Could you tell us a little bit about how on earth you arrived at this and ended up being such a wonderful, trusted voice on nature, on prescriptions?

I'm not sure about the trusted voice, but a voice might be okay.

But it is a life history, really.

And I think probably because my dad was a doctor, GP, and my mother was a naturalist.

So probably there was a couple of genes that kind of crossed over there and came to me.

So I'd had that kind of both inputs from...

My parents' nature was very important.

And what do you think the key evidence is for someone who hasn't really dipped their toe into looking at the evidence behind this or any of the literature? What do you think the key messages are? What do you think we should know as GPs and practice nurses and all the rest?

So there's some optimism in some places about certain types of media, but generally speaking, is it true to say that virtually all news organizations are growing weaker?

Well, yes and no.

You know, as, uh, Rob pointed out, it's a, it's a bit of a mixed bag because if you look internationally, people still want and value and trust public broadcasters.

For example, in the, in the, when you look at a crisis point, people turn to news that they know and trust that is there, that operates in the public interest.

All of our news organizations saw significant spikes, uh, during COVID precisely because people [clears throat] wanted to get credible, accurate information.

The big problem, of course, is the f- the financial model is just, uh, not there anymore, and it's being actively eaten and devoured by the, the social media platforms.

And not only is it devouring them, it is also kind of cannibalizing the way we think through and understand news.

Would the future of j- journalism then be about making meaning of what's going on around us? And if you do that, and if you do it credibly, you might stay in business?

But generally speaking, is it true to say that virtually all news organizations are growing weaker?

Well, yes and no.

You know, as, uh, Rob pointed out, it's a, it's a bit of a mixed bag because if you look internationally, people still want and value and trust public broadcasters.

For example, in the, in the [static] when you look at a crisis point, people turn to news that they know and trust that it's there, that operates in the public.

And just all of our news organizations saw significant spikes, uh, during COVID precisely because people [clears throat] wanted to get credible, accurate information.

The big problem, of course, is the f- the financial model is just, uh, not there anymore, and it's being actively eaten and devoured by the, the social media platforms.

And not only is it devouring them, it is also kind of cannibalizing the way we think through and understand news.

Would the future of journalism then be about making meaning of what's going on around us? And if you do that, and if you do it credibly, you might stay in business?

But I figure, well, the electoral court will get to me in five days, by which time, according to what we know about the algorithms, 250,000 people will have seen a job done.

Yeah, so if that happens within 24 hours, so let's say you reported it gets done urgently.

Firstly, the platform will act against that very speedily depending on their own timelines.

And they will then remove that piece of content in their guidelines.

That's obviously for the platform to determine.

but they'll also then potentially take action against me and my party, the William Byrd Affairs Party, would have to immediately issue a retraction and state correctly that this is in fact what the position is.

So you can do that, and you might try and do that, and you might get away with it on some level, but fundamentally what this does is it starts to put in measures for all of us to hold people accountable.

without