"When the audience don’t believe the news, we’re all in trouble"

John Sweeney

The main theme of Ian Katz's Spectator article is that the media has a serious problem because large parts of the audience no longer trust it. 

As regular readers will know, I didn't know whether I could trust Chris Cook Newsnight reporting on cladding in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster - a predicament made worse when, shortly after, I came across a post by Dr Richard North which pointed out serious holes in it. 

Unlike Chris Cook, Richard North has knowledge of the field and clearly knows what he's talking about. (And there's another excellent post by him here on the same subject). 

Dr North described Newsnight's reporting as "low-grade research", so it appears as if I was right to wonder have my doubts about whether Mr Cook was up to reporting on fire safety issues. 

Chris Cook's reporting on the cladding issue, therefore, highlights a number of problems with Newsnight reporting. 

It's far too keen to make a splash and to be able to say the magic words 'A Newsnight exclusive'. They don't have many reporters and they spread them around over all manner of stories about which they know little and expect them to produce eye-catching reports within hours or just a day or two. It's a species of sensationalism. 

My old joke about Gabriel Gatehouse is that he's Newsnight's Everywhere Correspondent. He pops up all over the world and all over Britain and after a day or so presents him take as confidently as if he'd been pounding that particular beat for years. I know they probably have to do that to some extent but it means audiences need to treat what they say with caution. 

I did a long piece on a Hugh Sykes report once after Hugh had parachuted into a northern French town and began painting a picture that sounded plausible but, on close inspection, proved to be full of holes. I felt, just like these Newsnight types, that he'd gone in there and found only what he wanted to find. If I hadn't checked I wouldn't have known what he was missing out and how he was getting it wrong. 

I was watching another report on the Grenfell Tower tragedy on last night's Newsnight, presented with confidence by John Sweeney and full of remarks like "Newsnight has uncovered evidence", "Newsnight has gathered anonymous first-hand accounts", "Newsnight understands", etc. I didn't know whether to believe that report either. It sounded important and convincing, but was it fair? Did it provide a properly-rounded picture? Was it accurate? I can't say, and I don't think I trust the BBC's journalism enough to give them the benefit of the doubt any more.

Instant experts

Chris Cook, reading

I've been watching Chris Cook's Newsnight updates on the cladding/insulation issues arising from the Glenfell Tower fire and, from time to time, wondering whether to trust them or not. 

During his update on last night's edition I thought, "How can he be so sure?" and "What makes him such an expert all of a sudden?" 

Of course, he sounded confident and convincing and, like nearly everyone watching, I'm certainly no expert on such things myself so I decided I'd have to take his journalistic findings on trust. 

By coincidence, however, I come upon a blogpost by Dr Richard North this morning which comments at length on Chris Cook's reporting, saying that "BBC Newsnight has got the wrong end of the stick (as it so often does)". 

He makes a confident and convincing case that Chris "misinterpreted" one of the tests and wrongly implied that "desktop studies" are an easy option, and generally engaged in under-informed speculation. And the BBC man missed out the EU regulation angle too. 

His criticisms are far too detailed to summarise here, but you can read it for yourselves and compare it with Chris Cook's BBC website write-up too. 

Dr North comments, "If nothing else, this is an example of what you can end up with when you are the BBC and can get away with low-grade research".

Now, I've no idea if Richard North is correct or if Chris Cook is correct. (Is Dr North any more of a cladding/insulation expect than the BBC's Mr Cook?) But, nonetheless, it's a useful reminder never to take a Newsnight report on trust - especially if the reporter appears to be 'an instant expert' on the subject at hand.


Update: I've been reliably informed that Richard North is a former local authority environmental health inspector and, as such, will have had direct responsibility for the safety of buildings and, thus, will know his way round regulation issues. That suggests that he's considerably more knowledgeable about this than Chris Cook.