Friday, 20 June 2014

Media Quotes of the Week: Paxman exits with bash at Twitter to backlash over partly secret terror trial

Jeremy Paxman interviewed by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News: "I don't want to be followed by anyone...Twitter is for people who have nothing going on between their ears, or in their lives."

Raymond Snoddy @RaymondSnoddy on Twitter: "Paxo's complete inability to understand power of twitter as world's breaking news source, as seen on C4 News reason enough for his departure."

Michael White on his Politics Blog on Jeremy Paxman: "Some viewers loved him, but others could spot the paradox that Paxman was part of the establishment he so robustly thumped at bedtime, an upmarket safety valve. As such the act does not satisfy Ukip voters, Greens or Scots Nationalists, let alone angry trolls on new-fangled, interactive social media, which did not exist in 1989. The younger generation of interviewers, an Eddie Mair, Evan Davis or Mishal Husain, are less inquisitorial or accusatory, more new media-savvy, prepared to be taken to task online themselves. At 64, the old war horse may be getting out in time."

Francis Wheen resigning from Index on Censorship over the appointment of Steve Coogan as a patron, as reported by the Daily Mail: "Coogan by his own admission, as far as I can see, has never been involved in any such defence of free expression or anything even remotely connected with freedom of speech or the Press except for being involved in Hacked Off, which most journalists regard as an enemy of the free Press."

The Sun @TheSunNewspaper on Twitter: "Our website is currently being hacked by the Syrian Electronic Army. To keep reading the real story about Syria, buy The Sun tomorrow..."

Labour Party spokesman, quoted by BBC News, on Ed Miliband's regrets over posing with the Sun's World Cup issue: "Ed Miliband was promoting England's bid to win the World Cup and is proud to do so. But he understands the anger that is felt towards the Sun over Hillsborough by many people in Merseyside and he is sorry to those who feel offended."

Sebastian Payne on the Spectator blog: "By posing with the paper and then apologising, Ed has created an unnecessary media storm. Aside from the sheer bizarreness of the picture, it’s another example of his difficult relationship with the press. For one thing, it’s now pretty certain that Labour can not expect a warm relationship with The Sun between now and next year’s election."

Matt Wells ‏@MatthewWells on Twitter: "Our Brazil v Mexico liveblogger @GreggBakowski is praying he doesn't have to type referee Cuneyt Cakir too quickly."

From the Washington Post: "One of the most historic journalism sites of the past half-century will soon vanish, following a decision by the Arlington County Board on Saturday to demolish the building and parking garage where FBI official Mark Felt [Deep Throat] secretly met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward during the Watergate investigation."

alan rusbridger ‏@arusbridger on Twitter: "Govt refuses to confirm of deny if GCHQ Tempora programme actually exists… but *if* it does, it is definitely legal."

Leader in The Times [£] on the terrorism trial which is partly to be held in secret: "The trial cannot be attended by the public, but can be attended by accredited journalists. It’s relatively easy to become an accredited journalist. That’s no secret. Attending the trial, these journalists will be allowed to make notes. They will not be allowed to take these notes home, however, because they will be secret, even from the people who have written them. Some journalists may of course have excellent memories, but they are advised not to ask themselves too many questions. Ultimately, the judge will decide which of these secrets they are allowed to share. This is not just sinister. It is also a ridiculous fudge. In allowing the publication of names and a media presence the Court of Appeal pays lip service to the notion of open justice. Yet the restrictions that remain are unprecedented. Somehow the government has convinced the Court of Appeal that they are required. As to how they convinced them, though, that’s the big secret."

Nick Cohen in The Observer: "I can see the need for 'accredited' correspondents being embedded with British forces. But embedded correspondents at the Old Bailey? Who is going to accredit them? MI5? What happens if the Guardian, say, sends one of its many reporters who have exposed the secret state? Can that same state decide that he or she is not the type of journalist it wants to hear secret evidence and demand a less awkward replacement? Editors ought to tell the judiciary and the government to go to hell. But it is hard for journalists to refuse to cover a story – covering stories is what we do, after all. What if most news organisations refuse to embed themselves in an English courtroom but one of them goes along, legitimises this charade and gets a better story? The state's offer looks preposterous, but, believe me, it feeds on editors' neuroses. No journalist wants to be last with the news."


No comments: