Media Quotes of the Week: From Rusbridger rubbishes Royal Charter plans as 'medieval nonsense' to Indy puts Prince George on page 27

Alan Rusbridger speaking at a London Press club debate on investigative journalism, as quoted by the London Evening Standard: “What journalists have to do is create something clearly independent of politicians and the press and we would get a lot of support from the public. But this medieval piece of nonsense which appeared out of the blue is the thing that has hideously complicated things.”

Tom Bower also at the London Press Club debate, as reported by the Guardian: "Unless the Guardian in my view agrees to the last chance of self regulation we are going to find ourselves disunited as journalists, fighting amongst ourselves, which will only benefit others." 

Ed Miliband on the Fleet Street press at a private dinner for Labour donors, according to the Financial Times: "We've got to be willing to call these people out. They are less powerful than people ever thought and they are less powerful now than they were."

A light in the darkness: New ad promoting national press highlights campaigns and exclusives over MP's expenses, Hillsborough, Phone Hacking, Stephen Lawrence, Help for Heroes, National Security Agency, Cycle Safety and WikiLeaks. 

Martin Belam ‏@MartinBelam on Twitter: "It’s almost like newspaper execs got round a table and had the chance to nominate the one story most likely to annoy the others."

Hacked Off’s executive director Brian Cathcart, in response to a letter from seven international media associations to the Queen asking her not to grant the Royal Charter on the press: "It’s obvious that these bodies have been duped into taking this initiative by the big British press companies. The letter shows that they are completely misinformed about the content and purpose of the Royal Charter and that unlike the British public they have fallen for the hysterical scaremongering of a small group of self-interested editors and proprietors."

 Martin Sixsmith, asked by the Observer if he was scared of Alastair Campbell: "I certainly never felt intimidated. I've done wars, murders, revolutions, earthquakes, natural disasters. I felt a bit scared in war zones but I certainly didn't feel scared by spin doctors."

Sally Bercow @SallyBercow on Twitter: "I have apologised sincerely to Lord McAlpine in court - I hope others have learned tweeting can inflict real harm on people's lives."

Peter Preston in the Observer: "Parliament's own approved regulator, if proceeded with, will need a fine array of imposing names to people its recognition and appointments committees, not to mention the board of the regulator itself. And Ipso will require exactly the same quality membership. Joe Public isn't going to be over-impressed by a random selection of available Joe Soaps."
 
Local Government minister Eric Pickles, speaking on the BBC Sunday Politics show, on the Royal Charter for press regulation: "If the press want to have an additional protection that the Royal Charter operates, then they can move into the system, but if they want to continue independently, that's perfectly acceptable."

Joshua Hatch, chair of the Online Journalism Awards, on the Guardian winning two awards for its NSA files stories based on leaks by analyst Edward Snowden: "It was a story that couldn't be ignored and that's what watchdog is. When that story came out, people not only in the US but around the world stood up and took action. The reaction speaks for itself. And it was done effectively online. They got the most important story of the year and they told it well. This was a combination of most important and told well. That's a tough combination to beat."

The Grey Cardigan on TheSpinAlley: "If you want an accurate indicator of the middle-class Middle England mindset, you must turn to the Daily Telegraph. Not to its leader article or its columnists, but to the pocket cartoons drawn by the genius that is Matt Pritchett. And in yesterday’s newspaper/website/tablet/phone app whatever, Matt put the boot into the cops with some venom. 'He says it’s half past two, but he’s probably lying' isn’t the funniest of jokes (the man himself sets the bar so high) but for a 10-word condemnation of how we now view the constabulary, it’s devastating."

David Mitchell in the Observer: "The trouble is that the press, particularly the tabloid press, has made itself so loathed that they're difficult people to defend or sympathise with. Many of them deserved a comeuppance, so it's easy to focus on the nasty people having a nasty time and ignore the potentially disastrous collateral damage to our ancient freedom to say, write and print what we like without any permission or official sanction."

Early Day Motion: "That this House notes with concern the detention by the Russian authorities of journalist Kieron Bryan who was under contract to record a film for Greenpeace when he was arrested on 19 September 2013, and is now detained in Murmansk; believes that he is neither a criminal nor a threat to the Russian state and that he should be released immediately; is dismayed that he is facing charges of piracy which carry a sentence of up to 15 years' imprisonment."

Lord Black of Brentwood, Chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance, in a statement on why the publishing industry is seeking a judicial review of the Privy Council decision to reject the Royal Charter on press regulation backed by publishers:"The Government and the Privy Council should have applied the most rigorous standards of consultation and examination of the Royal Charter proposed by the industry, which would have enshrined tough regulatory standards at the same time as protecting press freedom. They singularly failed to do so, and that is why – as the issues at stake are so extraordinarily high - we are having to take this course of action.”

The IndependentVerified account ‏@Independent on Twitter: "You can find the Independent's royal baby coverage in full at the bottom of page 27"

Quotes of the Week: From press chews up charter to what's behind Piers Morgan's bravado?

Hugo Rifkind in The Times: "Of course, supporters will pretend this isn’t a press law, as they have been doing all along, but it’s a shabby pose. Ultimately the great distinction between these two charters was the role of Parliament. What the press wanted for Parliament was no role at all. Whereas what Parliament wanted, and got, was to be the final backstop; the great overlord, the deciding voice as to whether this mooted new regulator was doing its job. That’s a law. That’s what a law is. This is precisely the sort of situation that old saying about things that look and quack like ducks was devised for. It’s a great big quacking law."

Boris Johnson in the Telegraph: "Stuff all this malarkey about the Privy Council and a Royal Charter. Who are the Privy Council, for goodness’ sake? They are just a bunch of politicians, a glorified version of the government of the day. We are on the verge of eroding the freedom of the press. We are undermining the work of everyone from John Milton to John Wilkes – men who fought for the right to say and publish things of which politicians disapproved. Why are we embarking on this monstrous folly? Because of a string of essentially political embarrassments that led to the Leveson Inquiry – and at the beginning of it all was the expenses scandal, and the sense among MPs that they had been brutally treated by the press."

Ian Murray, editor of the Southern Daily Echo, in Press Gazette: "The apparent concessions to the regional press could be seen as an attempt to buy us off and leave the fight. However, I will accept these as a well-meaning attempt to address genuine practical concerns the 1,100 local newspapers have over the sheer cost of administering the new regulations andthe threat to some publications’ very existence. But these are practical considerations to be taken in addition to the overall objections from the industry as a whole towards the removal of the principle of a free press. The Culture Secretary and others have made a grave, and I would say frankly insulting mistake in assuming that regional editors see this matter solely in terms of pounds and pence. The principle of a free press is as important to the people of Southampton – or Portsmouth or Oxford or Glasgow – as it is for those who inhabit the corridors of Westminster." 

Daniel Finkelstein in The Times: "Those who want a 'dab of statute', just a tiny bit you know, nothing to worry about, think they are the knights in shining armour, the defenders of the weak. In the end, however, restrictions on freedom of speech always spread, becoming the tool of the intolerant and the enemy of liberal engagement. The idea that because the originators feel themselves well-meaning the result will be benign is awe-inspiringly naive."

The Industry Steering Group, representing newspaper and magazine publishers, in a statement: "We welcome the fact that, after more than six months, politicians are finally seeing some of the flaws in their unacceptable and unilateral March 18 Charter. We will study their latest proposals closely. However this remains a Charter written by politicians, imposed by politicians and controlled by politicians. It has not been approved by any of the newspapers or magazines it seeks to regulate."

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian on press regulation: "Whatever the solution, it must not involve a royal charter and the privy council. Otherwise it will hand a gag to the most secretive elements of the British state. And, as we saw this week, they are itching to use it."

Fraser Nelson on press regulation in the Mail on Sunday: "The Independent, The Guardian and Financial Times have all shown the least hostility to the Government’s appalling plans – but little wonder. On current trends, all will have morphed into digital news feeds by the end of the decade. There will be fewer newspapers to regulate."

Nick Cohen on the Spectator blog: "No editor should sign up to the Privy Council’s quango – and what an appropriately secretive and medieval body the politicians have chosen to assert their control – for a simple reason. I said at the beginning of this piece that today’s journalists were the “custodians” of press freedom. We do not own it. We merely hold it in trust until we pass it on. It is not ours to relinquish. It most certainly is not ours to relinquish without a fight."

New York Times editor Jill Abramson in the Guardian: "The First Amendment is first for a reason. It makes me feel a little like I'm pontificating to cite the founders of this country, but it's true they were so afraid of centralised power that they saw a free press as the critical bulwark against unbridled government – and that is our role."

Paul Dacre in the Guardian responds to the storm over the Mail's Ralph Miliband feature: "The hysteria that followed is symptomatic of the post-Leveson age in which any newspaper which dares to take on the left in the interests of its readers risks being howled down by the Twitter mob who the BBC absurdly thinks represent the views of real Britain."
 
The Observer in a leader:  "It is unfortunate that British journalism is unable to distinguish between our own interests and a matter of principle that affects all our readers. Using the Snowden revelations as an excuse to grind old axes doesn't serve Britons or Britain very well."

Ian Burrell in the Independent: "The charge against The Guardian is treason.It is couched in terms of a reckless betrayal of Britain’s national security – but the paper’s real crime, in the eyes of the right-wing press, is that it sold its industry down the river. It was The Guardian that broke the story of the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone, prompting the closure of the News of the World and setting in train tougher regulation of the press as proposed yesterday in a Royal Charter. At the Daily Mail, the left-wing title is hated even more. Paul Dacre, the Mail’s editor-in-chief, regards The Guardian’s worldview as being diametrically opposed to his own."

Jay Rosen blogs on Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar's new journalism venture, which has recruited Glenn Greenwald from the Guardian:"Omidyar believes that if independent, ferocious, investigative journalism isn’t brought to the attention of general audiences it can never have the effect that actually creates a check on power. Therefore the new entity — they have a name but they’re not releasing it, so I will just call it NewCo — will have to serve the interest of all kinds of news consumers. It cannot be a niche product. It will have to cover sports, business, entertainment, technology: everything that users demand. At the core of Newco will be a different plan for how to build a large news organization."

Eric Price, the ex-Western Daily Press editor who died this week, quoted in an obit in the Telegraph: “Nothing wrong with Shakespeare a good sub couldn’t put right.”

Celia Walden (aka Mrs. Piers Morgan) on her husband in the Guardian: "There is not a single insecure bone in his body. People always say, 'What's it like behind the bravado?' And I say, 'I'm afraid there's just more bravado.'"

Royal Charter 'imposed by politicians' says press

The newspaper and magazine industry's initial reaction to the revised Royal Charter on press regulation is far from enthusiastic - claiming it is being imposed by politicians and cannot be considered voluntary.

The Industry Steering Group, representing newspaper and magazine publishers, says: "We welcome the fact that, after more than six months, politicians are finally seeing some of the flaws in their unacceptable and unilateral March 18 Charter. We will study their latest proposals closely.

"However this remains a Charter written by politicians, imposed by politicians and controlled by politicians. It has not been approved by any of the newspapers or magazines it seeks to regulate.

"Meanwhile the industry’s Charter was rejected by eight politicians, meeting in secret, and chaired by the same politician who is promoting the politicians' Charter.

"Lord Justice Leveson called for ‘voluntary, independent self-regulation’ of the press. It is impossible to see how a regulator operating under rules imposed by politicians, and enforced by draconian and discriminatory provisions for damages and costs in civil cases, could be said to be either voluntary or independent."

• The Industry Steering Group comprises the Newspaper Society, Newspaper Publishers Association, Professional Publishers Association and the Scottish Newspaper Society.

Spectator editor Fraser Nelson gave his verdict on Twitter:

Society of Editors executive director Bob Satchwell told BBC News: "You can't have a new system of regulation which is drawn up by and imposed by politicians. The things which are being proposed at the moment would be totally unconstitutional in the US and other countries.

"People in other countries, not just journalists, are looking at what's going on here at the moment with horror."

Boris Johnson, writing in the Telegraph, says: "Good for Fraser Nelson. It strikes me that he is 100 per cent right. The editor of The Spectator has announced that his ancient and illustrious publication will have nothing whatever to do with any new system of press regulation. He will neither bow nor truckle to any kind of control. He will not “sign up”. He will politely tell the new bossyboots institution to mind its own beeswax, and he will continue to publish without fear or favour. I think the whole of the media should do the same.

"Stuff all this malarkey about the Privy Council and a Royal Charter. Who are the Privy Council, for goodness’ sake? They are just a bunch of politicians, a glorified version of the government of the day. We are on the verge of eroding the freedom of the press. We are undermining the work of everyone from John Milton to John Wilkes – men who fought for the right to say and publish things of which politicians disapproved."

Hugo Rifkind in The Times: "Of course, supporters will pretend this isn’t a press law, as they have been doing all along, but it’s a shabby pose. Ultimately the great distinction between these two charters was the role of Parliament. What the press wanted for Parliament was no role at all. Whereas what Parliament wanted, and got, was to be the final backstop; the great overlord, the deciding voice as to whether this mooted new regulator was doing its job. That’s a law. That’s what a law is. This is precisely the sort of situation that old saying about things that look and quack like ducks was devised for. It’s a great big quacking law."

Private Eye's view: 

 

Patrick Smith at TheMediaBriefing points out that the following would not be regulated by the Royal Charter:

• The BBC (which is regulated by Ofcom)

• All B2B media "titles" based on a profession of industry, regardless of size

• Specialist consumer "titles" based on a pastime or hobby, regardless of size

• Scientific journals

• Anything published by a charity or "public body"

• Internal company newsletters and mags

• Book publishers

• Blogs... But these are exempt only if they have fewer than 10 employees (not clear whether this means the brand or the parent business) and make less than £2 million a year. Note that many local newspapers (and very nearly some nationals) would fail to breach these thresholds.

• Everyone on Twitter

• Everyone on Facebook, Tumblr, the internet generally etc

Here's the list of things that definitely will be covered

• National and regional newspapers in print and online

• Maybe the Huffington Post and

• Er, that's it

UPDATE: October 24

World press groups urge Queen not to sign Royal Charter

A group of  global press freedom and media organisations have written an open letter to the Queen asking her to reject a proposed Royal Charter that would impose "repressive statutory controls" on the British press.

It said: “For more than three centuries since Britain abolished the last set of statutory controls on the press in 1695, the United Kingdom has been a consistent champion of the most crucial freedom of all - freedom of expression – and a beacon of liberty across the world,” said the letter, signed by seven international media organisations (see below).

“Freedom of expression was central to the European Convention of Human Rights which Britain helped draft. It is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory. It is a core belief in the Commonwealth Charter which Britain inspired. Free speech and freedom of expression have throughout the 20th and 21st centuries therefore been at the core of Britain’s international commitments, of its leadership of the free world, and of its international reputation as a liberal democracy.

“Yet all that is now in danger. No one should be in any doubt that the proposed Royal Charter which politicians are forcing Your Majesty to sign is, despite the camouflage, in reality a set of repressive statutory controls being imposed on the press against its will. That should not be the function of a Royal Charter.”

The letter said the Charter would not only have an impact on press freedom in the United Kingdom, but would be used by repressive regimes worldwide to justify their own control of the press.

“The actions of Britain’s Parliament will be used as an excuse by those who want to muzzle the press in their own country and stifle the free flow of information – and there are many governments who would love to do so,” the letter said. “And it is your name, Your Majesty, that will regrettably be taken in vain. ‘If it is good enough for the Queen, it is good enough for us.’”

• The full letter can be read at http://www.wan-ifra.org/node/91085

The letter was signed by the Commonwealth Press Union Trust, the Worldwide Magazine Media Association (FIPP), the Inter American Press Association, the International Association of Broadcasting, the International Press Institute, the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), and the World Press Freedom Committee.

UPDATE: October 24 Press Statement by press industry:


Newspaper and Magazine Industry Applies to High Court for Judicial Review of Privy Council Decision on Royal Charter

In April 2013, the newspaper and magazine industry submitted an application to the Privy Council for a Royal Charter to establish an independent “Recognition Panel” to oversee applications for the recognition of a self regulatory system of press regulation.

This application was rejected by a committee of the Privy Council on 8^th October, and an Order to that effect was issued on 9^th October.

Given the critical importance to a free society of the issues involved in the granting of a Charter on this subject, which goes to the very heart of press freedom and the right of free expression, it was vital that the consideration of this application be undertaken fairly and rationally.

After studying the matter closely, it is the clear view of the industry’s trade associations, which submitted the Charter through the Press Standards Board of Finance, that the application was not dealt with fairly, that the press had a right to be consulted which the Government and the Privy Council failed to do, and that the procedures deployed were irrational.

We believe that the decision and the Order were therefore unlawful, and the industry’s associations through PressBof are applying to the High Court for judicial review and to have the decision quashed.
The application will not impact in any way on the implementation of the new Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Lord Black of Brentwood, Chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance (the industry body which funds the regulatory system), said:“The decision by the Government and the Privy Council on this matter has enormous ramifications for free speech both here in the UK, and – because of our leadership role in the Commonwealth and developing world – across the globe.

"The Government and the Privy Council should have applied the most rigorous standards of consultation and examination of the Royal Charter proposed by the industry, which would have enshrined tough regulatory standards at the same time as protecting press freedom. They singularly failed to do so, and that is why – as the issues at stake are so extraordinarily high - we are having to take this course of action.”

October 24: Final plans announced for Independent Press Standards Organisation

Statement from The Industry Implementation Group, representing news and magazine publishers from across the press, has published the final set of plans for the establishment of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPS0).

"This follows an extensive series of consultations across the industry, involving lawyers and senior editorial representatives covering hundreds of publications.

The final plans – to which the vast majority of publishers have indicated they are committed – are contained in a series of legal documents, totalling over 80 pages, which are being published on a dedicated website, www.ipso.co.uk. They include:

• the contract which will bind publishers to IPSO and give the regulator tough powers of investigation, enforcement and sanction;
• the regulations under which IPSO will operate, investigate complaints and undertake standards investigations;
• the Articles of Association which will set out the governance of the regulator and guarantee its independence;
• the financial sanctions guidance under which IPSO will be able to impose fines of up to £1 million; and
• the Articles of Association of a new Regulatory Funding Company setting out transparently how IPSO will be funded.

The process of asking publishers formally to sign the contracts will now begin through the industry’s trade associations. It is expected to take around eight weeks.
At the same time, an independent appointments process established by a Foundation Group under Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers is expected to begin work shortly.

The two processes of legal implementation and independent appointments procedures should be completed to allow IPSO to begin work early in the new year.

Paul Vickers, chairman of the Industry Implementation Group and executive director of Trinity Mirror plc, said: “Today’s publication is the result of almost nine months of work and consultation across our large and diverse industry. As a result of this painstaking and thorough exercise, we can now move to establish the tough, independent, effective regulator that Lord Justice Leveson called for in his report.

“I am very grateful to many colleagues in the industry – both legal and editorial – who have completed such a mammoth task. “I am confident that what we have produced will be the toughest regulator anywhere in the developed world – one which will guarantee the public the protection it deserves, but which will also ensure we maintain the free press on which our democracy is founded.”

UPDATE: October 30

DCMS has published cross-party Royal Charter here

Quotes of the Week: From Mail and Guardian go to war to Privy Council rejects press's charter

Two titles at war: Guardian top; Mail bottom

MI5 chief Andrew Parker, as reported by the Independent, claims Edward Snowden's leaks on surveillance by security services gave terrorists: "The gift to evade us and strike at will'

Daily Mail headline over leader on the Guardian: 'The paper that helps Britain's enemies'

The Guardian in a leader: "The Mail's leading article must be read in the context of a fervent discussion about press regulation in which it is leading the charge for journalists to be both free and trusted. But yesterday's editorial argues the opposite. It is a statement of anti-journalism: editors, it says, cannot be trusted. They must defer to the state."

Alan Rusbridger on BBC Radio 4's World at One: “You would have to be a terrorist who didn’t know how to tie his shoelaces not to believe that people were watching things on the internet and scooping up telephone calls. I don’t think some of this will come as a great surprise to terrorists."

Stephen Glover in the Mail: "I don’t accuse Mr Rusbridger of any lack of patriotism. I am sure he loves his country as much as anyone. But he does stand accused of the most stupendous arrogance and presumption." 

Will Hutton in the Observer: "Tea Party-style hatred, intransigence and inconsistency has transfixed the US. The danger is that the Mail will further push Britain into the same kind of mutual loathing, misdiagnosing opponents' positions and deafening debate. Perhaps by turning on his tormentors Miliband is doing more than his father's memory a service. Democracies – and their media – depend on minimal protocols of engagement being observed. It would be to everyone's advantage if they were."

Culture secretary Maria Miller speaking in Parliament, as reported by BBC News: "The committee of the Privy Council is unable to recommend the press's proposal for a royal charter be granted. Whilst there are areas where it is acceptable, it is unable to comply with some important Leveson principles and government policy."

Press industry statement: "This proposed Royal Charter has already been universally rejected by the industry and it is even more regrettable that the industry will have no opportunity to take part in the discussions between the political parties over possible amendments."

Daily Telegraph in a leader: "This is the first time it has been proposed that an industry should be forced to sign up to a Royal Charter rather than voluntarily accede to one. Moreover, the cross-party charter – cobbled together without any discussion with the industry – would be underpinned by legislation, thereby giving it the very statutory basis that David Cameron rightly said would be 'crossing the Rubicon'. For all their protestations to the contrary, our politicians are proposing to bring back statutory press control for the first time in more than 300 years. This is unacceptable."

Rupert Murdoch ‏@rupertmurdoch on Twitter: "BBC massive taxpayer funded mouthpiece for tiny circulation leftist Guardian. Meanwhile print media about to be gagged to protect toffs."

Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph: "Mr Grayling’s Bill of Rights should incorporate a clause about freedom of speech and the press, ideally giving Britons the same protection as afforded to Americans by their First Amendment to the Constitution. It would help judges such as Lord Justice Leveson to understand the importance and definition of a free press. It would help politicians see that the Leveson proposals would, in the words of the New York Times, 'chill free speech and threaten the survival of small publishers and internet sites'. And it would, moreover, put temptation out of Mr Miliband’s way."

Alex Massie on the Spectator: "Perhaps the Mail went too far (though I see nothing wrong with it despatching a reporter to a memorial service for one of Miliband’s uncles. Newspapers attend funerals and memorial services all the time. What’s different about this one?). But even if it did, so what? That’s one of the reasons for having a free press: so papers can go too far. Better that, certainly, than that they don’t go far enough."

The Telegraph in a leader:  "We recognise Mr Miliband’s filial sincerity in defending his father’s memory; but it should not be used to undermine one of this country’s most precious liberties. If the Left wants a moral cause worth fighting for, then let us hear it defending, unequivocally, the freedom of the press."

Ex-Trotskyist Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday: "Our politics are bland enough without the press going soft and soppy as well, and how wretched it is that this row has given aid and comfort to the Polly Toynbee tendency, who for years have longed to yank out the teeth of the conservative press. But let it be to the point, and about real live issues. Our opponents may well be wrong but it does not make them bad. Even revolutionaries sometimes have a point, and many of them – though not all of them – grow up and turn into people like me." 

Miles Barter ‏@MilesBarter on Twitter: "When Thatcher died I couldn't stop myself jumping with joy. So I can't complain that the Daily Mail mocked a dead Marxist." #FreePress

Quotes of the Week: From the Mail-Miliband bust-up to why cats up trees are newsworthy

Mail attack on Ralph Miliband

Ed Miliband in the Daily Mail: "Journalists need to hold politicians like me to account — none of us should be given an easy ride — and I look forward to a robust 19 months between now and the General Election. But what appeared in the Daily Mail on Saturday was of a different order all together. I know they say ‘you can’t libel the dead’, but you can smear them. Fierce debate about politics does not justify character assassination of my father, questioning the patriotism of a man who risked his life for our country in World War  II, or publishing a picture of his gravestone with a tasteless pun about him being a ‘grave socialist’. The Daily Mail sometimes claims it stands for the best of British values of decency. But something has really gone wrong when it attacks the family of a politician — any politician — in this way."

The Daily Mail in an editorial refuses to apologise to Ed Miliband: "More chillingly, the father’s disdain for freedom of expression can be seen in his son’s determination to place the British Press under statutory control. Next week the Privy Council, itself an arm of the state, will meet to discuss plans — following a stitch-up with Hacked Off over late-night pizzas in Mr Miliband’s office — for what will ultimately be a politically controlled body to oversee what papers are allowed to publish. Put to one side that Mr Miliband’s close involvement with degenerates such as Damian McBride gives him scant right to claim the moral high ground on anything. If he crushes the freedom of the Press, no doubt his father will be proud of him from beyond the grave, where he lies 12 yards from the remains of Karl Marx. But he will have driven a hammer and sickle through the heart of the nation so many of us genuinely love."

Nick Clegg ‏@nick_clegg on Twitter: "I support @Ed_Miliband defending his dad. Politics should be about playing the ball, not the man, certainly not the man's family."

Ben Fenton ‏@benfenton on Twitter: "What's hard to grasp about Miliband dad row, is why the Mail would want to give party leaders reason to unite with Royal Charters upcoming."

Peter Preston ‏@PJPrest on Twitter: "I wonder what Ld Rothermere feels about family's old Nazi-loving past being recycled as predictable riposte over Mili-smear. Own goal Dacre?"

The Guardian in a leader:  "We share some of the Mail's anxieties about the future shape of press regulation. Highly personalised attacks on those involved in searching for the right solution, far less their dead relatives, will win over no friends to the press's side of the argument – quite the opposite. The Mail's voice in the debate is important: but reasoned discussion is better than hatchet jobs."

Roy Greenslade on his Media Guardian blog: "It is clear that the Mail's editor, Paul Dacre,, has forgotten the first rule of those who find themselves in an untenable position: when in a hole, stop digging."

Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times: "As the genetic offspring of a Britannia-loving Mailman, it must follow that my motives cannot be questioned when I view the attack on Miliband Sr as vicious, bigoted, distasteful and the antithesis of everything one should love about Britain.
There is, incidentally, one upside for Ed Miliband in the whole sorry business. Until now the one thing everyone knew about him was that he elbowed aside his elder brother to win the Labour leadership. Now, thanks to the Mail, he is less the man who knifed his brother than the man who stood up for his father."

Mail on Sunday editor Geordie Greig's apology after two of his reporters attended a private memorial service for Ed Milibands's uncle: "I have already spoken personally to Ed Miliband and expressed my regret that such a terrible lapse of judgement should have taken place. It is completely contrary to the values and editorial standards of The Mail on Sunday. I understand that Lord Rothermere is personally writing to Ed Miliband".
 
Seymour Hersh, quoted in the Guardian: "I have this sort of heuristic view that journalism, we possibly offer hope because the world is clearly run by total nincompoops more than ever … Not that journalism is always wonderful, it's not, but at least we offer some way out, some integrity."

peterwalker99 ‏@peterwalker99 on Twitter: "Harassed sounding Tesco press officer: 'Yes, we're aware of the inflatable gay best friend, and we're looking into it urgently'."

Patrick Wintour in the Guardian: "Cameron will fear a backlash from rightwing newspaper proprietors if he supports the all-party charter. But he will also be aware that senior News International executives are due to stand trial at the end of October over their involvement in phone hacking. These trials may revive interest in how the government has responded to evidence of wrongdoing by some newspaper groups."

Johnston Press boss ashley highfield ‏@ashleyhi on Twitter: "HenryFaureWalker off to be CEO #Newsquest great ringing endorsement of digital strategy and good for regional press industry."

News UK chief Mike Darcey, interviewed in InPublishing, on national newspapers that have free online sites: “If they have strong, free, online propositions, then I think they are contributing to a decline in their print sales and really it’s a function of the decisions they make and whether they tighten that up or whether they continue to eat themselves alive."

Sir Charles Gray and Alastair Brett on Leveson in the Guardian: "The two recommendations which really scare the press are the idea of a 'free' arbitral process for all media disputes and the new regulator having to hear complaints, not just from individuals but from any crackpot lobby group which believes an article is wrong or unfair."

Michael Gove on Walter Greenwood, who died this week, in The Journal, Newcastle: “Being taught journalism by Walter was like being taught football by Bill Shankly or playwriting by Alan Bennett - he was the master."

Grey Cardigan on The Spin Alley: "People are interested in 'cats up fucking trees'. They want to know why there was a fire engine at the end of their street, they want to know who owns the climbing cat, they want to know how it got up there in the first place and, as any reporter who has ever worked for me knows all too well, they want to know the name of the damn cat. And woe betide the trainee who returned to the office without that essential information."