Monday, January 27, 2014

Open letter to Tony Hall BBC Director General and not to ignore diversity in different themes in expanding the BBC.

Click here for BBC DG talk

Dear Tony Hall

Some time ago I read Huw Wheldon's vision of the BBC. I didn't hear the original speech, but it formed part of my PhD thesis. Wheldon would have smiled. An executive with eyes across story form, innovation and the arts is milk for those growing up with the BBC  Wheldon expressed that at a time of globalisation, Hall expressed that implicitly while addressing the tenants of a not fully written digital theory.

Digital theory, if its taught the broadcasters one thing it is that there is no such thing as a dedicated broadcaster.

It's like going into a supermarket and getting your hair cut or clothes cleaned. If you're the producer of original content how miffed you're inclined to be to know that audiences watch you and then go and express themselves elsewhere e.g. facebook, Google etc.

Whilst a pioneer of many things, the BBC's is equally late in coming to the table. I have evidence when they tried their first attempts at embedded video, from an ONA meeting in 2008. The video I made is somewhere. I had embedded video in 1999 so was curious to see how they would fare. 

Peter Barron, the BBC's stalwart Newsnight editor who was rightly picked off by Google pressed the BBC's to go digital with blogs and the rest. I have a video of that too. Barron was my old editor at Channel 4 News, but I first crossed his path in 1991 as a researcher on Newsnight.

So being tentative is a BBC trait. Remember  WeMedia in 2006 which took place at the BBC and Reuters. I remember that event as the BBC getting its mojo back. I grabbed the then BBC director general for a quick chat.

The BBC was after the young, but as a former reporter on BBC Reportage, it had always been after the young viewer I told the director general.

The BBC has its mojo back. In part because of the talent it has sought. I met  a couple of them too, but also realising there was a different ethos. Now, even Hoover, a once great company could atrophy in the midst of the young pretender in Dyson.

No one is immune, so the strategy is to become a tech start-up. To do what the Facebooks have been doing, and boy how the BBC could flex its muscle because at least they have primary original content.

But there's still some massive learning to be done.

To exemplify how to wall garden behaviour, how to fuel chatter and keep in within the ecosystem of the network, how the content is also the audience's lifestyles. Hall's presentation alludes, even captures that -- the BBC, a producer of diverse primary media that seeks to become all encompassing e.g. My BBC. 

Huw Wheldon would agree. It's a grand vision, but it's there for the taking but the challenges are the BBC's often perennial inertia at levels below senior managers.

Back in the 1990s having done a few years of broadcasting at Radio Leicester, I tried to get a job at the BBC. But for love or money, I could never get past the application stage. I admit I had massive failings, but while senior management would give me the nod e.g., Newsnight, Radio London and BBC Radio 4s documentary department, middle management remained indifferent. But I must not be selfish in this letter.

The BBC's must acknowledge its quasi-curatorial role. It's different from being the 'knowledgable' being. That much the BBC should know in understanding Dan Gilmor's WetheMedia - now a decade or so old.

The BBC's various achilles include:

  • Diversity in programming could do with diversity in personnel. Digital theory is colour blind, but it acknowledges cultural and societal impacts from prosumers. 
  • Hubris in understanding you can contribute without assuming you know everything.
  • Leading by what we, the audience don't know. If citizen journalism has proved to bve a success, then the professionals should have long raised their game to indicate the future -- unobtainable thus far to other. Joharis window should present itself to the new programme makers and thinkers, set about, if that's what they want, to teach audiences how to read and decode the media.

The distinction with forms of the analogue world will need refreshing, not as cosmetic exercises but new theories and practices Touchcast may be one such tool e.g. video hyperlinking.  But the rear window - what's coming from behind e.g. Vice will also set new challenges. Interesting times ahead - when the license fee ( money) won't necessarily buy you love.

What's needed are new relationships between constituents and the broadcaster. Should the social networks quake? Not yet, but if they get it right, this will be interesting.


David Dunkley Gyimah
Senior lecturer 
Artist in Residence, Southbank Centre

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

News doesn't have to be told with a beginning, middle ad an end

How many times have you heard this advice? Make sure your story has a beginning, middle and end...But CNN’s Candy Crowley has a variation: “Every story needs a beginning, middle and end,” she says, “not necessarily in that order.” 
The above comes from a post called: Storytelling advice: Beginning, middle, end from the NewsLab site.  Newslab is one of the sites I pop by once in  while, and when I saw the post, I thought I had to respond, below.
As news makers, and I talk about myself here as well, we can often be guilty for recursive statements that appear innovatory, but have deep histories.
I know that much from starting my PhD, when I walked into giving a lecture to faculty and in two year time held my head in shame, at the 'original ideas' I was making.
One of the UK's leading documentary figures and world renowned documentary scholars, Brian Winston, goes so far to say anything original about films news form was made in the 1960s. However when he was helping me with my thesis he urged me to dig deeper.
That digging is to track back into literature, art, journalism and understand what came before. Take my last post where some scholars said the BBC started videojournalism in the UK. If you googled that you would have found that not to be the case. 
Similarly that a story can have different acts not necessarily in chronological order has its roots far back, but more prevalently in French Cinema.
The key perhaps is we need to research more. Very little of storyform has not been discussed in either French, Russian or German film and that's a limited overview.
Here's my response to Newslab.
In the 1960s French new wave filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard set about breaking many of the so called narrative rules that framed Hollywood cinema e.g., continuity eye match cutting, blocking, and that a film could have beginning, a middle and an end, but not in that order.
New wave would influence generations; in the 90s, noticeably, Tarantino and Pulp Fiction. Tarantino even named his production company after Godard’s film A Bande à part. CNN’s Candy Crowley re-iterates an important point which envelopes cinema and art, which itself is influenced by literature.
One of the earliest profound books was Finnegans Wake, by Joyce, which played with the linearity of a story.
Here’s the rub though, news making generally eschews cinema and the novel’s literary discursive properties. News is a genre of a media form that says this is reality as it happened, rather than a version of it rearranged.
Though it’s not news remember the fuss around Michael Moore’s docs about the sequence of events and editing. Thus news films playing with structure and ‘in media res’ have to be aware of when time and events are critical to the story.
That there is room to think this way in the noughties, albeit in a strict fashion in news, suggests how producers seek to play with the form’s structure at a time when news’ main narrative form is showing its age.
I talk more about the interstices of narrative within news, art. literature and journalism on my
David DG
London, Uni of Westminster

Saturday, January 11, 2014

The Brits are coming, Black British talent as a cultural market force

in 1981 Colin Welland announced to a global TV audience at the Oscars that the Brits were coming.

That aphorism has hung around the film and entertainment world for a few generations, with the feeling that the eponymous label about the Brits never really did arrive.

Granted the UK, as Cameron told an audience last year has been behind the export of amazing talent.

Where do we start?

But in all this the experience of Black Brits as a global product has been muted. After all, why shouldn't it be. The Brits are coming signifies all Brits. Colour is irrelevant.

However, in  publicising iconic Brit styles the photo shoots and write ups allude to a thinking that the Brits are coming can be somewhat skewed.

The industry after all has struggled to, can I say, "create" a ground to nurture talent, be it black, white, working class, women or the disabled. All these groups are relevant but in an attempt to take the sting out of any barb I am a being narrow minded, I mean to focus on blacks for this post.

Famously, for instance when the British Film Institute went to Cannes taking scores of new talent with them they forgot to invite Jean Maria Baptiste, after she'd been nominated for a best supporting actress Oscar in Secret and Lies (1996). Baptiste was the first black Briton to be honoured by the academy.

I still remember watching her crestfallen on Newsnight trying to understand. Some years later, Baptiste appeared to have served up her dish cold as Vivian Johnsnon in the US series Without a Trace

In the 1990s I presented a show on the BBC called Black Londoners. Myself and Sheryl Simms considered ourselves progressive - still do, so race was not a blunt instrument in our show, but we were conscious of what it meant to empower generation as achievers. Take this interview with the great late Eartha Kitt

I mention this point because irrespective of the work often undertaken by black Brits, there is always a sense that their parent's heritage means as much to them, as their Britishness. That's why the Black Brits are coming is not incendiary or provocative. It does not promote difference, but highlights a strength.

Yes I said to Boer Farmer in 1992 in the deep rurals of the Orange Free state, there are black people in Britain, to his utter amazement.

So, yes the Black Brits are coming. Only visibly, in so far as the Oscars with 12 Years a Slave and Mandela's film fronted by Brits. Then there's David Harewood in Homeland (2011- ); David Oloyewo in Tom Cruise's Jack Reacher etc.

But is saying the Black Brits are coning, as both a creative and academic is there any empircal evidence to support this. Haven't they always been there and I am merely using a journalistic device of setting an agenda with a nice headline.

That's what I'll be exploring in a much deeper post.

In 1999 leading up to 2000 there were a number of articles written which included some work I had done. The most visible perhaps was from this Evening Standard spread which featured a dynamic new writer called Zadie Smith.

As I recall Smith said, it'll be a victory the day they don't have to line up a number of black talent to make a point.
David lies up with Black British Talent for the Evening Standard

Safeguard teaching videojournalism from online journalism's unsubstantiated knowledge to generations online

How important is Videojournalism to Online Journalism?

When we look at the New York Times's SnowFall, which pushes online journalism [HTML5/CSS3] to new limits, or data journalism in building statistical logic you could say very little.

On the other hand, since You Tube and the availability of cheap cameras deconstructed video production, so anyone could become a publisher online, you could equally argue videojournalism is integral to online journalism.

Andy Bull's Multimedia Journalism  and The Online Journalism Handbook by Liisa Rohumaa and Paul Bradshaw both feature video and videojournalism.

Both are presented in a lively manner in different ways. @paulbradshaw whose work I have known since 2006ish, from my interactions with US data journalist Adrian Holavaty, is an exemplar in the field of algebraic data journalism and scraping, among other things.

A new book "Online Journalism - The Essential Guide" also features videojournalism and like the former books covers the vast and expanding Hawkinsian space of online journalism.

Publishing a book is no easy feat. so if like me you've never published and are either contemplating it, or imagine what it involves the authors demand our respect.

Because it is a solitary, isolating pursuit putting together words on a page and digging into deep knowledge to share with others.

I know that little from my PhD I have been finalising. I have neglected my own health in attempts to write-correct-rewrite.

So anyone who publishes, in reviewing their work we should put their efforts into perspective. It is a herculean task after all.

 If a book contains 20 chapters and one of those is critiqued, and interpreted to be found wanting, this should not colour the whole book, should it?

Does it matter if one chapter on videojournalism needed greater scrutiny regarding its history or those that practise it and what that means in creating videojournalism?

Probably not!  Historicity is not essential for understanding, in this case, videojournalism, but some context of is history, perhaps is required.

But here's the issue. Books, unlike blogs, and like photos have a certain immanence. That is, the printed word sticks with you and is easier to find and reference than say a blog or a newspaper article.

An educational book sets up a thread and when the book is deemed "excellent",  it perpetuates an unrelenting cycle for providing great information for the reader or a next generations of authors looking to build on the source of the knowledge. This comes from referencing.

David in San Antonio
Dan Gillmor's book WeMedia is one such book and there is nothing wrong with the book. Quite the contrary.

When I read it soon after it was published and then interviewed Gilmor at a conference Restoring Journalism Trust I was invited to in 2005 in San Antonio, I was thrilled to interview him, to gain his knowledge. Here's my story of that event

Online journalism

Online Journalism doesn't state it is a definitive guide, or is a book about videojournalism. It is an "Essential Guide", so there is some wiggle room from an academic perspective, but it's likely the reader, you,  may not make such a distinction.

But, here's the rub, in the world of videojournalism, so many published books have thus far got so many things wrong on the subject. Specifically, within the UK perspective.

Does it matter where, say, videojournalism started or that the source of information could be deeper? From a practical point of view, you could argue probably not. Who cares where videojournalism started in the UK!

What you would like to know is how to shoot a videojournalism film that grabs the attention of your audience. How you create meaning from complex ideas in a matter of minutes? How to create narratives that mostly everyone is ignoring. The "what is videojournalism" and how it differs from say documentary.

But what if I told you the source of videojournalism defines the form and delivery of videojournalism that can become the status quo. Put another way by recognising the BBC as the source of videojournalism, this may persuade you into reading more and studying the BBC's videojournalism.

There's nothing wrong in studying BBC videojournalism except the videojournalism practiced by the BBC was a fundamentally different form of videojournalism to that which the architects of the scheme envisaged.

Another point, the BBC did not start videojournalism in the UK. The official source as recorded by the National Union of Journalists was Channel One TV in 1994.

a videojournalist from 1994 with her betacamera

Does this matter? Theoretically, probably not, until I tell you that the videojournalism practiced at Channel One was different types of story form that most probably you would have liked  to have learned, and probably still would.

How it came together on analysis, involved different phases, some ad hoc, some engineered, and from interviews with Rosenblum, the VJs and just over a hundred other important figures. Then, we come to a place where the landscape is a clearer.

Channel One's videojournalism is an integral contribution of the UK's style of  a new global videojournalism style which radicalises and fundamentally transforms video in journalism. Six years ago I uploaded this to my You Tube site. It involved the beginnings of the manifesto after thinking and practicing videojournalism in 2008 for 14 years.

So how does Channel One contribute to this global knowledge?  As a product of Channel One, here's one hint of many, where I use myself as an example. In this video from 2005, the jury head is reading their citation of a videojournalism award in Berlin.

International Videojournalism Awards Berlin (Bauhaus/ ZDF) from david dunkley gyimah on Vimeo.

Here's another. What does this video too say about videojournalism and does this matter? Mark Cousins used to run the Edinburgh Film Festival.

He wrote the book - A Story of Film and then made the 15 part documentary series. He has won awards at Cannes and in the 90s had a series on BBC in which he interviewed all the major directors around the world.

So he is considered something of an expert.

In several academic books thus far, the BBC is cited as the source of videojournalism in the UK. This is not true. As part of my PhD I tracked down the senior BBC executive who was responsible for bringing videojournalism to the BBC. His name is Pat Loughrey. The picture below Pat is  Stewart Purvis who was the CEO of ITN in the 1990s. He too used  videojournalism at ITN - but says it was a different form of videojournalism.

Loughrey, former head of Nations and Regions at the BBC, now a Vice Chancellor

Purvis former CEO of ITN

Loughrey says Channel One was ten years before its time, while Purvis says Channel One deconstructed video news making to have one person film, produce and present their video on the day.

This video below is from 1995, one of many different submissions for my PhD. The point I make here is that this is an example of a story made in a day in which one person had control. There was no editorial input into this story. I researched, told my editor, shot it, produced it and here we are. Remember this is 1995.

The web is not knowledge

There is a video online about videojournalism, which is hosted by the BBC Journalism College. It is a conference that was put together by David Hayward at the BBC, myself and the University of Central Lancashire.

It is a worthy video, but it is not the repository of videojournalism. It features one of my former students called David Heathfield, who I invited to the event. David is brilliant. He works for Nato. Nato is an intimidating title, so I can see why on that video David becomes the videojournalism spokesman.

Now, here's where I have to be careful that the points I am trying to make do not come across as some academically elite bumf, brought on by red mist, or that I am spitting hairs. And that they amount to nothing other than my own ego.

In 2006 Nato asked my university if we would like to be involved in an incredible project. Help train their military by participating in their war games.

I was the editor for the programme. David was a graduate of the scheme two years later, before he joined Nato as an employee.

Nato practices a videojournalism that is aligned with BBC journalism's form and David as much as anyone's view of videojournalism needs to be contextualised.

Steve Punter, a brilliant videojournalist and editor was also featured in the Online Journalism book. Punter is a rare animal. He was one of the UK's first videojournalists, a great thinker and one of the editors helping the BBC understand videojournalism at two of its regional stations.

But as brilliant as Steve's quote is from the video online, it cannot begin to tell you about videojournalism. That requires research.

That's why we invited 25 of the most appropriate practitioners and managers to the event. In my PhD I interview 20 of the original 30 Channel One videojournalists so the reader is provided with a more rounded view of the form.

What does this all mean? Perhaps nothing, but the danger is that we come to believe that everything we see online is the be all and end all. The web is not the source of all knowledge. Not yet, anyway.

Videojournalism is the most adroit form of video making in journalism that came to the fore some twenty years ago in the UK. This year we'll celebrate its anniversary. In a couple of weeks I submit my thesis and then I can share its contents with you. There are more than a few surprises in it.

But even with that, it is only one part of a landscape of an expanding plain of videojournalism in online journalism. Hopefully, it will be one that places videojournalism where it should be and enable us as a community to argue and discuss more forcefully what is is and how it can help us.

David Dunkley Gyimah was this year's Chair of Television Innovative  News at the RTS.
He is the founder of, a senior lecturer and artist in residence at the Southbank Centre. he submits his PhD in two months time. He's been in the media for 26 amd has worked for BBC Newsnight, Channel 4 News and ABC News years and now lectures and trains [ he launched PA's videojournalism training programme] around the world.

Coming up : They say the Black British talent is coming. It's been here for as long as. In this from the Evening Standard, I was lined up with some of the breakthrough talents of the millennium e.g. Zadie Smith. In my next post I reflect on why and how black British talent is probably now getting a hearing.

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

London LIve - Everywhere television, the future of television

London live

As alliterations go, they could not have picked a better name: London Live.

Finally the sleeping cockney flaneur awakens. For visitors to the capital, stuck in a hotel wanting to savour London's treasure, this is it.

For video addicts turned off from television's biggest disease: sameness, London Live is about to rewrite the rules.

In a few weeks we'll know. In recent years I have learned a few things myself.

It's 2.07 a.m in the morning and I'm inserting video bibliographies into a text, whose simplicity, hopefully, belies the enormity of the task I have set myself. 


What will TV look like?

What will television look like in the digital age? That's the grand theory. I'm doing the accessible bit in a world where grand theories are like stray shoelaces on trainers. Steady, cuz you're about to  fall flat on your face.

Six years in the making, several countries, more than a 100 experts and a lot of crying into cups of teas, trying to get the rhetorical arguments to flow, finally it's nearly here...

David Dunkley Gymah on the future of Video go to for more

Thus far I have had a number of enquiries from industry figures, but alas my friends will have  to wait a bit more. Sorry!

But the questions as my research collides with the launch of London Live are as follows. 
  • In an age of digifest, user-gen, and mobile tech, with html5 and Vice breathing down the web, and social flaring,  how will fixed television fare? 
Could it be the new 4K camera, sourced by  that creates the impression of watching life unfold from your window? Or is there a new style or narrative we should be aware of?

My thesis points to an array. Six months ago I introduced Touchcast to a friend - one of the top executives in the BBC. Videohyperlinking. -- how you create linear television by being discursive, is a biggy, or game changer if you're stateside. Watch it hit a space near you soon. 

And then there's the method behind the concept of the Outernet, which featured on Apple's site ( see pic below) 
A new form of television - live in public spaces by David for Apple profile

Culture Vultures

Technology is a part of the solution. But actually there's a more interesting question. How do  grab and then hang on to one of the UK's most fickle audiences - Londoners. And how do 
you measure success?  

The Evening Standard has the opportunity to launch a new type of television.  A TV that can radicalise our perception of what constitutes TV. Just as they did more than fifty years ago.

And why not - a new millennium, a new 24 hour entertainment TV station. No one's tried it yet, not in this era of digital plumbing. Live TV and Channel One were before their time.

Prresenting at Time Square NY
Television, according to one of the most influential texts ever written on the subject, Television by Raymond Williams,  is a cultural construct. What does that mean? It means at some point someone decided what it would looked like.

And over the years that feature has been normalised in various cultures, so that you and I have expectations. In fact Television has taught you and I to understand the media it presents.

This facade withstood the pen of many sociologists and focus groups before cable, satellite, mobile phones and the Net took shape.

Knowing what television looks like now has become the turn on for one generation and the major moony for another who traditionally shirk TV. The question becomes who do you pitch to? It's a constant concern for TV makers. In the 90s I worked for Reportage and the issue was as ripe then as it is now.

BBC Reportage from david dunkley gyimah on Vimeo.

Janet Street Porter's Reportage wrote the rules outside mainstream before they adopted its techniques.

New TV

Alternative methods are only suitable to various cultures, as I spoke about at one of Europe's biggest media gatherings. NewsXchange.

Consistently television has reverted to type. The group it knows and the progamming itself understands.  It's had to do this too, because of the bottom line and the idea of turning a profit soon. 

Being part of the launch of a new station or Dotcom is exhilarating. When the candles on the cake have been blown out, it's also for execs, a bloody pain in the neck,  particularly when the suits start asking about projections.

Ask any savvy entrepreneur behind a television station and you're inclined to be disappointed. Sky News, for instance, is funded from other kitties. At Channel One they burnt through a million pounds a month  and that was peanuts in terms of funding its operation costs. 

Newspapers and television stations, as some of the videojournalists discovered from the Press Association's VJ programme I helped set up, are different animals. The pros is it means Nupes in TV can reset the agenda. The con, is that they should be allowed to left alone to build a brand. Sadly, like Cardiff FC, managers like unrealistic changes.

So what if you could invent a new form of television?  Oh yes it is possible, but to do it, firstly you would have to reconcile the idea that you would be teaching your audience a new type of television to grow into to. You'd  have to hold your nerve, and then secondly know what it is and produce this new type.

18-30s don't do traditional television

The second is hugely difficult because most television forums call upon other television types to assist them. Imagine where You Tube would be if it relied on the convention of wisdom. Or, think of the talent pool where TV people come from  - and consider, if you had the data of commissions from non Traditional TV types.

Many years ago in the capital, a little unknown station called Channel One did something radical -- low cost reality TV series? Well, yes, that's the television cultural construct at work again. No, it chose people who were not in, or done television. 

Steve Punter, a videojournalism and later BBC Editor referred to them as the "odd ball".   Many now litter the echelons of innovative television.

To produce good TV, you've got to be anti-TV, otherwise you merely mimic, without the budget -- if you don't have it - what your competitors are doing.

I come from a television background: BBC Reportage, Channel One, Newsnight and Channel 4 to name a few, before a couple of years with a huge mentor, John Staton formerly a TV producer at Saatchi and Saatchi. Hence I am guilty of the second.

But in my six-year study submitted soon for my PhD at University College Dublin, the first question about operating away from the norm is critically considered.

It took in some of the world's leading talent in story form,  and my own autoethnographic narrative:  the Knight Batten Awards for Innovation; Channel 4 Digital Awards Runner Up; International Award for Videojournalism, to sculptor an argument.

These served as both markers and also door openers to some of the busiest peoples whom I needed to speak to. The content is king argument has proved to be one the most versatile sayings for grabbing audiences, but the research underscores this with some key caveats.

The content is standard, the question become how different can you be to put one over the industry and sate the appetite of a new audience.  London Live could provide some of those answers.

David Dunkley Gyimah was this year's Chair of Television Innovative  News at the RTS.
He is the founder of, a senior lecturer and artist in residence at the Southbank Centre. he submits his PhD in two months time. He's been in the media for 26 years and now lectures and trains [ he launched PA's videojournalism training programme] around the world.

Thursday, January 02, 2014

Television news has its last laugh at social media, but could that change?

BBC's Hackathon event
Many digital natives willed it, the end of the behemoth broadcasters.

In 2006 at the BBC in London, WeMedia - a forward thinking agency -  held a two day conference.

A measure of the company's pulling power was how the then BBC's Director General Mark Thompson was one of the speakers, as was actor Richard Dreyfus and roll call of international key figures, such as Jeff Jarvis.

If you examine the period, what was equally interesting is how corporations like the BBC wobbled in their confidence when it came to areas of the web.  That would later change. How?

The BBC either bought in talent such as Erik Huggers and Roo Reynolds to launch its second life, otherwise sent its management on tech finds.

I met BBC managers in Podgorica, Berlin, Brussels and so on. When the Social tech history is properly written and TV states its place, what will emerge is how networks like the BBC stayed relevant to audiences by coming quasi social e.g., its iPlayer.

Digital natives may stand outside the corporation and critique the BBC's lack of this and that. For instance its social media strategy, but in truth, companies like the BBC have bolstered their standing in the new digital age, by adopting and recreating.

Its innovation devision and its Hackathon is just one example. There are many, and as one of the BBC's senior executives told me, yes they are learning from the web. It took a while - I attended the BBC's ONA meeting in 2007 when it was trialling embeded video - but the divide between the rump of the bell curve of external social mediast and themselves is quite narrow.

The BBC is part of a multibillion dollar industry. It's news department sells news and whether it sticks with ageing traditional models of broadcast which are 50 years old, it's not going to go away anytime soon.

Because as I said their adaptive skills, but also because of their legacy viewers. In other words, the way we watch and consume news was taught to us by corporations like the BBC, and when we went online the BBC merely reworked its videos to meet our needs.

Young people may not watch the news, but that's not because of Social. Young people rarely watch the news and where news corporations are losing audiences, actual evidence will show its enough not to affect their confidence.

That's because their brand is still strong, and a considerable number of social media still rely on the BBC for content to tweet and talk about.

In my PhD research I address a fundamental issue that questions news production. It is relevant for the younger generation and if its contents prove popular, in part driven by marketing, then it could add to other strategies in the way we produce news.

Until that is, its readopted. I've already had some interest.

David Dunkley Gyimah is involved with innovative news production