Sir Harold Evans (top) giving the Hugh Cudlipp Lecture: "As depressing as exposure of the dark arts has been, it is deepened by the cynicism and arrogance of much of the reaction to Leveson, coming from figures in the press who did nothing to penetrate - indeed whose inertia assisted - the cover-up conducted into oblivion by News International, a cover up which would have continued, but for the skill of Nick Davies and the courage of his editor."
Celia Walden (aka Mrs. Piers Morgan) writes in the Daily Telegraph on why she's fed-up of her husband tweeting: "When he walked into the kitchen recently, beaming, to tell me that he was trending worldwide – whatever that means – because “the members of One Direction tweeted 'Piers Morgan is smelly’,” I should have skipped the divorce lawyer and demanded the keys to the house right there."
Antonia de Sancha sums up her situation in the Daily Telegraph: “Screwed by Mellor, screwed by Max.”
Gerald Scarfe, as reported by Press Gazette: “The Sunday Times has given me the freedom of speech over the last 46 years to criticize world leaders for what I see as their wrong-doings. This drawing was a criticism of Netanhayu, and not of the Jewish people: there was no slight whatsoever intended against him. I was, however, stupidly completely unaware that it would be printed on Holocaust day, and I apologise for the very unfortunate timing.”
John Samuel in the Guardian on Frank Keating: "Few modern sports writers have brought alive sporting people, past and present, champions and also-rans, as Keating did. Few have written with such sympathy, able to laugh with them, not at them, at the same time minting fresh, inventive phraseology. He created a new language for the nation's sporting press. He was unique, and beloved by contemporaries, who saw his writing skills and awards as a guiding path for their own."
Matthew Engel on Frank Keating in the Guardian: "I learned the hard way never to estimate the old devil on what might have been the very first day I met him: in the press box at Northamptonshire when I was the evening paper cricket reporter circa 1974. I was discussing with a local colleague when we might announce the information we had about some trivial injury or team selection news, and assumed there was no risk talking when there was only fey, polysyllabic Mr Keating in earshot. The decision was made for us: Mr Keating announced the news in next morning's paper."
@leshinton on Twitter: "Buzz unabated that Mike Bloomberg wants to buy @FinancialTimes. Now some saying his favorite editor is John Micklethwait @TheEconomist"
Iain Dale on his blog: "Our public life is being corrupted by a permanent sneer and cynical outlook by those who report on it. Yes, to some extent it’s the fault of those who serve in public life. The trouble is that the way politics is now reported in the print and broadcast media, it’s a wonder anyone wants to go into it. And this is why increasingly we will get a political class made up of geeks and obsessives. Normal people, people who actually want to do good, will turn their efforts elsewhere, and who can blame them?"
Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes ) in the Spectator debate on Leveson: "My commercial interest would be best served by shackling the British press and making all newspapers as boring as the Independent. Readers would flock to my website to find out what was really going on, it would make me wealthy."
Michael Apted, Rory Bremner, Nick Broomfield, Simon Chinn, Greg Dyke, Peter Kosminsky, Angus Macqueen, Krish Majumdar, Kevin Marsh, John Willis and Brian Woods in a letter to The Times [£]: "We are broadcasters with long experience of working within a far tighter regulatory system — underpinned by legislation — than Leveson envisages for the print media. While we make no comment on the detail of the Leveson plan, we would point out that our industry has a proud record of independent, challenging journalism — calling the rich and powerful to account without fear or favour. Our experience of programme-making tells us that effective regulation, far from being something to be feared, often acts as a buttress to and a shield for journalism that takes on vested interests and asks awkward questions. We can say what we want and make the programmes we want within a regulatory framework that is enshrined in law. The suggestion that such regulation is inevitably anathema to free speech, or automatically places us under the thumb of politicians, is wrong and insulting to us as fellow journalists."
[£] = paywall
[£] = paywall