Traditionally newspapers are published daily or weekly, but what if they were only published every ten years or perhaps, even longer? How would you decide what stories to include and which ones should be left on the cutting room floor?

Inspired by a chapter in Tim Harford’s new book, “How to Make the World Add Up: Ten Rules for Thinking Differently About Numbers”, our latest podcast examines the news media. We look at how reporting has evolved over time, whether the constant influx of news is creating “news fatigue” instead of educating society, and attempt to unravel what should make an event significant or newsworthy. We try our hand at putting together our ten-year newspaper and discuss what we would include as special features and why.

A few things we mentioned in this podcast:

• Pew Research Center: All News By Topic
• Wikipedia: 2010s
• Wikipedia: 2nd Millennium
• How to Make the World Add Up: Ten Rules for Thinking Differently About Numbers

For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email [email protected]

This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:

Podtrac - https://analytics.podtrac.com/privacy-policy-gdrp

Speaker A: 00:00:00

Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Chris Wragg, Peter Coghill and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights, and this week we're discussing what would we put in a 10-year newspaper. Nick, yeah, lead us in on this. What do we mean? What do we mean by 10-year newspaper? What's going on? So I was reading Tim Harford's new book, which is called How to Make the World Add Up, and I officially endorse it. It's a really good book. It's a kind of bunch of chapters looking at how you should essentially interpret data. So it's kind of good data habits. One of the chapters is about contextualising information to try and look at where that fits into the sort of long-term picture, and he has this thought experiment, which is if you only read a newspaper, or if there was a newspaper that was only published every 10 years, and it was designed to be read by people who only read the news every 10 years, what would be in that newspaper? What stories would you cover? What would be the big story of the last 10 years? And of course, that then inspires the thought of, well, what if it was a 100-year newspaper or a 1,000-year newspaper? If you were going to go to bed and wake up in 1,000 years and wanted to quickly catch up on the key events of the last millennium, what would they be? And I think probably the more Aleph-y kind of question here is, how would we go about deciding what should be in them? And supplementary question, if those things that would be in that long-term newspaper are different to what's in the news, why? Are there systematic reasons why the news doesn't give us a good picture of the long-term? So those are some of the questions. But yes, so what would we put in a long-term newspaper? I think this is fascinating. But also I think it begs the question, well, why do we have a daily newspaper? And indeed, we don't really anymore, right? Well, yes. Well, no, but can extrapolate that. What do you mean? So what I mean is, first of all, let's say if you were a being that lived for 1,000 years, rather than one that lives for 80-odd, would it make more sense then? You wouldn't be the frequency and the rhythms of your life over 1,000 years. You perhaps wouldn't give a toss what happens every day. Whereas if you only live for 80 years, well, you do want to know what's going on every day. Yeah, I know. Before, just to close off the questions then, another question which you've just inspired me to think is, assuming that we are at the moment living in a kind of rolling live news cycle where news is just always the latest news, is there a similar distinction between a daily newspaper and a rolling news that you would find between a 10-year newspaper and a daily newspaper? Is it a similar kind of

Speaker B: 00:03:16

thing? I mean, I think it is. And I think it's something media outlets are having to tackle. If you look back, I mean, so I don't think the length of your life is the critical thing to working out what your horizons are for news. Because I mean, life expectancy has gone up, right? But the news cycle has condensed. And if you look back, I see this evolution towards ever faster news. So, you know, you look back at the time when news spread basically as quickly as a horse could ride, you know, the sort of Roman courier system and so on. And then, you know, you had... By the way, that was pretty fast. I'm always surprised when you hear about,

Speaker A: 00:04:07

you know, people in Rome writing to each other and then in a matter of weeks being able to

Speaker B: 00:04:13

newspaper was the Courant in: 1621

Speaker A: 00:06:24

right? Are there more events around? And is, what's the difference between, and how much of it is important to us as individuals, right? Because if you went away and sort of said, oh, I'm not gonna read the news, for however long, even just six months, let's say. Yeah. How much would you need to know, you know, or actually? Yeah. I don't know. What would be the difference? What would be the difference between what you'd, what you'd want to know and what would be in a newspaper? We've got lots of questions here. We've got lots of great questions.

Speaker B: 00:06:54

I mean, I, I think Tim Harford's sort of point really, about this sampling rate, is if you want to know something about long term trends, right? You can't, you can't work those out on the basis of an isolated year or isolated month, right? So he's sort of saying, if you really want to understand crime statistics, don't look at them on a week by week basis, you know, you need to look at them over a longer term than that. And, and if there, if there are things that you want to make decisions about, you know, so if you're crossing, if you're crossing a road, right, you don't want to know what the, what the rate of traffic is on that road over the last 10 years, you want to look quickly all the time and sample in order to aid your crossing the road. But if you want to know, what's the risk of my child, you know, getting hit by a car on this

Speaker C: 00:07:48

road, then maybe you use the latter. So I think, yeah, and I think, I also think your, the nature of the news is important as well. So if you, yes, so the daily news and weekly news that are prevalent at the moment, they're very sort of, this thing happened, this person said this, the very kind of fact based, like, drawing point, giving you sort of points of data from a vast array of different sort of things. But actually, they, what would maybe be informative, the kind of thing that you, the kind, the nature of the story in a 100 year, 100 year newspaper might be quite different. A historian looking back at what happened in the 18th century or the 17th century, they don't really care. To them, like, the name of the prime minister at the time is largely irrelevant. What is more informative is kind of like, what did the bread taste like in the shops? Could you even buy bread in the shops? It was, it's sort of more like, fundamental, real lifey stuff, rather than abstract concepts that such and such was the prime, became the prime minister on this date. Because there's a sort of degree of determinism about the way the world was. It doesn't necessarily, often it doesn't really matter who the prime minister is, because they're a product of their environment. So you want descriptions about the environment from which they came, more than the name of the person, because that's largely irrelevant. I think that, yeah,

Speaker A: 00:09:16

communist country. And on the: 1000

Speaker C: 00:10:11

between the sort of summarization and compression because you can carry a lot of knowledge about what a country is. You can assume that in your reader day to day, but millennia to millennia,

Speaker A: 00:10:24

that's not necessarily going to be the case. I think it might help listeners if we just have a little stab at what we think we should be. Yeah, because I think we've been talking abstractly. So let's let's try and stick some news stories in there. And it's perhaps talk a bit about why we've or how we've chosen to select them. Also, I think we need to define who the audience is. Because I think we should assume that if it's 100 years, I think we should assume that it is someone who's been put to sleep for 100 years and woken up again, let's say 10,000 years. Let's start with 10 years. No, but my point is, whatever the parameter is that we just assume is someone's been put to sleep for 10 years. Someone waking up with a coma wants to get a sort

Speaker B: 00:11:05

of... Yeah, yeah. Well, in 100 years, our brilliance will be recognized and will be seen as one of the salient elements of culture in the Aleph Insights podcast.

Speaker A: 00:11:20

But also we'll have to, we do need, as you were kind of saying, Peter, kind of cheat sheet. So one of the ones will be like, here's some facts you might not know about, which is one of them, the world is round, actually. And stuff like that, you know, if it's someone we sent to sleep in... This just in, a miracle exists. Yeah. So let's have a stab at this. Who wants to... Yeah,

Speaker C: 00:11:43

st decade of this century, so: 2000

Speaker A: 00:11:52

s do it from now and say from: 2012

Speaker C: 00:12:06

Well, not really. I've got, I have got a few ideas, but I can just shift them along a bit.

Speaker A: 00:12:12

Well, I've got a few suggestions. So my front page for the last 10 years would be, um, would have a feature on, um, uh, climate change. That's probably one of the key things, you know, that people will need to be informed that we are understanding of it as, and it hasn't gone away. And we've had the Paris agreement and, and all of that. Um, I think I would, um...

Speaker C: 00:12:35

With a footnote to say the America just, just pulled out of it.

Speaker A: 00:12:39

Yeah. Yeah. And then, uh, I probably mentioned China, the big geopolitical changes, China and a sort of Russia continue to be assertive in Ukraine and that kind of thing. Um, fallout from the financial crisis in the Arab spring. So, so it'll be like, well, these things will have just happened last time you, you were awake. Uh, now let's tell you what their impact has been. Um, and, uh, and then you'd, I think a significant section on technology about smartphones, uh, and the massive penetration of smartphones and streaming.

Speaker C: 00:13:11

scovery of the Higgs boson in: 2012

Speaker A: 00:14:00

You'd cover them in the same article, I think.

Speaker C: 00:14:02

It would be the same. It would probably be the same paragraph, the same article.

Speaker A: 00:14:04

Yeah. Oh, I would want to have a special feature on the, on the death of Osama bin Laden because he's going to have been a pretty major character in the last edition. Um, so people will want to know that about the, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his execution.

Speaker C: 00:14:20

Sadly, my media section would have to have a review of Avengers end game, uh, because it was the biggest grossing movie of all time up until that point. So it's kind of, that's kind of a, a slightly sad cultural entry.

Speaker A: 00:14:32

Well, no, tragically, the book section would cover 50 shades of gray. Oh, that's true. Yeah. But the great thing is that the video game section will be all about Minecraft.

Speaker C: 00:14:41

Yes, that's right. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker B: 00:14:43

Chris? Yeah. Well, I, I think the, um, the, the, the sort of change in the, in the technology landscape would be quite, um, quite dramatic. I mean, we talked about video games and so on, but, but I mean, I know social media existed 10 years ago, but it certainly wasn't the phenomenon that it is now, you know, plenty of platforms that are things like TikTok and Instagram, uh, I don't believe were, you know, existed at that point and have now become kind of major cultural phenomena. Um, so, but, but, you know, other things are sort of on the wane. So, you know, Facebook, you know, which, which may have been a massive emerging deal at that point, um, is, you know, probably not so much now. So I think that'd have to be a bit on the, uh, you know, the changes we've seen in our, um, and the, you know, the development of smartphones. I mean, you know, the, the, um, the extent to which everybody has one and the, their level of capability, I think is, is quite dramatically different from.

Speaker A: 00:15:53

Yeah. We'd have to, they'd have to be, you'd have to caution the reader that their Facebook profile, which was once full of young people going to parties is now going to be their aunt moaning about her sciatica. Um, the, the evasion of, but I was thinking, actually, we haven't mentioned the culture wars and I was thinking about, um, Trump and Brexit and the fact that we haven't really, you know, on a 10 year timeframe, they are worth mentioning, but I feel like they would actually be mentioned in the context of this sort of, of the, the culture wars in the West. Um, you know, aggressive versus conservative, uh, and, and, and polarization, which I think will be a, an interesting feature article.

Speaker B: 00:16:29

Yeah. I mean, clearly, you know, the, the, the, the sort of whole Trump, um, uh, period, uh, and that, that, you know, that growth in the culture wars, I think would, would have to have to feature as well.

Speaker A: 00:16:44

Hmm. But it is, I mean, I, I think, you know, looking at that and the stories that we've chosen. Hold on, stop. And trying what? When's, when's this being published? Is this a pub, something that would be published today? Next week. Yeah. Surely there should be something in the health, in the health stroke economic section? No. Has it, is it particularly, has anything really interesting happened? I mean, the biggest interesting economic story was the previous edition. We covered that in the last edition, when we looked at the financial crisis. No, no, no, no. Cause let's say we go back in time six months and that's, that's when we're publishing. Right. And you get up, you've been asleep for 10 years. You go out and wander into the streets and you go, where the fuck is everyone? Right. Where's the traffic? What's happened? This is like, yeah.

Speaker B: 00:17:31

Like 28 days later only.

Speaker A: 00:17:33

I think that definitely needs to be in there. I think you would mention COVID, but it wouldn't be, I mean, on a, on a 10 year timeframe. And certainly in sort of, let's say another 10 years, you know, what's the long-term kind of say what?

Speaker B: 00:17:48

I mean, obviously there's, there's, whatever you publish, there's going to be recency bias, right? So that, that is just gonna, gonna happen. And I mean, the thing that occurs to me, right. Is, is Spanish flu, right? Spanish flu. I don't, you know, the first world war killed, what was it about 20, I think estimates suggest there were 20 million deaths, right. As the results of the first world war, 21 million wounded or something like that. Spanish flu, apparently one third of the world's population got it. And, you know, it was estimated that there were at least 50 million deaths, right. But when I was a kid, you know, let's say, well, three quarters of a, of a century after, after the, the, the first world war ended, right. All of our history, which I take to be kind of the news over the, the, you know, the 20th century or whatever, was about the, the first world war. I, I didn't really know about Spanish flu until kind of later. And certainly the amount of information I've got about Spanish flu now has only really circulated in the last year and a half, right. As, as we've become fascinated by this other thing that happened, that's like the thing that's happening today. And, and so, you know, that, that kind of, we have to accept that whatever we produce, and I think this is the, the floor in this idea of having 10 year news is that it's going to be biased by whatever is going on in the month in which this, this thing is being produced. No, we have to fight against that. It's our

Speaker A: 00:19:31

duty as editors to fight against that. And to say, no, listen, I've got the test, right. Because I think it does. How can you say no, I haven't finished my sentence. You've put your pre point in. So that's how I know. Because the fact is, actually, it isn't just the cycle, the length that matters. Actually, the timeliness is also what matters. Because like say, if it was six months ago, and you know, I'm making a serious point. If you got up and where is everyone, you definitely wouldn't want to know about that, regardless like, oh, X amount number of people got killed in the Spanish flu. And, and the bubonic plague, you would, it is, you know, I think it does lead to the question, what is news, you would need to know.

Speaker C: 00:20:11

la and things that instead of: 2016

Speaker B: 00:20:40

events. And yet, if we had written it in the, as that was occurring and unfolding, without knowing the end point, we'd probably have been pushed into into making that part of the story.

Speaker A: 00:20:54

w, whether it had happened in: 2012

Speaker B: 00:22:25

know, picking up newspapers,: 1914

Speaker A: 00:23:31

is a great treaty. But yeah, so I, well, I have a quick, so my follow on question to that point is, can we tell at the time what things will prove significant? Right? And I, and I think this is quite a hard question to answer. And I don't know, I mean, in our, in my lifetime, the most obviously significant at the time event was September the 11th. You know, that on that day, you said, I remember saying to people, this is going to change everything. And I think, you know, the number of things that have happened as a result of that is enormous, out of proportion, you know, to the number of deaths, you know, it's really had an impact on history and would, would be in history books, it would have to be. But you take an equivalent sort of event from the previous generation, which was the death of JFK. Everyone, that was the source of September the 11th, if you grew up in the 50s and 60s. But you'd have to say that it's not perhaps proved terribly significant. And in the 100 year newspaper, you know, it would probably merit a paragraph or two. Am I right? I'm a historian here, they might tell me that we were wrong.

Speaker B: 00:24:41

I think if you look at 9-11, right, you know, 20 years ago, I would argue that its impacts by and large, you know, it really affected the decade afterwards. But its impacts have waned over the following decade. And I would say now, it's, you know, in terms of, you know, Islamist terrorism, and instability in the Middle East, is right back to where it was pre 9-11 in terms of its importance to us, you know. So actually, something that we thought was so significant 20 years later, as an impact on us in our day to day lives, is really, you know, quite peripheral,

Speaker C: 00:25:30

I think. Still got the security checks in airports. Yeah, I think, yeah, maybe just like our lives, but if you're, yeah, as Nick says, if you're traveling a lot, or if you are a citizen of a Islamic country, visiting the States or Europe a lot, you will have come up with a lot more resistance. And there's a sort of, that event wasn't the cause, but it was a sort of, it was as a result of... Yeah, it caused measures to be put in place. Yeah, growing sort of xenophobia. So there might be like an op-ed about how this decade was just fracturing amongst the human race and

Speaker A: 00:26:10

things. Yeah. We're tripping along here, and there's still much that we could discuss.

Speaker C: 00:26:17

I've got something else I kind of wanted to mention, that I've noticed. A phenomenon.

Speaker A: 00:26:22

Go on, because I just wanted to say, do we want to have some fun and go for a hundred year or a thousand year? Yes, yes we do. But let's get Peter's phenomenon. Absolutely. I want to hear

Speaker C: 00:26:31

ck a random year from say the: 1930

Speaker A: 00:27:38

Well, this is a time, sorry, I just want to say this is actually, I'm afraid Peter, this has corollary of a law that's already got somebody else's name on because this is Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy, which is that everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have first hand knowledge. And that's that, you know, phenomenon of when you read a news story that you were involved in or know about and you're like, well, this is all total bollocks. But you're inclined to trust, you know, the news about stuff.

Speaker C: 00:28:08

It's not about trust, but it's more about completeness. It's a feeling of like a description of like, say, okay, for example, let's go, let's pick a random year.

Speaker A: 00:28:16

Let's call it the Coghill Corollary. It's a Knoll's Law.

Speaker C: 00:28:20

t's like you read events from: 1932

Speaker A: 00:29:48

Why isn't that in Wikipedia?

Speaker C: 00:29:50

I remember this being number one for ages or whatever. There's like loads of detail that you know is there that's not there. But anyway, it's a fairly, it's not a profound observation, but it's definitely-

Speaker A: 00:30:02

An observation nonetheless.

Speaker C: 00:30:04

You have a sort of, yeah, you have a-

Speaker B: 00:30:06

f detail seems sufficient for: 1932

Speaker A: 00:30:14

ry different to people in the: 1990

Speaker C: 00:31:02

Yeah. And also humans splitting the atom. It's probably quite a big deal.

Speaker A: 00:31:06

Nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's key.

Speaker C: 00:31:09

Because that dominates, you know, the Cold War dominates for the second half of the 20th century.

Speaker A: 00:31:14

I think we got to the moon. We got to the moon. That's a big story. Yeah, that's quite a big deal. I want a picture of, you know, Neil Armstrong on the moon. You'd have to have something about population growth as well. Yeah, I do. It's grown from about a billion to seven billion or something. Well, I mean, no, but hasn't population gone, and apologies to our listeners who can't see this, but population has gone something like this. And in the 20th century, it went like that. So yeah, but the exponential growth always looks really steep near where you are.

Speaker B: 00:31:44

It does, but the implications of having seven billion as opposed to one and a half billion are bigger than having one and a half billion.

Speaker A: 00:31:53

And I'm enjoying our editorial meeting. Let's keep going.

Speaker C: 00:31:55

Yeah, I think we probably want to mention the internet as just a big block of thing, like this global communication network. That's a total waste of time.

Speaker A: 00:32:08

Yeah, it's funny. What wouldn't? I mean, we probably wouldn't go into too much detail about precisely, you know, about things like social media over the 100 year time frame. The big story would be the technology and the communication and the ability to transmit information globally and instantly.

Speaker B: 00:32:25

Yeah, but we mentioned, again, here we are affected by recency bias. You know, we talk about the internet, right? And think, yeah, well, that was that was significant. But what about the growth in automobile usage, right? Which must have been massively. Oh, yeah, yeah. But we don't know what it's like.

Speaker C: 00:32:41

Also things that feel routine, although prescient, like antibiotics, widespread availability of antibiotics, elimination of smallpox and things like that.

Speaker B: 00:32:50

Yeah, reduction of massive reduction of poverty.

Speaker A: 00:32:53

Yeah, well, we'll have to we'll have to inform them that they should expect that the person owning two cars might be their next door neighbour, not the local lord. Yeah. I mean, that's going to be big news. But also, do you know what? Something I you could something I think is important as well is right this person, because I quite like the other side of the equation, right? So this person, they've been asleep for 100 years, they've just woken up. But how long are they going to be awake for? Right? Because let's say they just are they around for a day or

Speaker C: 00:33:19

they around for a year or a thousand years? Yeah.

Speaker A: 00:33:23

Yeah. Because if they're not, because if they're around, if they're just going to stay awake for the next 70 odd years, then they probably should. We should we need to tell them about the internet, let's say. But if they're going to go to sleep for another 100 years, well, you know, do we? Do you know what? I think that affects what news they need to know. But maybe.

Speaker C: 00:33:38

Yeah, I think let's not mention human rights if we're doing this horrid experiment on them. We can leave that bit out. You're still expected to do exactly what authority tells you to.

Speaker A: 00:33:49

Yeah. What about a thousand years, our thousand year newspaper?

Speaker C: 00:33:54

Well, I think I said from the technology side, it's going to be dominated by like, agriculture and advances in that and advances in technology like steam power and manufacturing and the sort of that that's led to the recent world, the ability to sort of everything being globalised and printing.

Speaker A: 00:34:16

about. If you fell asleep in: 1022

Speaker C: 00:35:01

They'd have to be quite, you'd probably be quite religiously minded being from that era, so you'd want to have a bit of a praise about what's going on with the churches.

Speaker A: 00:35:11

Yeah, you'd have the Islamic golden age, you might mention that as well, in the context of religion, the invention of Protestantism and the wars that followed. I mean, they were pretty significant.

Speaker B: 00:35:23

I think, well, I think the thing is, what's interesting is all of the things that feel massively significant in the hundred year, like the First World War, the Second World War, you know, many of the technological advances, arguably the sort of the drop off in religious adherence in the West, you know, or belief in growth of secularism. Those things all feel massively significant and like, hey, we definitely have to tell these guys this stuff because that's been huge. And yet, I don't know how much, you know, it's a bit like we've talked previously, like did life shift that much from the 11th century to the 14th, 15th century? And we sort of, you know, we think no, but actually maybe there were real, you know, maybe like, you've now got potatoes, we'd be like, blimey, that's amazing.

Speaker A: 00:36:19

What the hell is that? Oh, the food supplement would be brilliant, wouldn't it? Yeah. After a thousand years, you'd be like... Chips! Full page feature on chips. Where have my turnips gone?

Speaker C: 00:36:33

There needs to be an info ad about how to use a toilet or something like that as well. How running water works.

Speaker A: 00:36:40

Yeah, I mean, it would be really good fun. I was just wondering, based on what Chris was saying, whether or not, you know, if you were in the 20th century department of producing the thousand year newspaper, what story you would offer up? My instinct is that actually it might be to do with the health technology. That might actually be the most significant thing. You know, the discovery of antibiotics has ended, you know, possibly the greatest, the biggest source of death.

Speaker B: 00:37:10

Something like communism, right? And this is my point about, like, would you even mention communism? It's because it was all over and done with in, you know, in sort of less than a hundred years, really.

Speaker C: 00:37:25

Yeah, you probably mention it in the op-ed about the fall of the feudal system and say that the various other political systems have been tried. Here's a name to name a few, but you probably wouldn't mention any details about it.

Speaker A: 00:37:40

Apologies to any communists who are listening. I know they might claim it hasn't been tried. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: 00:37:47

Well, it's never, according to communists, it's never been tried properly.

Speaker A: 00:37:50

aper by Dalton and Rouge from: 1960

Speaker C: 00:39:51

Yeah. Humanity discovers the great filter.

Speaker A: 00:39:57

Yeah, or it could be, you know, it'll be written in binary for artificial intelligence. Okay, well done on to I think, I mean, we all choose these topics. But I think, was it Nick, you sort of brought this one to the table? Well, Tim Harford, really? This has been gone, gone. No, I reckon I do actually have a question. Oh, good one. Yeah, I think this one, this one is quite an interesting one. So what, what would be the your autobiography over the last 10 years? What would be in it? Oh, wow. I can tell you what my one would be, I think. Yeah, no, go on then, Nick. Yeah. Well, like, so I think about now, my kids already existed, but they have grown up. And I want a quick summary of what they've been up to. Dad and granddad dying. And the fact that I started a company, I think they would be the key things in a 10 year summary of my life. Yeah. Nice. Chris or Peter?

Speaker B: 00:40:57

Well, I was just gonna say, I think, in your life, there are periods that feel frenetic, like you look back to your teenage years, like two or three years in your teenage years between, I don't know, being 15 and 18, or something like that. And you think, Oh, my God, you know, it's almost the opposite of, of telescoping, you know, that those, those years seem hugely dense with activity and change. And then you kind of get into your middle ages. And it's, it's very much kind of coasting along. Business as usual, everything. Business as usual, you know. Not much happened in the last 10 years. Not much, not much. And I definitely feel that about the sort of the noughties that not, not much, not much happened. But yeah, similar kinds of things to Nick, I acquired a child, some parents died. One of your own, I hope. Yes, yeah. Not just a waif that I picked up on the street. And, yeah, and, you know, joined a company. But really, that's, that feels really sort of thin compared to if you'd said, what happened to you between 10 and 20? You know, that would, that would, that would be a rich story, I think.

Speaker A: 00:42:15

I don't think so. And I'll tell you why. It's because it's boring, because everyone has the same, it'd be the same for everyone. There's nothing interesting about your life up till the age of 18. You might be enjoying it, doing fun stuff, but you're just getting school. And then you go to university. You know, I don't think that's news.

Speaker B: 00:42:31

Hmm. Maybe, I mean, but it definitely feels more exciting. And also you've formed the person you are. So there'd probably be more about, well, you know, I started off as a goth and I ended up as a, you know, a raver, or whatever, you know.

Speaker C: 00:42:51

Peter? I think, again, similar. I think that, I think our stories would end up being quite, we have not achieved anything of particular notoriety, I think. Yet! Or note, yeah. Or notoriety. Yeah. So our stories would all be similar. So mine would be dominated by the last year, having a kid, Ada being born, leaving the civil service, joining Aleph Insights. Yeah, it would seem very similar to Nick's, I think. You just say we survived.

Speaker A: 00:43:29

Well, I think my headline would, I know what the headline would be, for mine would be, you're still alive. Right? That's the most important thing. And nearly everyone that I like,

Speaker C: 00:43:37

Despite all odds, I'm still alive.

Speaker A: 00:43:39

Yeah. Yeah. And that's the first, you know, and, you know, and then, you know, turn to the back page for more news on that. Great, because I want to know how I'm doing in that sense. And bad news, I'm about 20 kilos heavier, right? But yeah, I know my... There's more of you though, Fraser. Yeah, more of me to love, right? Yeah, yeah. The sports page would be not much going on there. And I guess with me, sort of made a leap in, I tend to do about two or three careers per decade. So, you know, that sort of has remained the same. And yeah, making films and all that kind

Speaker C: 00:44:12

of stuff. Yeah. And so, yeah. But also similar to yours, you know. So it'd be a complicated but chaotic business section in the Fraser newspaper.

Speaker A: 00:44:19

There would be. There would indeed. There would indeed.

Speaker B: 00:44:23

Mergers and acquisitions.

Speaker A: 00:44:24

Yeah. But hey, as a part of my media empire growth, I participate in this wonderful podcast. Absolutely. Yeah. All right. Let's stop there. Really, really, really enjoyed that one. That was one of my favorites, if not my very favorite podcast that we've ever done. So, so yeah. We have not edited it. Yeah. Give it a go. Yeah. I will see which... I think it'll be interesting in 10 years time to see which podcast stands out whether it's this one. Yeah. And actually talking about the edit, I will go off this podcast when I'm editing it because it will take me bloody forever because it's a long podcast, this one. A long episode. Anyway, as always, thanks for listening. If you've got any thoughts or suggestions for topics, you can email us at podcast.alephinsights.com. We'd love to hear from you. If you've enjoyed this podcast, what should you do, Nick? Well, at some point in the next 10 years, tap the like button. Absolutely. That's what you should do. All right. Thanks as always for listening. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Chris Wragg, Peter Coghill and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights. Until next time. Goodbye.