorry, anyone who's watching is from Buzzfeed, who's lost your job. We don't care. I know what I do. I feel your pain. I've been there, and what I will say is you'll be fine.

Hopefully not. But what I would say, you know, those articles that you did, and they said how well or bad they did, I don't know if you can, if they said as much as this, but I would be, I'd highly bet that the ones that did well

were the ones who were incredibly polemic, rather than nuanced. So it goes back to your, why don't we write things straight? Fucking boring me. No, I want to read it. What people want to read. And actually, I think it's unhealthy for public discourse, for starters.

But also, I think it's unhealthy for young writers because they're told if you write something. And when you're a kid and you're like 18, when you're 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, you'll write anything. And because you're like, I'm going to get published. But what you don't think is you're going to get a backlash. That's going to be there forever. You're going to get a backlash that could haunt you for the rest of your career. and you're told if you don't do this thing, then it isn't going to go in and you're not going to get paid.

So you're like, okay, I'll write this thing. Even when you believe it or you don't believe it. Because no one likes balanced debate or argument. Like you say, all those columnists, you're Melanie Phillips, you're David Aranovich's, none of them are going, here's my thoughts, but on the other hand, that. No one does that. Because they don't.

They go, this is what I believe, and this is one opinion. You know, there might be some balance in it, but not really. So, you know, I think that's a worry. I mean, if I can take the lead in this conversation, I think there's a real crisis at the moment. We're heading towards a crisis in journalism in Britain, the world, but I can really talk specifically for Great Britain, because the American journalism is a different model to British journalism. You know, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times do fantastically well because they did a payable. We basically, the newspaper industry in the UK didn't embrace online.

journalism soon enough so therefore it's hard it they're set up so newspapers are set up so you go against each other that's just their natural way that they are they're organized even internally and the news the world news used to go up against features all the time it was it was bonkers we'd be fighting over the same stories and outbidding each other on the same stories and in the end they have to you've got to stop doing that so basically all journalism is like is set up at certainly story getting you know, so breaking of stories. It's like it's set up so you, you're competing against everybody else, right? So newspapers are by their nature not collaborative. But what it required was, back when the internet was, was starting, was, was becoming clear. Unfortunately, we had people

at the top of newspapers who were old and they didn't understand it and they believed that they would always be relevant and powerful. Now, they've asked a few young people who were, you know, younger people who actually worked in online, what's the future of this, what's going to be, can you come and work with us and show us what we're doing? That would have been the sensible thing to do. Or maybe set up a task force where they all came together. But they didn't because they don't work like that. They might have something, they might talk, but there's no collective movement where they go, right, we need to do this. Because if we don't, it's going to lead to this. They just went, we're going to be fine. We're fine. We're making money. We're going to be fine. And they're not

fine. And so what you've got is, you know, if some have a paywall, some that don't. I mean, they all pretty much the Telegraph actually does and I think the Independent does. Spexator does. But the spectator does. Yeah, although that's not a newspaper, yeah. But, you know, the sun doesn't. It tried for a bit, I think.

Did it try for a bit. The news the world tried for a bit. Didn't go, you know, people weren't paying for it. The Guardian doesn't. There's no across-the-board thing. And as I said to you earlier, you know, once you've not paid for something, you don't want to pay for it in the future. It's hard to make people then pay for that.

So they're struggling to monetize it. They didn't get online presences for like 10 years too late. I remember in 2008 when I was other people. I remember my boss there saying, I was saying, when are we going to get a website? It's 2008. And they said, oh, it's coming on in single digit weeks. I'd left by the time it happened.

It didn't happen. And you're like, this is bonkers guys. This is so mad. So they were always playing catch up because they were full of hubris. You know, the bosses there were full of hubris. they were like, we're going to be fine, we're indestructible, we're the best. Well, we now see they're not and they're dying. So they were late to get into that point. They don't know how to monetize it. So what you're seeing is newspapers now, they are slashing staff, they are slashing

budgets, they're slashing the pagination, advertising has gone through the floor because people aren't really buying it anymore. The sales are dying, but they're still struggling to monetize online. But what they want with online is lots of stories. So basically, I used to be, be able to sell when I was a freelance journalist. So I used to be able to sell stories to some of the tabloids and some pay better than others. We don't need to say who paid best. But, you know, I could sell a page lead for sometimes, probably 900 pounds. And it wouldn't be, you know, wouldn't be a huge amount of work. That's great. You know, you're lost like, ring them up. Got a story. Do you want it yet, right? I didn't ever to write it. You write it. And they pay you

like 900 pounds, maybe for a spread. You might get a couple of grand for a splash you're going to get up to maybe 10,000 pounds. And what you're sorry, just sort of, just to be clear, what you're bringing in is the information. Yeah. I mean, sometimes I'll write it if they're busy or whatever, but I mean, I did, I mean, the ideal situation is you get a tip and you ring out, ring someone up and you say, do you want this? And they go, yes, we do. And I go, can I leave it with you? And they say, yes. So all you do is you're passing on a bit of information and you're getting paid, you know, but sometimes I'll write them. I tend not to have my name on them because, you know, whatever. I'm beyond that. I don't, I don't need my name on stories anymore. It's irrelevant. And actually,

to be honest, I don't really sell anymore. I'll come on to that while I don't. So you used to be able to get that for page lead in those papers. Now, I mean, I think there's some papers. You have to get a sign off on anything over 100, 200 quid. Really? Yeah. So, you know, if you're thinking, once upon a time, I was able to make one story 900 pounds, you know, that's a pretty decent week's wage. You know, I mean, if you get a couple, you're laughing. Now, you have to sell five or ten of those to make their money, and that's in the paper alone, but they're not paying as much. So it's all being done internally. Therefore, their stories are less good. And it's just this sort of vicious cycle. And it goes down and down and down. Payments are less.

Pagination is less. Just down and down and down. Online, some online places pay, for a really good story, they'll pay good money. But for a, just a standard online story, they might pay 250, 300 quid. So you've got to get three of those. But it's harder to keep them exclusive because online journalism. It's, you know, everyone's, you know, churning out stuff, finding stuff on the internet, you know, churning them out. It's harder to get stuff. And so actually it becomes harder for freelance journalists and agencies who have historically provided an awful lot of stories to newspapers, good quality stories. It's harder for them to make a living. So therefore they leave journalism and they go into PR or whatever. But a lot of them are going to PR. And they're

still putting in stuff and people like the newspapers will take PR stuff because it's free. But it's not journalism, is it? It's PR, dressed up as a journalistic story. But it's, but it's ultimately PR. And so therefore, you're getting fewer journalists working in the industry. You're getting more PRs. So therefore it's the rise of PR and that I don't think is healthy for British journalism. So if you look at local newspapers have had this over the last 20 years, whatever, 20, 30 years, totally cut to shreds, virtually don't exist. And a really good example of where they failed was Grenfell Tower. So for ages, the locals have been saying, this is a death trap. This place is a deaf trap. And had it been 20 years ago, there would have been local

journalists on that patch, covering that story, holding the local councils, feet to the fire, and saying, this is dangerous, you need to change it. And they might have changed it. It didn't happen because they don't exist anymore. It's just if there even is a local paper, it's one person who is just doing press, knocking out press releases, you know. So again, PR, that you're knocking out PR, right? Or fire reports or whatever. But they don't have time to do any investigating. They have any time to go along to your council meetings, to go to your local court hearings, to find out when someone's behaving badly and needs to be, you know, that needs to be highlighted. So that was what happened on local papers. We're starting to, you all start to see that on national

newspapers. And we also, we know what happened at Grenfell, you know, dozens and dozens of people died in this horrific fire. And there's been inquiries that have lasted years. People like, why, how did this happen? Well, newspapers used to be able to help prevent these things from happening. They were important, you know, it was an important part of society, you know, an important, an important piece in the jigsaw of civic society, right? Well, I doesn't exist in locals anymore. And we're starting to see it in national newspapers now. People like me. Now, I'm not saying, I'm not saying me because I generally, historically, I started as a news reporter, but I ended up being a showy's writer and I've done sport, whatever.

I've never been an investigative journalist. I do do some news stories, and some of them are valuable, but I'm not really talking about me personally, but I'm a good example of this. I can no longer make a living out of being a freelance journalist in newspapers. It's just not possible. There's too much, you require too many stories for too little money. It's just not. a family, I've got a mortgage, I've got kids. I can't rely on selling stories. It's happening

in the last three or four years since I went to talk sport. I stopped selling stories. Come out of the back of it and it's now not possible. The situation has changed. So that means this. You're going to get someone like me leaving, not investigating the stories, not chasing down those leads that they get because they know it's not worth it financially to be able to live a life, right? Agencies are the same. They'll have had their budget slashed because newspapers aren't paying them the same amount of money that they used to. So you've got fewer people. people out there on patches looking at stories, you know, going to court, finding out that someone's been bad or whatever. And therefore, what will happen is inevitably it's happening.

There's a good example. Another guy I spoke to, investigative journalist, did stuff for the Times. He was in his 60s, so it was fine for him. He was able to do these stories. But he used to do these investigative stories, which were really in-depth stuff for the Times. And I asked him, how much you get paid for a page lead? And he said, 350 quid. This was like four, three years ago, right. He's like 350 quid. I was like, what? So you have to make at least two, maybe three a week to make this, you know, your weekly wage, really. Now he probably didn't have a mortgage, so he was fine, but there are younger people who won't be able to do that. So it does mean that people aren't, you know, bad people are going to be able to get away with bad things on a national level now,

whereas before it was more local. And I think we're in a real, we're in a really worrying point where if that function of civic society isn't functioning properly, what does that lead to? That allows people to get away with bad things, be it the government or, you know, or any of the public bodies or the police or criminals or whatever. And that's a worry. That's a real worry. And I don't know how, you know, I can't give you an answer about what we do to improve this situation, but it's, we should all be seriously worried about that.

Whether you think journalists and mainstream media is not doing its job, or not, it did a job. It did do a job. It reported bad things. It reported on bad people. It held people to account. It got, you know, it did a lot of, a lot of that stuff. And it's not able to do that anymore, I don't think. Not in the same way it used to. And that's, that's, that should worry us all. And do you think part of it as well is, especially tabloid journalism, it relied on the big scoop, like we take the Ryan Giggs incident where, you know, he cheated, well, he had sex with his brother's wife and it was all covered up. And everyone was like, who was it, blah, blah, blah. All you need to do now is go on Twitter.

So this way of funding itself on the scoop and all the rest of it simply doesn't exist? Some scoops have not necessarily moved the dial financially. I did a story on a footballer, sleeping with a sex worker, and it was, I'm slightly ashamed to say, the best story I ever did. And it cost us like 50 grand, I think. I don't need to say it was again, it doesn't matter. But it cost us like 50 grand to do the whole story from start to finish, including paying the sex worker.

didn't do anything for the sales figures. Nothing. But what it did was it showed that that newspaper was a newspaper that did deliver scoops and is worth buying. So it was worth that money, you know, in that sort of sense. It's sort of a, you know,

like a pride splash. But there are some splashes that do move the dark. Like I remember when they did Michael Jackson's deathbed at the news of the world. It put on 250,000 extra readers that morning when it was selling

like just around about 3 million or just under 3 million. it put on 250,000. So some do move the dial. But I speak to people who work in newspapers now, and they're not getting ringings anymore. No one's ringing them. They just, and I don't know why that is.

Is it because newspapers aren't trusted? Is it because they're not really paying the same sort of money anymore? I think partly there's a lot of it is that you can't get people to do stuff of newspapers anymore because it's a bit shameful. You know? The idea that someone would sell an interview to a story, is, I mean, for instance, the sun, you know, a lot of celebrities,

a lot of celebrities do do stuff with the sun because they know that it has a value. But a lot of them won't anymore for various reasons, you know, the many reasons that we all know about over the years, you know, that things have, people have had a problem with the sun for.

They won't do it anymore. So is it just that people don't want to deal with newspapers so much anymore? And again, that means that those stories aren't being told. You know, whistleblowers aren't coming. They're not ringing up. You know, they've seen some terrible stuff happening.

at a hospital that they work at and they'll like, you know, in years gone by they'd have rung up the sun or one of the bigger papers, and now they're not. Why is that? I don't know. Well, yeah, and it's interesting you mentioned that because we get a lot of people contacting us and say, with stories? Yeah.

Well, you should bring the sun. Because they're desperate. I mean, they're just waiting by the phone. They're like, oh, yes, yes, yes, yes. Hello, oh, story. That'll go down. We're really well with our viewers in Liverpool, won't it? Yeah, yeah. We can resell our stories.

Well, you don't tell anybody. And just sell them a lead. How much do you think part of that undermining of trust? And I think it's such an important point that you made, which is that, and I've always thought this about the mainstream media, and I criticise many aspects of what the mainstream media do now a lot. But I've always thought that investigative journalism was the one thing that no one else can do. Francis and I aren't going to do investigative journalism.

Absolutely not. Yeah. That just what you could do. Don't do yourself down. Do ourselves down. I mean, you're not struggling here. Yeah, yeah. But you know what I mean?

So I actually have always thought that the mainstream media, newspapers and other broadcasters, et cetera, they have a crucial function in society, which you described, which they're now less able to do. And they used to be... I should say that investigative journalism is one of the things that has held up. And, you know, some of it's not... It's not necessarily particularly being done by... Look at them rowing back.

But it is being done by, you know... The Times does... Times does stuff, you know, the BBC does that. But less. Your point was it's done less, right? So this is my point. But I think, let me ask you this, because I think part of it may be the dundemining of trust had happened with the news of the world, with the phone hacking, with the Leveson inquire, which unveiled quite a lot of other wrongdoing, not just phone hacking. You know, one of my schoolteachers was, I've forgotten his name, Christopher Jeffries, right? Oh, right, yes. Yeah. So he's a guy for people who don't know. He was wrongly accused of being a murderer, the newspapers, because it was just before Christmas. There was nothing else to write about. So every newspaper wrote about him.

But he looks a bit strange. And he looked very strange. And that was what the headline was, I think it was on the sun. Yeah. Yeah. The weird world of Mr. Jeffries or something like that. He was definitely weird. Yeah, but I mean, that's not a crime. It's not a reason for ending up on the front page at the same. Well, I think it should be prostit. No. But you know what I'm saying is like there was one thing after another where I think people felt like. Oh, this is this dark nefarious world, which I'm sure always was, but that was never really revealed to the public. I think more is coming out regarding the sort of dark arts that was used on newspapers over the years. I mean, you've seen there was a Channel 4 documentary recently that we've seen it, but murder in the car park, which featured the Daniel Morgan murder. It was, he was a private investigator who was murdered by in a car park of a pub who was. apparently just about to blow the lid on police corruption by ringing the papers.

And his business partner has been, he's been a prime suspect for a long time. And he stood trial and been acquitted, et cetera, et cetera. He was part of, he gave interview as part of this documentary. It's a brilliant documentary. If you haven't seen it, it's fascinating. I mean, the sort of these two, the two main suspects are both interviewed at length throughout it, which is just really, really interesting just as a sort of, just the sort of anthropological, you know, study.

study. I mean, you know, just watching it. It's fascinating, but it's an interesting topic. The UK's most investigated murder, 30 million pounds have been spent investigating it, and they've never convicted anybody. And now I suspect they probably won't because you need fresh evidence to do that. And I don't think you're going to get that from 33 years ago, which is a crying shame because it was appalling. But it just brought up lots of police corruption and a whole range of things. And I think that a lot of that stuff, so Jonathan Reese was the, and Daniel Morgan, they owned a company called Southern Investigations and they were one of the early adopters of dark arts on newspapers. It's alleged. I mean, he's been, he's been done for,

I mean, he's, he's been done for various things. So, I mean, you know, we're probably legally safe to say, to say this. But, you know, there are receipts that exist that show that he was delivering stuff for national newspapers, uh, which were questionable. He was wiretapped saying, you know, telling, a leading reporter at the Daily Mirror, you know what we're doing is illegal. So, you know, this goes back to the mid-90s. And through the mid-90s, and then phone hack came to pass.

I mean, if you want to talk about phone-hacking, it's interesting. I've never hacked a phone, but I know how you do it. And I think that what happened was, I mean, if this is my take on what happened at the news of the world. I think that there was a,

an ongoing, budgets get cut. They were still massive then. but they were being cut. They weren't as massive as they were in the 90s. So they're being cut. There is a, still that sort of atmosphere

where you've got to deliver a story and I don't care how you do it, just do it. Right? So that then, with that, combined to the shrinking budgets, once upon a time,

I think they probably didn't hack phones de rigour. I think they probably used them as a last resort of standing up a story, right? But what they would do is they would probably use other methods that were nefarious

and then they might have a phone at the end. and what they would do is they'd often pull a phone bill. They'd blag a phone bill. So they'd pretend to be an employee of the phone company and say, can you send me that person's bill, please. And they'd send it, celebrity, whatever. And they would see who they were calling late at night. And they would go, who's that number? And they'd turn that around. And they'd be like, oh, look, those two celebrities are dating. So then they put a watch on them because they knew that was happening. So that's illegal to do that. Then they put a watch on them, which isn't legal. But, you know, the way they got there was and then they might hack a phone after that to know that they've been doing messages or whatever or to but then with the um budgets going down and the still that sort of like you must get the story you must deliver regardless i think that engendered a culture whereby we you know the most important thing is getting the story and we don't care how we haven't got huge budgets to do these watches because they're really expensive to put a photographer on a job 24 seven for a week that's really expensive.

All right, well, and then it started with journalists going, well, let's see if we can find a story by hacking a phone. So that was how, I think that's how the journey was made. And then at that point it became, you know, they started hacking, as we know, people close to the royalty.

And that was how the balloon went up. And the news of the world said one rogue reporter, which was Lacer proven not to be true. And then there's a lot coming out about it. And I think that, I think there's more to come. I mean, Prince Harry at the moment is suing a couple of newspapers

over phone hacking. He believes he's been surveyed his entire life, phone hacked and various things. Would that surprise you? I think it's brazen, but probably not. I mean, this is the thing is, you know, when you've been in it, so this is the thing, I never hacked a phone. But one of my best friends

at the News the World, one of my colleagues as sort of a mentor to me, a guy called Dan Evans. He was the whistleblower who moved from the Sunday Mirror to the News The World and brought phone hacking with him from there onto the features department.

And basically my former boss there was, got a suspended sentence for conspiracy to hack phones because of his work with Dan Evans. So Dan, I used to sit next to him, but I had no idea. I had no clue this was going on. And I remember him saying stuff to me,

God, you're really good, Tom. You know, a really good reporter. You know, you get some great stories, fair play. You know, like, I'm running impressed by you. And I was like, you know, so do you. But looking back now, I'm like, how about he was hacking phones? So actually, you know, he was envious that I was able to generate some stories without hacking phones. But the pressure was on him.

He was brought in on the basis that he was going to do this. So then he had to do it. And so it sort of enveloped his world. But from knowing Dan, and from reading widely around the topic and all that sort of thing, no, it doesn't surprise me, really. It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. What saddens me as well is that, so, you know, the thing is with celebrities,

we sort of, I'm not saying that hacking a celebrity is okay. It's clearly patently, not okay. But some people might say, well, they're just celebrities, right? The thing was, they weren't just hacking celebrities' phones. You know, it was anyone who came into, as we knew, you know, mini-dowder, etc., etc., all that sort of stuff. It was anybody that came under the glare of newspapers. Anyone who happened to find themselves in, you know, of interest in newspapers would basically have their lives ransacked, their private information ransacked, phones hacked, whatever. And can you, I mean, that must have ruined relationships.

It must have ruined mental health, ruined careers. lives, you know, because people are going, you leak that, you must have leaked that, you know, and what an awful thing to have gone through. And that makes me really sad. That makes me sad that the idea that getting this story was more important than people's, than other people's lives, you know?

It was like the story is king. Well, that's bollocks, isn't it? And it's just fucking bollocks. You know, no story. I mean, this is a public interest, you know, then I'm more sanguine about it. But just doing it on the basis that you need a story on the latest, you know, you need a newsline on the latest story. It's just awful. And also what upsets me is that there are a lot of people who were doing all this stuff who've gone on to be incredibly successful in their industry and good people who just who, who did good quality journalism without having to ruin his life, without having to turn to a legal or illicit news gathering technique. didn't. And that's bullshit, you know, that's, that's a real, that's a real, that's a shame.

And actually, it comes back to the point of why sometimes people now don't trust newspapers anymore, because there are people who are claimed to have been doing this or known to be, who were still, who were promoted and became the bosses. Yeah, so that's, that, that, that, that's slightly frustrates me, but, you know, whatever is, it is, you know, they're private companies, they do what they want. And actually, you know, what I should say as well, newspapers isn't the only place that this goes ahead. You know, there's all sorts of illegal activity that goes on in banking, that goes on in law, that goes on in whatever, but I don't work in them. So, you know, well, I don't agree with them. I think it's wrong, but I don't work in those areas,

so I don't have the same passion or upset about that happening that I feel happened in newspapers, which I hold very dear to my heart historically. Before you jump in front very quickly, there's also another small distinction there, which is we don't expect the banks or lawyers to hold the government to account or to hold powerful to account. Whereas the job of journalism, for some journalism, is to be kind of vigilant against misbehavior. Corruption, right? And I think that's why there's a double disappointment sometimes with elements of journalism where it's like not only are these people not necessarily doing the job that we want them to do,

but they're also corrupt themselves while they're criticizing other. I think. And also, you know, there's not many people who have worked in newspapers or historically who there's a sort of a bit of an emmerter. You know, you don't criticize newspapers. And I criticize them on the basis. A, I don't work there anymore. But more importantly, because I care, you know.

Someone might look at this, like someone I used to work with or whatever, or people I still, you know, work with and go, oh, you shouldn't be doing this. you shouldn't be saying this stuff. I say it because I'm passionate about it, because it's important to me. Because I know what newspapers can do. I know the good that newspapers can do. I know how important they can be. Crucial, in fact, for a civic society, as we spoke about earlier.

And I've done things that were important. I've done stories that were important. I've done stories that change people's lives. And that is the good that they can do. And so to see it, you know, see people who are at better, who work in it, behave in that way, it upsets me. So I say all this stuff, not because I'm bitter about newspapers. It's because I give a shit.

It's because I care, because it's important. And I think that often newspapers, or too often newspapers, aren't fulfilling the function that they should be fulfilling. I think the moment with phone hacking, I'll be honest with you, I don't think people cared that much about celebrities. I think there's a general attitude about, in the UK of like, well, you put yourself in the public eye. Which, by the way, is wrong.

And that's bullshit, but I do believe that is true. Yeah, so, and they feel that way, and like you said, it's not right. But I think the moment people got really angry about the phone hacking scandal was Millie Dowler. Yeah. Where I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, Tom. Her mobile phone was missing, and then there were messages from her parents on the phone. I mean, her phone would have been missing because it was, would have been with her. But it was basically, the claim that the Guardian made was that the news of the world hacked.

the voicemail, which they did, but they also deleted it. So they deleted voicemails. And that gave the Dalla family false hope that she was still alive because it was like, oh, she's listened to her messages. But she hadn't. They were wrong. That was what shut the news of the world, by the way. That claim, that one claim was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back.

Rupert-Modom might close it eventually. He might have closed it. It might have been something else. If it wasn't that, it would have been something else. But they were wrong in that. The Guardian were mistaken in that. They got that wrong. Voicemails delete themselves automatically after a certain amount of time,

and that's what had actually happened. But The Guardian ran this. And I actually went on TV afterwards defending this and saying, actually, you know what? The Guardian are saying all this stuff, and they're holding themselves up as a sort of... Paragon of virtue. It's not like the Guardian is.

But, you know, they're saying, if you're going to, if you're going to criticize, you need to make sure that you're right. You know, if you're going to criticize ethics and journalism, you need to make sure that your stories are right and it wasn't right. And I went on and I said, actually, I think that that was the moment.

So for me, when the news, the world's shut, I, I remember, so the week did it happen, the week the news, the world shut, um, that story broke. And people, I was, you know, I was, you know, did he showb's interviews, and they started dropping out.

They were like, I don't want to do anything with the news of the world. I was like, I don't know, I'm going to do my job here. I was getting loads of grief on Twitter for, you know, being scum, News the World Journalist, but there was a dictat

that we weren't able to send in it. Or rather we weren't getting any guidance over what we could say. So I was just, people were just attacking me on Twitter and I couldn't defend myself. And it's weird to just go, oh, you know, something else

and ignore all that stuff. Because, so I just withdrew. I also boycotted the office, along with one of my other colleagues, Because I wanted to send a message out as one of the more senior reporters at the News of the World, the TV editor, I was like, you need to tell us what's going on.

You need to give us some guidance because this is unacceptable. What's happened here is unacceptable, and we're just being left to hang. And then, and it was that. It was the mini-doubt-piece. And I remember ringing my dad, who never really liked the fact I worked

for the News of the World, for Rupertimore. He was proud that I was there, but he didn't like it. I'm ringing and I was in tears. I was like, I've got to leave this paper. I can't. As a, just as a personal thing, I can't stay at a newspaper that has paid someone else to do this and made the lot, you know, potentially impacted in a criminal investigation, but also that has done this to those poor parents, I've got to leave. So I boycotted the office.

And so, yeah, for it to not be true. But you know what? They did hack her voice mail. Yes. So, you know, it's sort of semantics, really. It's unforgivable, unforgivable, and all the rest of it. But Tom, it's been a pleasure to chatting with you, man. Really fascinating stuff. And I think it gives a context to a lot of the stuff that people feel when they look at newspapers, when they look at their TV screens, when they look at broadcasting, and they feel certain things, but they don't necessarily know why.

You know, and I think the point you made particularly about the, fact that it's becoming harder and harder to hold people to account for things that are going wrong. I think that's so true. Well, the government, right, would have fallen. In normal times, the government would have fallen again and again and again. There would have been resignations all over the place if they still had that power. But I don't think they do. They have some power. You know, they have the ability to, I mean, leaving the EU stuff. They exerted a lot of power over that. But I don't know, did they lead people to that or did they reflect people's view on that? But yeah, you know, the nuclear government in the way they're behaving in the moment.

You know, there are plenty of opportunities where there would have been people who would resign in normal situations, you know, 10, 15 years ago. But they're not now. Is that to do with the media? I don't know. Possibly. You know, people aren't, they're not as powerful. They're getting them, people are getting their news from elsewhere, social media, etc. I don't know. Brilliant. And like I said, great interview. And the last question we always ask is, what's a one thing that we're not talking about as a society that we really should be. Well, I don't think we're talking about this enough, actually. You know, I sort of, you said I was going to get asked this question at the end,

and I didn't have an answer. But actually, I'm talking about it. I think this is important. This is something that we should be talking about. I'm sick of people actually saying that journalism is, you know, is, the MSN is this or it's that. It's like, look, it's just part of a wider media. And it all has its value. And it all has its value. And it all its merits. And I think that we need to talk about this more and we need to work out how we're going to fund this. Because at the moment, it isn't going to fund itself. So if you want, if you want a free and fair media, then you will need something to fund it. And otherwise, it's going to be someone that you might not like the politics of or someone that you think

might not be doing it for the right reasons, you know, rather than just being campaigned journalism, you know, or exposing journalism. I think that's what we need to talk about. Where's the money coming from for journalism in this country? How are we going to get over this? And what we're going to do? Because if we don't, the results are going to be incredibly worrying. I don't know where it goes. I honestly don't know where it goes. But it doesn't seem positive. I don't see a positive outcome to it. Well, on that cheery note, we're going to wrap up. Tom, thank you so much for coming on. Have you been chased off Twitter by those mobs? Are you still on there?

I'm still on there, but a little bit. I can't be bothered, to be honest. When I was presenting on Talk Sport, I would just get so much shit. Yeah, we both. Yeah, just like, our football fans. Guys, I'm only pretending to care. I don't care.

I don't care. I remember Tom and I used to co-host with you on the overnight. I remember, because I said I voted Remain. I think someone called me a, what is it, a pro Remain, Pied? Apologists. Something like that.

Yeah, you get a lot of that stuff. I mean, they nailed it. But I got one person texting me once to say, your brother's a much better broadcaster than you. Which I thought it was lovely. I was like, well, that's cost you 50p. So, you know, you obviously cared enough to message me. No, so I am on Twitter, but I won't bother giving you my handle.

All right, don't follow him. Don't send him any shit. And I'm sorry that someone called you a pro-remaid. But if you do want to, but if you do want to follow anything, so raw, R-O-A-R-A-R, the 90s rave podcast. If you've got even a vague interest in, you don't have to be into rave music in the 90s, if you're into dance music,

if you're into culture and British society in the 90s, there will be something in it for you. And I'm hopeful it's going to be journalistic, there's going to be loads of interesting stories. It's not all just going to be about rave stuff. So that's my new project. If anyone wants to, you know, we're on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. By the time this is that,

I think they put it on the website will be live. So it's Raw, the 90s rave podcast. It looks great, man. You showed us a few pictures before we started. It looks really cool. Yeah, we'll see. I mean, it's sort of like I can monetise it. If I can come anything close to you guys, then, you know, I'll be a happy man. You do it very well. Yeah, it might take a few years. No, man, it'll be great. Well, I'll have run out of subjects, but it's only limited, to be honest. But yeah, thanks very much for coming on. We'll make sure to put all that stuff in the description. I really appreciate your time. Thanks, man.

Cheers, Tom. And we'll see you very soon with another brilliant episode or catch us on the live stream. Absolutely. Take care and see you soon, guys.