I have a theory that has nothing to do with today’s graph and it goes like this:  the stories you see in the papers from scientists are all commissioned by the papers themselved.  There isn’t a scientist in the world who focusses on anything that is ‘newsworthy’.  All scientists working on such important work as “How far can you shoot Noel Edmonds from a cannon”, “How long can Simon Cowell be held under water”, “Can christmas tree lights be made from butter” and “Can you feed Harrogate on smarties for one month” … they’re all being worked on by former journalists.

Journalism has become too hard – there’s stuff to write, stories to find and PR people to moan about.  At the last count 19.4% of national journalists and 80% of trade journalists (most trade journals are now written by the companies covered themselves – so little’s changed) had entered academia.  There they churn out reseach with the sole aim of making it onto page 7 of the Telegraph, it has no use to the wider world.  Once page 7 has been achieved they apply for grants for more newsworthy research and get specific commission from the papers for research they want to write about.

I was speaking to someone from the Times the other day and I know, for a fact, they have 3 journo-scientists working on groundbreaking studies for page 9.  In January you will see articles on “Should fertilizer be made out of Daley Thompson”, “Why the UK should lobby for a sport based purely on Davina for the Olympics” and “Why all computer games should, somehow, teach children grammar”.

Is the plooptionary on Twitter?  Hell yeah … you can follow here