Performing the disaster genre? TV journalism, disruptive factors and community challenges in the reporting of the UK Grenfell Tower block fire

News coverage of national disasters holds the potential to evoke unique moral sentiments and political reactions. Often, however, we learn that the common use of elite political actors’ consensual commentary by journalists serves to politically appropriate such events or render mute their potential. This paper explores a challenge to this observed authority skew in the performance of TV journalism (BBC, ITN, Channel 4 and Channel 5) while covering the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower block fire. The analysed reporting shows that the presence of (i) disruptive geography (ii) disruptive expertise and (iii) disruptive commentary challenge the reproduction of a traditional ‘reporting template’ and its inscribed authority skew. Combined, such ‘disruptive factors’, it is reasoned, enable opportunities for challenger voices to appear in number, and therein direct criticisms of both neglect and inaction and even to reflect on the state, race and poverty and incite thereafter an elite political apology.


Introduction
On July 21 st 2017, when speaking in the House of Commons, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May made the following apology: awareness of disasters among the public, but it constitutes the specific character and form of these events within the publics' imagination (Cottle, 2014).At such moments, the media can generate different understandings (Pantti, 2019), moral positions (Chouliaraki, 2006;Höijer, 2004), and, in turn, potentially facilitate different kinds of political responses (Joye, 2014) to the disaster and those involved.Ultimately though, the common journalistic practices that are applied in these moments limit these possibilities.Such practices, we learn, determine how the Grenfell Tower block fire, like other disaster events, will appear to the public.
For example, the Grenfell disaster's geographical location, as a UK national event, will likely evoke a specific reaction from UK reporters.National disasters, in part, avoid the traditional gatekeeping process that determines whether a distant disaster event is deemed 'newsworthy' (i.e., seemingly geographically importantsee CARMA, 2006) for the national media audience.Indeed, the geographical and cultural links between the disaster and the local (national) media audience are significant at these crisis moments (see Schudson, 2002), as they help to personalise the media coverage (Yell, 2012).Nonetheless, the core reporting on national and international disasters is reproduced using similar practices.A disaster's measurable impact on human life, or its 'calculus of death' (Cottle, 2013), appears to underpin the focus of writing and the airtime to which it is provided (Huston et al., 2012).The presence of stakeholders is another common feature.Those for whom reporters allow to speak help to shape common understandings of the reported disaster (Toye, 2013), including those experts who attempt to explain the unfolding events (Walters and Hornig, 1993).At these times, as Naomi Klein outlines in Shock Doctrine (2007) however, journalists allow political elites considerable access to enter reporting and to define the public understanding of disaster events.In then reproducing their definitions as 'secondary definers' (Hall et al., 1978), journalists permit politicians often to, as Klein reasons, 'politically appropriate' disasters for their own political ends (see Bennett et al., 2007, also).
While Grenfell and other disasters will likely allow politicians definitional opportunities, the literature suggests that the surrounding reporting will also follow a tried and tested media formula as is illustrated by Moeller's (1999: 13) reflections on the predictability of disaster coverage: We've seen the same pictures, heard about the same victims, heroes and villains and read the same morality play.Even the chronology of events is repeated … this is the same with the localized disaster event.
As Moeller (1999) observes, the disaster reporting of international and local (i.e., national) events often reproduce mythic ideas about disasters and their aftermath.Some disasters are understood as either naturalised to particular geographical locations (Solman and Henderson, 2019) or explained as an outcome of simplistic causes (Miller et al., 2015) whereas many are expressed as likely to produce chaos and even criminality among those involved (Tierney et al., 2006).Representations of heroes and their heroic acts to save victims mark an aspect of this coverage (Lule, 2001).Likewise, journalists' attention falls equally on the victims caught up in disasters.In contrast to the opportunity to reflect a cosmopolitan engagement with victims and a moral engagement with suffering (Ong, 2009) however, these moments are often depicted through a lens of pity, which serves to view the distant sufferer as 'other' (Joye, 2009).
While national disasters, like Grenfell, can be seen to reflect these ingredients, theyunlike international disasters -distinctly disrupt the routines of proximate journalists (Liebes, 1998).Altered here is the content and the timings of normal news reporting and the critical repertoire used to report happenings.Employed instead are reporting templates, containing '… rules and guidance for journalists' which routinize the reporting of such national crisis moments (Matthews, 2016).These can simultaneously summon, in reporting, a heightened sense of national purpose alongside an emerging prose of solidarity (Schudson, 2002), which is all contained in a wider dramaturgical display of society to itself (i.e., recognising and healing the disaster as a kind of 'social wound'see Joye, 2018).Political elites it is noted also, play a leading definitional role in the unfolding drama of disaster (ibid).
Nevertheless, these specific events can also provide non expected opportunities in reporting.Blondheim and Liebes (2002: 275), suggest that 'the element of surprise' common to some disasters can allow 'forces external to the political establishment to capture the attention of media and public'.Contained here can be resonate symbols, dramatic visualisations and embedded emotions which, Cottle adds (2006: 415), can serve to (i) confront the strategic power of institutions, (ii) allow visibility for challenger groups and, (iii) create public solidarities on the basis of 'collective sentiment'.Such disruption is most evident when political elites are slow to take the expected lead in defining disasters.Acting in the absence of federal government pronouncements in the case of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in the US for example, local media pursued different voices, and related themes, to engage in that crisis (Durham, 2008), before later reproducing some of the common disaster myths (Sun, 2012).At the same time, the unique disaster event offers opportunities for non-elite actors to express anger and blame.Pantti and Wahl-Jorgensen (2011) argue these important, and often overlooked, expressions are focused directly on those with responsibility for the disaster or its aftermath.But, as Moeller (1999: 18) asserts, that although a sense of 'responsibility' is ever present in the reporting of 'humanmade' disasters, the expressions of anger and blame associated with it tend to vary according to the characteristics and context of the individual disaster.
Hence, from this review, we are offered a sense of the reporting template that reproduces a set of principal content.I will refer to the principal content contained within an 'aftermath disaster genre' from this point onwards.In practice, the genre reconstructs the disaster event and victims suffering, thereafter allowing space for some reactions (anger and blame), while mostly privileging elite definitions and disaster myths.Acknowledged, likewise, is how the unique context of the actual event can destabilise such aspects of the reporting template and underpin changes to the presentation of the 'aftermath disaster genre' that appears subsequently in reporting.Of interest, therefore, is to identify and isolate any disruptive factors found within the unique national context to a disaster, like Grenfell, that are taken up and used to adapt its reporting.A simple way to investigate this in the reporting of the Grenfell Tower Block tragedy is to examinewhat are the generic themes, voices and included commentary that appear across the aftermath period?

Studying Grenfell
In response, research was undertaken into the media performance during the Grenfell tragedy.This explored terrestrial television news journalism as this offers the most trusted and widely consumed of the available news outputs (Newman et al., 2020) on the disaster.To amass programmes with the greatest reach, it selected the flagship programmes from these channels -BBC (BBC1 News 10 pm, 7 progs, 153 mins); ITV (ITN News 10 pm, 7 progs, 107 mins); Channel 4 (Channel 4 News 7 pm, 7 progs, 202 mins) and Channel 5 (Channel 5 News 6.30 pm, 6 progs, 99 mins), broadcast between 14 th July (the start of the fire) and 20 th July (the day before the prime minister's apology).The prime minister's apology was seen as a natural end point from which to select the content.
A content analysis was employed to analyse the characteristics of the disaster reporting.Following a coding schedule, the analysis captured prominent content themes in the reporting that included those themes outlined already in the literature and others that emerged and were later included during the analysis.Individual programmes, it was revealed, included a patchwork of thematic elements that the journalists and programme presenters were observed to be negotiating.Six core themes featured prominently -(i) the incident, (ii) political response, (iii) community reaction, (iv) tower block safety / investigation, (v) victims/survivors/families and (vi) heroismand the analysis charted their presence across the programmes (see Figure 1).The identified themes observed in the collective coverage were then assessed against their descriptions in the existing literature.From this analysis emerged representative examples of the content representing 'disruptive factors'.
To further extend the analysis of the disaster genre, and the observed instances of disruption, the study examined voices represented in the programmes.It charted the presence of, and roles played by, various voices in the coverage, looking in particular for evidence of political elites appropriating the event alongside others playing various discursive roles in the disaster genre.Each voice was recorded, whether the voice spoke directly, or if words were attributed to them.Voices were added to an existing list in the coding schedule during the analysis.These were categorised later into 16 groups from the descriptions and/or the labels given to them in the reports-the most popular of which were citizens, relatives, politicians, emergency services, survivors, and volunteers (see Table 1).Following the content analysis, quotes from representative voices were identified.These quotes were then combined with the observed thematic content in an effort to explore their place in reproduced aspects of a reporting template and, more importantly, their place within content representative of disruptive factors.What follows here, charts the results.

Reporting Grenfell
The analysis of the Grenfell reporting shows that TV journalists reproduce a recognisable 'aftermath disaster genre' in their coverage (see Figure 1 and Table 1).Figure 1 shows that the included TV news programmes (BBC, ITN, Channel 4 and Channel 5) reproduce elements uniformly across the period.Marking this aftermath reporting is content that is specifically timed.Observed temporally, these elements provide a discussion of the disaster as an unfolding 'live' event and the related discussion of tower block safety, as unique to it (14 and 15 July).Later, a specific discussion of heroism appears and marks an organised oneminute silence held for those missing and deceased (19 July).The other elements, by contrast, naturally traverse the reporting across the aftermath sample, including various responses (i.e., political and community) in addition to attention given to victims and survivors, with individual programmes offering slight variations in terms of their timings of, and specific interests in, these elements (see Figure 1).Such coverage underpins the included voices.As is represented in Table 1, voices appear in appropriate quantities that would be expected of any disaster coverage.Even perhaps, the significance of citizens' and relatives' voices (16% and 15%, respectively) that appear as greater in number than politicians' voices (12%) can be explained by the privileging of reaction during a disaster's aftermath in typical disaster reporting.
In a sense, therefore, a cursory analysis shows the included TV journalism is mediating the generic elements of Grenfell as a national disaster.A closer look at the interconnections between its content and voices, nevertheless, provides additional insights into the unique context of this specific disaster.As we will hear, such observations move us beyond the confines of the disaster aftermath genre and any associated simple consensual and politically appropriated view of the Grenfell fire.

Reconstructing and framing the disaster
The reproduction of the event for the audience is a common theme within the disaster genre and one that becomes altered in the Grenfell reporting.The first aspect that shifts the focus away from concerns of the traditional genre is the discussion of the disasters' location.Situating the disaster is an important part of the general journalistic practice to reconstruct the event for the TV audience (Matthews, 2016).In locating the disaster, journalists begin the process of making sense of, or framing, the disaster event.Previously, locationssuch as parts of the developing world -have become mythically naturalised as the sites of recurring disasters in reporting and, in the process, they have become disassociated with any insights into the responsibility of human beings in creating or mitigating them (Miller et al., 2015;Solman and Henderson, 2019).Equally, it appears, that unusual sites of disaster, such as West London in this case, trigger more intense forms of questioning.But the location in a western country is not enough to challenge the expectations of the disaster genre.In fact, it is the specific details of the disaster's geography in this case, that rally against the expectations contained within the reporting template.In practice, these move the aftermath TV coverage to ask the specific question 'why here?', in addition to the normal journalistic question of 'why did this happen?'.The opening comments on Channel 4 news on the first day capture this: We are in Kensington and Chelsea -the richest borough in Britain, one of the wealthiest places on earth.Yet in spite of that last night a fire ripped through this tower block behind me, spreading rapidly in a way that experts say should simply not have been possible.And yet it did (Channel 4, 14 July).
A discussion of the geography of Grenfell that responds to the question 'why here?',provides a challenge to the confines of the template.In part, the context directs journalists to observe contradictions in the relationship between the event and its location, which the BBC coverage introduces as how 'deep poverty and extraordinary wealth live side by side in this part of north London', before it emphasizes how 'the block was home to some of Kensington's poorest families' (BBC, 14 July).Such insights emerge as part of the guiding principles of the included journalism and its purpose here to chart details of the ongoing disaster whilst also observing commitments to report impartially.The invisible poormostly housed in the Grenfell Tower blockis a theme therefore that journalists explore with those interviewees who can speak knowledgably about the area.
A local pastor is one such voice that addresses the issue of visibility in the reconstructed event coverage.Usually, 'religious voices' appear with the motivation to console and deliver regular type consensual religious messages in the early stages of the reporting of crisis moments (Matthews, 2016).This is not the case here, though, as the pastor's voice stresses, from an insider residents' perspective, the reality of the poverty that Grenfell residents experience: For the richer people in the borough, it shows that the poorer members are not exaggerating when they talk about how difficult it is and how the poverty is very real (Danny Vance, Pastor Channel 4, 14 July).
The theme of the invisibility of the poor living in rich surroundings and the absence of their voices appears as significant within this coverage.But the significance of this perspective grows not because it is left unchallenged or is further developed in the opening commentaries.Rather, the significance lies in its role as the excepted backdrop to the disaster and, importantly, how it works in the background to support other lines of explanation.The link appears in the opening comments of Channel 5 news, for instance.The presenter in response to the question 'How could it happen?',adds 'Grenfell Tower residents say their concerns about fire safety were ignored' (Channel 5, 14 July).Hence, an ignoring of the plights of the poor, reflected above, is an idea that develops across the opening coverage.This introduces the second disruptive aspectcommunity voices -that moves the coverage in a direction toward intimations of wrongdoing and away from the noncommittal or hesitant explanations of the disaster.Referenced above is the beginning of the theme of community reaction in the coverage.Commencing with summaries of survivors' comments as articulated here by ITN -'Survivors say there were no sprinklers, the fire alarms failed to warn, and the only staircase out was blocked' (ITN, 14 July), this continues with concerns from the Grenfell Action Group -a pressure group formed to voice tower block residents' views -that challenges council and management' inaction in parts of the subsequent aftermath coverage.Most prominent in the opening commentaries, nonetheless, are the voices of experts and their reasoning about the disaster.
The view of experts also challenges the confines of the reporting template.As we know, these are an important part of journalists' efforts to reconstruct and partially explain the disaster event (Walters and Hornig, 1993).Often experts appear, in this position, to voice general speculative ideas about the causes and usually demonstrate considerable caution when asked to be definitive in their answers.The fire safety and building and planning experts reproduced in the TV news coverage, show considerably less caution in this case, which again encourages questions and criticisms from reporters.The comments of ITN's preferred expert -a building architect -that 'this shouldn't have happened' is reflected by other experts who go on to explain the reasoning of the tower blocks' inbuilt fire safety measures, the rapid arrival of the fire services and knowledge of other tower block fires.The included experts recognise the cladding applied to the outside of the tower block as a source of concern.This together with the lack of fire safety measures in Grenfell Tower generally leads them to claim important lessons from a previous fire in a London tower block (i.e., Lakanal House, in 2009)'…have not been learnt […]': What is the significance of sprinkler systems for blocks like this?It could make the difference between the fire spreading, if you have it in every flat.It is not required on the refurbishment in this country and the contractor is right to say that it is complying with regulations, but the regulations are weak.In Scotland and Wales, they are stronger (Tony Bird, Planning Consultant, Channel 4, July 14).
In all, a different approach emerges in the coverage.Rather than providing a straightforward reconstruction of a disaster event, the TV journalists build a sense of impoverished and endangered victims in context of rich surroundings and those as subject to a fire that could have been avoided.Such a context is a steppingstone for the journalistic engagement with the forthcoming political response.

Political and community response
Political interventions in the Grenfell disaster reporting are another feature that challenges the expectations of disaster reporting.Traditionally, political interventions are seen as important for the reproduction of the consensual disaster genre.Once established in reporting, these allow political elites to control the narrative of events and even politically appropriate them (Bennett et al., 2007).Judged at face value, politicians appear to play a significant role in the Grenfell coverage (i.e., 12%) and the prime minister's comment that she was 'deeply saddened by the loss of life', as expected, is reported widely in addition to the BBC, here (14 July).To build a consensual approach, nonetheless, political elite voices need to be omnipresent and actively capturing, shaping and directing the journalistic narrative.As the reporting continues, such voices appear in reporting, by contrast, often in reaction to the circumstances that are outlined above.
Facing prominent ideas and questions raised by the disaster, the then Prime Minister -Theresa May, occupies a low media profile in the events' immediate aftermath.In this way, the media is provided with a statement that explains that 'we need to know what happened for the families…there will be an enquiry'.But withheld, nonetheless, are interviews or photo opportunities during her visits to fire fighters working at the scene (15 July) and the victims in hospital on 16 July, and even less is provided about a meeting with residents that was devised later to appease the growing anger among the local community.It is a community representative, Right Reverend Graham Tomlin, that appears after the latter event, and across the coverage, to explain the conversation and that 'Mrs May was aware of the anger' (Channel 4, 18 July).
As we have heard, counter narratives can appear in the absence of ongoing elite commentary on, and definitional control of, disasters (Durham, 2008).In this case, the subsequent news commentary on the expectations of elite prominence is an observed outcome of the prime minister's, and governmental, communicative (in)action.Here, journalists reflect on reactions from crowd comments comparing the Queen's actions to the perceived inaction of the prime minister with 'She [the Queen] did better than the prime minister' (Member of Crowd, ITN, 16 July) following a royal visit by the Queen to the Grenfell disaster scene.The perceived neglect of victims and their families by the prime minister is referenced as part of a swell of community anger.One community insider reveals, when asked to explain the mood among the Grenfell community for example, that: 'People are angry as the prime minister didn't come to see them' (Channel 4, 17 July).Even in the studio at Channel 4 news, the guests Sarah Wollaston, MP and political commentator -Toby Young discuss the 'damage' of these actions to the prime minister's credibility, suggesting at one point that visibility of leaders and their 'showing of emotion is needed in the media age' (Channel 4, 18 July).
In addition to visible elite presence, the common reproduction of consensual elite commentary on disaster events (Bennett et al., 2007) is another expected feature of reporting that does not appear in the Grenfell coverage.Following the disaster, the large number of politicians show a form of dissensus, by contrast, in their explaining of a range of concerns.Most occupy a visible presence in, or around, the disaster scene as different to the prime minister.In interviews with journalists, they offer critical comments (e.g., 'many residents thought their concerns were just tossed aside' -Councillor Judith Blakeman)or raise pertinent questions (e.g., 'what facilities and resources have been given to every local authority that has tower blocks within their area?' -Opposition Leader, Jeremy Corbyn).Still, at this time, The London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, is prominent in performing anger, from his perspective, at '…not simply at the poor response in the days afterwards from the council and the government, but the years of neglect from the council and successive governments'.That notwithstanding, criticism of inaction is observed to stretch beyond these instances.For example, the above orchestrated media opportunity is greeted with discontent by the crowd that surrounds the interviewed mayor.This collection of Grenfell residents jeer at his attempt to capture the public mood and his political opportunism following the disaster and, indeed, one crowd member audibly shouts 'someone must be held responsible' over the mayor's voice as he speaking in interview (Channel 5, 15 July).
Importantly, community reaction fills the absence of a sustained elite presence and a consensus view.Residents lead this (see 'citizens' -16%) rather than the reactions of victims or their families as one would expect of news reproducing the disaster genre.In the aftermath, residents are depicted as engaging in frenzied forms of disaster relief feeding and clothing survivors, comforting families, and providing shelter.The visible resident volunteers explain their actions and on occasion reflect on unfolding events, such as is observed here: 'We've had more than our fair share of heart-breaking tragedies recently, but in the face of some of the worst things imaginable, we've also seen the very best of people' (Volunteer, Channel 5, 14 July).The positive actions of people in the face of adversity, explained above, is an aspect that contrasts with the prominence of grief and death in the disaster and one to which broadcasters return in their commentaries.
More commonly however, resident volunteers -immersed in the situation -voice frustration at the authorities' inaction in reports.This again challenges the expectations of disaster reporting.One interviewed resident bemoans that: 'It's always the public that runs to the rescue' (BBC, July 16), while another (Volunteer, Christiana Sealy) speaks directly into the camera challenging the underperforming council with the words: 'Where are your people?Where are your resources?We can't see you' (ITN,July 19).As part of their balanced reporting, journalists include council representatives' views (e.g., Nicholas Paget-Brown, Leader of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in this case) that challenge claims of their absence: 'I was here at 3.30 on Wednesday morning, I've been here on and off ever since' (Channel 4, 16 July).They discuss the setting up of centres and defend their record on rehousing survivors and announce funding.But the theme of the council as underperforming in the disaster's aftermath is reinforced in the greater number of interviews that journalists include with Grenfell residents, such as is illustrated by the example of Jo Delaney: The response by the people who are paid to actually do this stuff and whose job it is to do this stuff has been appalling.And it continues to be appalling.Now, all of a sudden, money is available.But everything else is still a bureaucratic nightmare…It is disgusting.It really is (ITN,July 19).
The tone of the criticism of the government and the local council increases over the first few days and reflects a groundswell of emotion and anger.This observation of the break with the disaster genre is significant in itself.Nonetheless, the situation also alters the discussion of victims and families' grief that is traditionally found in disaster reporting and raises wider questions of anger and the search for justice.

From grief to anger
There is also an aspect of the representation of anger, found here, that departs from that expected within disaster reporting.Commonly, the disaster genre provides a controlled discussion of victims and grief.Broadcasters explain the calculus of death and devastation (Cottle, 2013), show pictures of grieving relatives in various states of composure, and, to add 'colour' to their reports, allow limited space for reaction on the missing and the deceased (Pantti, 2019).A portion of the Grenfell reporting reflects this as it focuses on tales of the missing and the actions taken by families to hear news about the status of their relatives.A range of examples appear from 'the ordinary' victim (a taxi driver and school assistant, for example) to 'the extraordinary' victim in the case of Khadija Sayea Gambian born photographer and friend to a prominent Member of Parliament (i.e., David Lammy).Certainly, these in-depth accounts of the missing reflect the characteristics of the disaster genre as a mediated event.Typically, the focus is placed on individuals that optimise the sense of the tragedy as one of wasted life and potential, particularly that of the young and gifted.A background is provided on a Syrian born UK university student, for instance, who '… came here to seek safety' (ITN, 19 July), was separated from his brother on the stairs of the burning tower block and on returning to his flat 'spoke to friends in Syria' before his death (Channel 4, 15 July).Others were school children such as, Nunha who is introduced as a 'diligent girl' (Head Teacher -Colin Hall) and Firdow and her brothers on which an included youth worker, Sam Mendez, comments: They were very sensible, always asking intelligent questions and she was also very inquisitive.She had this thirst for knowledge.She was always learning and teaching the younger children and Yahya, the oldest child, absolutely loved football.He was always making jokes, had a brilliant sense of humour.Two really beautiful souls.The youngest child, Yaqub, was just a bundle of energy.They could have been alive today, but they were neglected because they were poor (BBC, 19 July).
The comments included in the reporting, like these, create idealised victims that reinforce the senselessness of the tragedy.As is reflected in the last line above however, these aspects of reporting contain an imprint of the wider criticisms of the tragedy playing out in the surrounding commentary on the disaster, in this case.While the included idealised accounts of victims do develop the recognisable reconstruction of the disaster event and summon the lens of pity explained earlier (Joye, 2009), these play only part of a wider commentary and extension to the disaster genre.What is more, anger rather than grief appears in these commentaries on victims.This change reflects the context of the Grenfell tragedy and provides a different lens through which TV audiences can engage with the tragedy at these moments.
Following the reporting template however, journalists carefully navigate ideas of blame and responsibility in disaster coverage, which are commonly shaped according to the included thoughts and perspectives of political elite commentators.As observed previously, anger is found in national disaster reporting (Pantii and Wahl Jorgensen, 2011).But context is important to how this aspect manifests and is mediated in reporting (Moeller, 1999), such as is found here.The impoverished status of the Grenfell victims, expert commentary on blame and the slow political response to the disaster offered in reporting, form the basis on which opportunities emerge for members of the local Grenfell community.In these moments, friends and families, when responding to journalists' questions about victims, speak more widely about the inevitability of the disaster as is outlined here by a friend of a resident who was missing at the time: I am sure if there was an MP living in their building or a politician or a high-profile individual or a celebrity, I'm sure something would be done.If you look at the residents of this building, they all seem to be migrants, refugees and poor people (Channel 4, 15 July).
Echoed above is a view of the residents' statuses, (…being poor, migrant or refugee) as underpinning the authorities' neglect of their safety.Moreover, such comments offered the following day, answer the question 'why here?' to which journalists and experts engaged in the first news programmes.As part of the developing sections on victims in the TV reporting, included comments express anger at the local authority for their lack of support for relatives: I feel very angry, not supported.Feel the community has come together better than the government or the support from the government.When the casualty bureau number came out, I actually rang it and it just went to voicemail.To hear that message, that was just like a knife in the chest, if you know what I mean (Relative of missing resident -BBC, 17 July).
Again, this is not a traditional glib 'reaction' comment that would appear in the typical disaster reporting genre.Rather, its presence develops the critique on the inaction of authorities, articulated here as an experience of anger that comes from being unable to access the advertised government support for relatives of the missing.Indeed, these comments extend beyond the experiences of the lack of support from the local authority to public announcements on the tragedy by government.Below, a relative uses the opportunity to react to the government's suggestion of a public enquiry in the case of Grenfell by voicing collective cynicism found in the community towards these actions alongside a call for justice in the form of an inquest: …The Prime Minister, Theresa May mentioned about a public enquiry.Straightaway we thought it is a whitewash.We need an inquest (ITN, 19 July).
The views reflected above feature also as an explanation of the motivations behind a protest event at the local council offices, and the voices associated with it, that appears in the developing coverage.

Protest and reaction
The fact that protests emerge in this disaster coverage is unusual.Still, the account of the protest and its related commentaries that develops in the news reporting further challenges the expectations of the disaster genre.Seen generally, protests do not feature within the tightly choreographed news coverage of disasters and the included commentaries of experts and political elites.Such incidents can be introduced, though, as part of the wider mythic idea of the natural transition of 'grief to anger' (Tierney et al., 2006) and its consequences for those involved in disasters.This aspect appears briefly in the beginning of the BBC coverage, below: Good evening.Angry protests are being held in London as residents demand support for those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire.This is what happens when grief turns to anger.The target is Kensington Town Hall, the offices of the council that owns Grenfell Tower.They are demanding answers … They want to hear from the local authority officials whom they hold responsible (BBC, 16 July).
Even so, what follows in reports across the TV coverage does not simply dismiss the protest as a natural burst of expected anger to such circumstances as would likely appear in consensual coverage that includes mythic elements and the explanations of these happenings from the perspectives of police or council voices.Explored instead is the recorded anger at the local authority and the government's response, which, in turn, the coverage explains as motivating the protest scenes.What appears does not reproduce official accounts of the rowdiness of, and the damage created by, protest events, either.Rather it concentrates on concerns from the mouths of the protestors, after first revisiting the question that dominates the investigative nature of this coverage, as voiced here by the BBC -'How could this tragedy have happened on this scale in this city in 2017?'.The featured voices, although edited, include protest leaders speaking to protesting crowds about insufficient council action, alongside mentioning the whole government disaster response as being in chaos and perhaps most poignantly, explaining their feeling of their voicelessness as illustrated here: 'We need to be heard!We all have things to say.We are in pain' (BBC, 16 July).In short, the protest is not mediated into tightly controlled coverage of an expected event, but, by contrast, is included as an opportunity to hear community reasoning.
Further, this community reasoning about Grenfell appears in subsequent coverage as the reporting focus extends beyond the single day of protest.What follows moves to a more developed discussion of the issues from these discrete protest comments.Referenced often, at this time, is the prophetic claim posted on the blog of the residents action group -Grenfell Action Group -6 months before the Grenfell disaster: 'We firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord and bring an end to the dangerous living conditions' (ITN, 14 July).Subsequent reporting offers space for housing campaigners to explain failures from their perspective, unchallenged from comments by the council or housing management association, as is illustrated here by the appearance of Pilgrim Tucker, campaigner for Housing in London, on Channel 5 News: Not only did the council and the tenant management organisation create the problem and cause the horrible tragedy that has happened here, they've been noticeable by their absence (Channel 5, 16 July).
But in addition to housing campaigners' commentary, it is the words of celebrities, living locally, that reconnect the tragedy to the wider issues of the treatment of the poor.The singer Akala for instance, echoes general anger toward the council's preoccupation with creating a tower block aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding wealthy neighbours, rather than one that was safe: There is no way rich people live in a building without adequate fire safety.There were no alarms.£8 million has been spent refurbishing it.It was an eyesore for the rich people living opposite, so they put pretty panels on the outside (Channel 4, 15 July).
In addition, the focus of another comment is directed to the out-of-date fire regulations that experts discussed previously in the opening coverage.But this does not simply restate the fact.More accurately, the singer and local resident -Lily Allen raises concern over the personal motivations of conservative MPs to vote against a bill to update fire regulations in tower blocks, saying: I think that there needs to be questions answered about fire regulations and why a bill that was meant to be passed was voted against by 312 conservative MPs, many of which I hear are landlords.There has to be a conflict of interest there (Channel 4, 16 July).
Several days later the prime minister issues her apology and a guarantee of a public inquiry in the house of commons.

Conclusion
This paper has explored the reporting of the Grenfell tragedy and reflected on our academic understanding of the operation of TV journalism at such times.At this point, we can note that the analysed reporting has reflected some elements of the consensual aftermath disaster genre and, in turn, has dramatized Grenfell and those involved.Nevertheless, more striking is the evidence offered for Grenfell as a 'disruptive event' (Cottle, 2006).The paper's findings reinforce Blondheim and Liebes (2002) observation that the shear immediacy and unexpected nature of disasters are important in challenging the routine actions of journalism and political elites at these times.While unexpectedness and unpreparedness in the face of Grenfell no doubt informed subsequent (re)actions, the significant contribution of this particular analysis, by contrast, has been to recognise how a combination of actual 'disruptive factors' challenged this crisis reporting.Their collective effect, as we have heard, opened spaces for different voices, perspectives and related journalistic commentary.
In contrast then to theorising Grenfell as a 'disruptive event' to journalism and political routine interactions at this time, this paper has offered the specific conceptual focus on its (i) disruptive geography, (ii) disruptive expertise and (iii) disruptive commentary as providing challenges to the existing reporting template that journalists use to shape consensual disaster reporting.The Grenfell reporting, it follows, was marked by the (i) geography of poor victims versus rich residents of Kensington London, (ii) expertise highlighting responsibility and (iii) community voices appearing before first absent, and later fractured, political commentary.What emerges subsequently is sustained criticism of the actions of both local and national government in reporting.This led to the then prime minister's apology and also helped to set the parameters for later critical TV news coverage on a range of related issues, including inappropriate cladding on the tower block, cost cutting and inadequate local authority responses etc.
In sum, this study has set a new agenda to explore disruptive factors and their impact at times of crisis.To move forward our understanding from here, it follows, we will need to observe the impact of these factors across other media reporting and social media, alongside exploring these phenomena from inside newsrooms and from the perspectives of the watching audience.

Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article.

Table 1 .
Disaster genre: Voices by news programme.