Just over a week on from the Grenfell Tower horror, it’s clear there are goodies and baddies.
Top of the list of those who have emerged with reputations enhanced are, of course, London’s firefighters, and their impressive chief Dany Cotton.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn showed some deft touches with a timely visit that saw him comforting relatives and demanding action. The Queen appeared to make light of Theresa May’s security worries by visiting the area, and caught the mood of the nation with an unprecedented statement last week.
And the people of West London have shown jaw-dropping community spirit in filling in some of the huge gaps left by the authorities on the ground.
Which brings me to the groups who haven’t covered themselves in glory: the local council, whose chief executive last night resigned, Mrs May, the housing trust which runs the tower, the building inspection regime, a host of contractors, ministers stretching back many years, and a political culture that prized dogma and penny-pinching over safety.
So in which camp do we put the media?
Well, it has to be a bit of both, as this excellent Buzzfeed article on local people’s mixed feelings explains.
Journalists have been able to tell the full story of this utterly man-made disaster in a way that has woken this country from a complacent slumber: highlighting raw suffering, amazing bravery, incredible generosity and criminal negligence.
But there have also been spectacular errors of judgement.
We’ll have to let IPSO decide whether the Sun really did get one of its reporters to impersonate a relative , although the paper’s statement of denial has the ring of truth to me.
The regulator will also have to take a view on the 1,500 complaints it has received about a Mail Online story naming the man whose ‘faulty’ fridge is alleged to have started the fire.
Mail Online – not to be confused with any national newspaper with a similar name, by the way – has sought to defend itself by saying no one could reasonably draw the implication that it was blaming Britain’s worst fire for generations on the man.
Somewhat surprised to discover that the Daily Mail has absolutely nothing to do with Mail Online pic.twitter.com/DMPMp9c4Db
— Rory Cellan-Jones (@ruskin147) June 22, 2017
There’s an answer to that, and it rhymes with ollocks.
With no buy-in from the man – he told Mail Online he didn’t want to talk, there was absolutely no justification for naming him in these unprecedented circumstances.
There are many, many people who need to be named and shamed over Grenfell Tower. A taxi driver from Ethiopia isn’t one of them.
The backlash against the story may have been intensified by the way in which this tragedy has allowed thousands of people to see the media go about its work for days on end.
Journalists have been exposed to very public questioning and criticism of their methods and their work – and not just at Grenfell Tower, as the BBC’s religious affairs editor Martin Bashir found when covering the Finsbury Park mosque terror incident.
There has been no hiding place for journalists – and nor should there be.
Some of the Grenfell Tower coverage may have felt insensitive, but there is a far, far bigger question for our industry to address.
A very telling piece in Press Gazette suggests that not a single newspaper or local news site covered the extensive warnings by residents at the tower over fire safety.
Never has the phrase read it and weep been more apt.
The theme is echoed in an equally sobering article by journalist Grant Feller, who once covered North Kensington.
As I said in a blog last week, this mind-boggling horror that leaves us running out of appropriate words highlights the overwhelming importance of political journalism.
It can be deeply unsexy, deeply time-consuming, and deeply analytics-unfriendly.
Even with that most crucial and increasingly rare commodity of time, it’s not easy to sift out the wolf-criers and the serial whingers, let alone to find engaging ways of making the important interesting.
But it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that if journalists in West London had been allowed to spend more time making contacts, more time poring over detailed council agendas, and more time simply listening to real people, we might – might – not be where we are today.
I’ve spent too much time today poring over another document, the impressively wide-ranging annual Reuters Institute report on the media.
It looks at trust in the media, at the willingness of people in different countries to pay for their news (only six per cent in the UK do), and at the growing power of social media.
Essentially, it asks: What is the media for?
I tweeted this last week.
— Paul Wiltshire (@Paulwiltshire) June 16, 2017
Belatedly, our politics is beginning to prove its worth at – when put together with the election result – what feels like a major turning point for our attitudes to austerity, deregulation and privatisation.
Now it’s time for journalism to prove that it, too, can learn the lessons of Grenfell Tower.