Towards a Reliable Media.

The Crump/Hunter Dispute and Some Suggestions for Change

Public trust and confidence in mainstream news media (MSM) had been in decline for some years.

This presents a problem. MSM or the Fourth Estate is seen as essential in a liberal democracy both to inform the public and hold power to account. Only by accurate and clear reporting can this be done.

There are numerous commentators on the media and who have analysed its problems but there has recently been a couple of pieces that demonstrate first a solution and secondly the craven defensiveness of those embedded in MSM who seem to be unwilling to change.

Let’s look at the proposed solution. Cranmer’s Substack carried an article on 14 May entitled “Six Golden Rules for Trustworthy Media - taking a page from Orwell, could clear, honest writing fix journalism’s credibility crisis?”

Cranmer’s Substack is the vehicle for Philip Crump, an accomplished lawyer with over 25 years of legal experience in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. He practised at Russell McVeagh in Auckland before becoming a Partner at Kirkland & Ellis in London, where he was recognised as a leading lawyer by Chambers & Partners and Legal 500.

He returned to New Zealand and entered the media landscape with Cranmer’s Substack, a widely-read publication which has earned acclaim for its sharp insights.

In 2023, the NBR hailed Crump as “one of the best commentators to have emerged on the media scene in the last year,” while Shayne Currie, Editor-at-Large at the New Zealand Herald, noted in his Media Insider column that Crumphad “carved out a reputation as an agenda-setting writer.”

He was editor of the shortlived NewstalkZB Plus and is tipped to be a member of the Editorial Board of NZME after a recent governance shakeup of that company.

He is a member of the Waitangi Tribunal and of the Board of New Zealand on Air.

Crump’s article reminded us of the comments of George Orwell about writing.

“Orwell argued that sloppy, vague, or manipulative language reflects and perpetuates muddled thinking, particularly in political discourse. The English language, Orwell wrote, “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

Crump used Orwell’s guide as a measure of a piece that had been written by Andrea Vance about the pay equity overhaul which used “colourful” language and:

“while passionate, illustrates Orwell’s warning: inflammatory terms like the C-word and pejorative phrases like “girl-math,” obscure substantive critique and alienate readers. Her approach risks what Orwell called a “contagion” of unclear prose, undermining trust in journalism by prioritising shock over clarity. Orwell’s contention was that by consciously choosing precise, honest language, writers can reverse this decline, fostering trust and rigorous thought.”

Crump then went on to suggest that journalists faced a challenge in delivering content that was credible, insightful and accessible – a challenge made even greater by short news room deadlines and a twenty-hour news cycle.

He then turned to identify a number of rules that he used as a guide in his own writing. He said of them:

“These principles are not intended to be universal or exhaustive but they have served me well as a personal framework for producing writing that engages a discerning readership. No doubt they will continue to evolve and expand but for now they are as follows; and for me, they are my Six Golden Rules.”

Crump’s Golden Rules make good writing sense. They are designed not only for the individual writer but a news media organization. His rules are these.

1. Curate Stories with Appropriate Prominence.

It should be ensured that each story's prominence reflects its significance, avoiding prioritization of trivial news over important matters. ​ Balanced coverage requires adequate newsroom resources and experienced journalists to present complex topics clearly.

In addition there should be editorial vigilance in that curation should be continuous to maintain proportional significance and serve readers effectively.

2. Write for your most discerning audience

This emphasizes writing for discerning readers, including subject-matter experts. ​ It requires accuracy, acknowledging limitations, and restraint in drawing conclusions to build trust and respect, as a writer’s reputation depends on these qualities.

3. Present Facts Objectively

This principle really speaks for itself. It advocates presenting accurate and relevant facts objectively, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions without editorial bias or sensationalism. Writers can avoid editorializing by presenting accurate and relevant facts clearly, refraining from assigning undue weight to the information, and allowing readers to form their own conclusions without inserting personal opinions or biases.

4. Provide New Insights

This principle emphasizes providing readers with new insights by including at least one fresh fact, interesting detail, or evidence-based angle in every article to add value and encourage return readership.

5. Communicate With Clarity

Once again this speaks for itself. It focuses on communicating complex ideas in plain, concise language to ensure accessibility for both expert and general readers, avoiding jargon or over-complication while maintaining depth and substance

6. Uphold Professional Integrity

This is done by avoiding sensationalism, loaded language, or gratuitous criticism. ​ The Principle advises engaging counterarguments respectfully, addressing individuals with titles and honorifics, and focusing on their arguments rather than personal attacks to maintain fairness and the publication's credibility. Sensationalist headlines, unless strongly justified by evidence and context, can be corrosive to the value of the masthead over time. ​ They undermine professional integrity and may damage the credibility of the publication.

Now on a first reading these principles make perfect sense However, Crump has come in for a rather vitriolic critique from Business Journalist Tim Hunter in a lengthy LinkedIn post.

Hunter has been a journalist in a number of positions over the years. He was Business Editor at the Herald, as well as spending 10 years with Fairfax Media and another 10 years with the National Business Review.

Clearly Crump’s article got under his skin because he stated on LinkedIn

“This is the first time I've posted an article on LinkedIn. I strongly felt the need.”

The first sentence sets the tone:

“For a lawyer, Philip Crump sure has a lot of opinions on how to be a journalist.”

The article is a lengthy and very defensive one and I don’t intend to go through it line by line. The main themes in Hunter’s article are these:

1. Critique of Philip Crump's Views on Journalism: Hunter challenges Crump's opinions on the causes of declining trust in media, arguing that many of Crump's points reflect a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of standard journalistic practices.

2. Defense of Journalistic Practices: Hunter defends the use of anonymous sources, selective expert quotes, and stylistic choices like soft intros, emphasizing their long-standing role in journalism and their importance in conveying nuanced and credible information. ​

3. Erosion of Trust in Media: Hunter acknowledges the decline in public trust in journalism but attributes it to external factors like political campaigns to discredit the media (e.g., Donald Trump's "fake news" rhetoric) and sensationalist practices in tabloids, rather than the issues Crump highlights. ​

4. Editorial Judgment and Bias: Hunter argues that editorial decisions, including gatekeeping and framing, are inherent to journalism and not evidence of bias or agenda-driven reporting, as Crump suggests.

5. Digital Media and Clickbait: Hunter refutes Crump's claim that digital algorithms and click-driven content are new phenomena, pointing out that sensationalism has existed in journalism for decades. ​

6. Political Subtext: Hunter raises concerns about the potential influence of Crump's benefactor, Jim Grenon, and his fringe website, The Centrist, suggesting a political agenda behind Crump's critique of journalism. ​

7. Historical Context of Journalism: Hunter uses historical examples to demonstrate that many of Crump's criticisms are not new but have been part of journalism for over a century. ​

Overall, the article defends traditional journalistic practices while critiquing Crump's lack of understanding and the potential political motives behind his views.

One LinkedIn commentator, Jan Rivers, stated:

“Criticism of Philip's list is all very well. But it does address the practice of journalism and not the wider surrounding issues that have lead to poor journalism such as the fall in numbers of journalists, the failure of the funding base and the wider loss of social cohesion in New Zealand society that means that journalists and editors are fearful of covering stories. I do note however that whether as Thomas Cranmer or under his own name Philip has broken multiple complex, serious stories that other journalists have failed as a body to touch AT ALL.

I would also criticise those journalists who present entire stories as a series of quotations or selectively assess articles as opinion to tell partisan stories, journalists who pursue the Gotcha aspect of an issue rather that addressing the substantive story that underlies it and editors who regularly sink stories that address serious issues of public interest.”

But in defending the status quo, and attributing the decline in media trust to external sources, Hunter fails to recognize the responsibility that MSM itself carries for the decline in trust. Perhaps significantly Hunter ignores the impact and the optics of the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) which did serious damage to media credibility.

The PIJF was a government initiative launched in 2021 in response to the economic pressures facing the media industry, particularly exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Administered by NZ On Air, the fund aimed to support public interest journalism—defined as journalism that serves the public good, informs citizens, and holds power to account.

Only it didn’t quite work that way. Although it enabled the preservation of journalism roles, strengthened (for a time) local journalism and supported media diversity it suffered a significant backlash.

Critics argued that direct government funding undermined editorial independence, even if NZ On Air maintained arms-length decision-making. The requirement to support the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in PIJF contracts drew particular scrutiny.

Some right-leaning commentators and platforms suggested that the fund encouraged a “politically correct” editorial slant, with implications that outlets may self-censor criticism of the government to remain eligible for funding. Certainly it encouraged conformity with the “orthodox” line promulgated by the Government.

A segment of the public—especially those already distrustful of government or mainstream narratives—saw the funding as evidence of media capture or “state propaganda.” This narrative gained traction during the pandemic and in the context of controversial topics like co-governance and vaccine mandates.

Independent and alternative media platforms often used the fund as a rhetorical device to differentiate themselves from “bought” mainstream media, reinforcing a polarized media ecosystem.

What does become clear from Hunter’s riposte is a defence of current media practices and he considers, by way of answer to Crump’s principles that the important attributes of a journalist. I should say that he does not explicitly list these attributes but based on his critique of Philip Crump's views and his defense of journalistic practices, the following attributes can be inferred as important to Hunter:

1. Commitment to Truth:

Hunter emphasizes the journalist's role in sifting truth from lies and presenting accurate information, as highlighted in a reference to CP Scott's famous editorial. ​

2. Judgment and Editorial Integrity:

Hunter defends the role of editors and journalists in making decisions about what stories to cover and which experts to quote, underscoring the importance of sound judgment. ​

3. Ability to Use Anonymous Sources Responsibly:

Hunter argues that anonymous sources are vital for public interest journalism and should be used to convey important information that might otherwise remain hidden. ​

4. Clarity and Depth in Communication:

While mocking Crump's suggestion to "communicate with clarity," Hunter implicitly supports the idea that journalists should convey complex ideas in accessible yet substantive ways. ​

5. Historical Awareness and Adaptability:

Hunter highlights the long-standing practices in journalism, such as soft intros, and suggests that journalists should understand and adapt to different storytelling methods. ​

6. Independence and Courage:

Hunter praises journalism that is independent, unafraid to challenge narratives, and willing to call out misinformation or political agendas. ​

These inferred attributes align with Hunter's defense of traditional journalistic practices and his critique of Crump's views.

At the same time Hunter politicises Crump’s approach and that Crump's critique of journalism practices and his proposed editorial changes may be politically driven. ​

Hunter points out that Crump's benefactor, Jim Grenon, funds a fringe website called The Centrist, which regularly features vaccine skepticism and other controversial angles. ​

Hunter questions whether Crump's idea of "dissenting expertise" aligns with Grenon's views, implying that Crump's editorial approach could be influenced by Grenon's political agenda.

Additionally, Hunter notes that Crump's potential role at NZME could change the way trained journalists cover news, possibly making it "less left-leaning." ​ This observation further underscores Hunter's belief that Crump's motives may be tied to a broader political effort to reshape media narratives.

But where is the positivity in Hunter’s approach? Does he offer a solution to the problem of declining trust in the media? Or is he wedded inextricably to the status quo?

The answer is that he does not explicitly offer a solution to the problem of declining public trust in media.

Instead, he critiques Philip Crump's proposed causes and solutions, arguing that many of Crump's points reflect a misunderstanding of long-standing journalistic practices rather than addressing the real reasons for declining trust.

Hunter does, however, touch on factors contributing to the erosion of trust, such as the relentless campaigns by online trolls and politicians like Donald Trump to discredit the media. ​ He also mentions the appalling practices of UK tabloids, such as sensationalist reporting and the phone hacking scandal, as reasons for public skepticism.

This is consistent with his tendency to look outside MSM for a cause of the problems rather than considering if the issues may also involve internal aspects.​

While Hunter defends traditional journalistic practices and highlights their importance, unlike Crump, he does not provide a concrete plan or actionable steps to rebuild trust in the media. Instead, his article focuses on debunking Crump's arguments and defending the integrity of journalism.

It is probably rather too bold of me to venture into the argument and propose a possible solution. It may be foolish for me to do so, given Hunter’s disdain for one who is “a lawyer” with an opinion. I won’t set out my credentials. That would be the “appeal to authority” method of arguing. Rather I hope that the solutions offered may give food for thought.

I cannot agree with Hunter’s defence of the status quo. While many of his elements of good journalism actually fit within Crumps principles the problem is not so much with the creators of content as the method of presentation of content that needs to be revisited and reformed.

I say that because in most of the MSM outlets facts have become conflated with opinion or have been contaminated with spin depending upon the persuasion of the MSM outlet or the particular disposition of the journalist.

In addition much of the content of MSM seems to be by way of opinion or opinion masquerading as “facts”. That becomes compounded with a tendency for there to be an expression of an “orthodox view” without a balance that may be achieved by expressing a contrary view.

Thus, MSM seems to have become something of an amalgam of fact, opinion and a certain amount of spin or bias. This last element may have arisen from an overreliance on public relations or media department handouts or press releases which invariably contain an element of spin with the objective of putting the client in the most favourable light.

I was having coffee with a colleague earlier this week and the question came up in discussion – how do we deal with misinformation – that is information that is false but which is published nevertheless.

My immediate response was that we need a reliable MSM that can rebut misinformation with a correct, evidence-based narrative. But the current state of play is such that we really do not have that. So here are a few things that could be done that might restore trust in MSM.

1. The Public Relations Industry needs to take a good hard look at itself. Certainly they can advance the interests of the client but like lawyers perhaps they have a wider duty. Lawyers have a duty to the Court. PR people have a duty to the wider public in ensuring that their media releases and the like contain the unvarnished truth. Dispense with spin. And if the client has been found to be wanting or in error, admit that rather than try to minimize and mitigate the error. And certainly don’t try and cover the error up. That in itself becomes the story as Watergate back in the early 1970’s demonstrated.

2. MSM outlets need to decide what business they are in. Are they in the business of reporting facts or are they in the business of reporting opinion.

My own view is that there is a place for, say, a newspaper that prints factual news stories only that are not embellished with spin or opinion. Present the facts and leave it up to the public to make up their minds about what they mean or their effect. Too often journalists stray into the area of interpretation of facts ostensibly telling the public what they “need to know”. Such a patronizing attitude on the part of MSM insults the intelligence and abilities of the public. We don’t need to be told what to think.

3. Following on from that point if opinion is to be published that should take place in a medium other than a newspaper or a news broadcast. Opinion pieces belong in magazines or perhaps even in dedicated online spaces like Substack. It is then left to the reader or listener as to whether they wish to patronize the opinion outlet. But opinion is opinion. It is subjective. It has no place in a publication which deals with objective facts.

4. In such a situation there could be a recovery of public trust and confidence in MSM if the public can be sure that the media outlet provides reliable information that is worthy of trust, remembering that people make their choices based on information. Only if that information is reliable can people make properly informed decisions and choices. At the moment, given the level of trust and confidence in MSM there would be a reluctance to rely on information from that source.

I realise that these are rather radical proposals. They have an impact on existing MSM structures. I make no apology for that. But I cannot see that a continuation of the journalistic model as advocated by Mr. Hunter is going to overcome the problem. His solution is “more of the same”. Until that view is dismissed and a new approach is adopted, MSM will remain in the doldrums.