In terms of its mouth-to-trousers ratio, you'd expect the media to be long on the mouth aspect: it is, after all, the business of communication.
As for the trousers bit, the first pertinent question is who wears them and why. The majority of the UK media is in right-of-centre ownership and indeed editorship, as the MP for Tatton's recent career move shows.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the NHS (which is the bit of socialism the British people like and think effective, judging by its iconic status in repeated opinion polls of reasons people are proud to be British) is politically and philosophically not an evident fit with right-of-centre values.
The belief in much of the NHS that it will or may get a fair hearing in the media without a) being smart and b) working hard is charmingly naive. Bad news has more evolutionary use value than good: it's great to know where the pretty view is, but vital to know which forests contain wolves and which caves bears. The NHS should prepare accordingly, but often doesn't.
This isn't to absolve the media, especially the national media brands. Specialist correspondents are fewer and further between, and some national correspondents who work in the NHS space simply don't understand much about it.
The trade press is different, and sometimes better. At least HSJ and the BMJ are. 'Do you work for them then, Andy?' I couldn't possibly comment.
People have noticed this, because people are in the main not stupid, and now act accordingly. Newspaper purchasing has dropped vertiginously. Online and social media have exploded, while generally not yet developing economically viable business models (exceptions include YouTube, Vice and BuzzFeed).
This facilitates the creation and spread of 'fake news', or as it's known in the trade, 'bullshit'. Ideologically and politically motivated bullshit news is not a new phenomenon. Remember the coverage of Hillsborough.
Online and social media also offer the NHS many opportunities to become a better communicator and crucially, a better listener. Who knows: some day, it may even think about taking them?
Quality seems to have a niche: the FT and Economist are holding up well. I'm less up to date on how the Spectator and New Statesman are doing financially, but they're still here.
The former England football manager Glenn Hoddle not only had niche views on disability and reincarnation, but also once announced "I've never made predictions, and I never will". In that vein: a few concluding thoughts.
Fact checking (Full Fact et al) will grow. Specialty areas such as health, education etc will each grow their own Institute for Fiscal Studies (a job presently spread between the think-tanks and media-savvy academics); as a result, pressure will rise for areas to have their own Office for Budget Responsibility equivalent. This should increase transparency, which is always good.
Hyper-local media is one to watch.
Fake news will become camper, shrilled and sillier. Think 'The Daily Sport', or indeed the Daily Express.
As the quality of most Tv news continues to dwindle (with honourable exception mentions for Daily Politics, Newsnight and Channel 4 News), more people will get their news from radio and podcasts.
Oh, and Lord Burns of Chelmsford will replace Jeremy Hunt as Secretary Of State For Health.