Kensington Palace in a statement on behalf of Prince Harry: "The past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public - the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public - the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life. Prince Harry is worried about Ms Markle's safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her."
Jane Moore in the Sun: "MEGHAN MARKLE is an uber glamorous and talented actor who stars in one of the biggest shows on US TV and has 1.2million followers on Instagram. It’s fair to say that she’s probably used to press and public attention. Indeed, you could argue that it’s essential to her job.After all, an actor without an audience is merely rehearsing and, equally, without its legion of loyal viewers, her smash-hit series Suits would have been cancelled five seasons ago. o when she and the media-savvy Prince Harry decided to start a relationship, one can only assume that they had an inkling of what to expect once it became public. Which is why his unprecedented statement that condemns the 'wave of abuse and harassment aimed at Ms Markle seems ill-advised, particularly as it’s being interpreted by some as an attack on the British press that, for the most part, treats him well."
The Guardian in a leader: "It is the misfortune of Prince Harry and Ms Markle that news of their relationship has broken just as the tabloids are relishing their renewed sense of impunity."
The Times [£] in a leader: "The prince is entitled to fight for his privacy and to seek to defend his girlfriend from coverage he regards as nasty and intrusive. In this country the public is likely to sympathise with his predicament, while being simultaneously keen to devour as much coverage as possible."
David Yelland @davidyelland on Twitter: "I've just seen tomorrow's front pages. Blimey. The angriest splashes in entire Brexit era. They ain't happy..."
Gary Lineker @GaryLineker on Twitter: "The front page attacks on the 3 judges for basically just doing their job is scary. This is fast becoming a dystopian land."
Michael Gove@michaelgove on Twitter: "A raucous, vigorous, press is just as much a guarantor of freedom as our independent judiciary - we are the land of Wilkes and Edward Coke."
Anna Soubry MP@Anna_Soubry on Twitter: "Lies verging on racism & bully boy tactics shame Britain's journalists & media #Leavers #Remainers unite to condemn."
Paul Mason in the Guardian: "In Britain, since the high-court decision, and with the tabloids ramping up their attack on the judiciary, people have been asking: what do Jonathan Harmsworth, owner of the Daily Mail, and Rupert Murdoch want? What would make them stop? The answer is: they want Britain ruled by a xenophobic mob, controlled by them. The policies are secondary – as long as their legal offshore tax-dodging facilities are maintained. They also want a Labour party they can control and a Tory party they can intimidate."
The Observer in a leader: "Castigating the judges and by extension, anybody who has the effrontery to agree with them, is exactly what the hard Tory Brexiters and their accomplices in the lie factories of Fleet Street have resorted to with a venom, vindictiveness and vituperation remarkable even by their standards. The will of the people has been thwarted by an 'activist' judiciary. These bewigged, closet Remainers, members of the fabled 'well-heeled liberal metropolitan elite', are 'enemies of the people', they shriek. Some of these sleaze-peddlers even dipped into homophobia, highlighting the sexual orientation of one of the judges. Inexcusable."
The Times [£] in a leader: "It is intellectually incoherent to uphold parliamentary sovereignty by leaving the EU, and then to seek to deny it. Those who question the judgment in such intemperate terms might calm down and read it."
The Telegraph in a leader: "In a free society and a healthy democracy, robust differences should be aired. Judges are surely able to withstand personal criticism without whingeing about their independence being under threat. It isn’t; and no one, least of all this newspaper, is suggesting that it should be."
Theresa May speaking to reporters, as quoted by The Independent: "I believe in and value the independence of our judiciary. I also value the freedom of our press. I think these both underpin our democracy and they are important."
Alex Bannister managing editor of the Daily Mail in a letter to the Guardian: "Your editorial (9 November) accepted without question the claims made in the statement by Prince Harry’s communications secretary, then used them as a vehicle to attack the tabloids, including the Mail, which, of course, is a middle-market paper with more than three times as many ABC1 readers as the Guardian...This was disingenuous to say the least: the statement was clearly addressed to the media in general, and in particular social media. No section of the British press was singled out for criticism. May I humbly suggest that if the Guardian spent as much time examining its own deficiencies as it does obsessing about the Mail, it would be a much more readable paper. Why, it might even make a profit."
Michael Wolff on the Hollywood Reporter: "The media turned itself into the opposition and, accordingly, was voted down as the new political reality emerged: Ads don’t work, polls don’t work, celebrities don’t work, media endorsements don’t work, ground games don’t work. Not only did the media get almost everything about this presidential election wrong, but the media became the central issue, or the stand-in for all those issues, that the great new American Trump Party voted against... And it was a failure of modern journalist technique too. It was the day the data died. All of the money poured by a financially challenged media industry into polls and polling analysis was for naught. It profoundly misinformed. It created a compelling and powerful narrative that was the opposite of what was actually happening."
Margaret Sullivan in the Washington Post: "One thing is certain in the presumptive era of President Trump. Journalists are going to have to be better — stronger, more courageous, stiffer-spined — than they’ve ever been. Donald Trump made hatred of the media the centerpiece of his campaign. Journalists were just cogs in a corporate machine, part of the rigged system. If many Americans distrusted us in the past, now they came to actively hate us."
Piers Morgan on MailOnline: " ‘The new President-elect of the United States of America is Donald J. Trump.’ Those, I can say with some certainty, were the words that only Donald himself and me ever thought he might eventually be saying when he first announced he was running last year to global mockery and scorn."
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan on Twitter: "I might have to run for British Prime Minister now so we can properly restore the Special Relationship. #PresidentTrump"
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 on Twitter: "After Trump, there needs to be a serious discussion about whether journalists should use opinion polls when we have no idea if they are false."
Archant content chief content officer Matt Kelly, quoted by Press Gazette: “What I am proposing for Archant is not a digital-first strategy. Nor is it a mobile first or a social first or whatever the next buzzword-strategy-du-jour may be. Our strategy to be more relevant than ever before is not dependent on platform. Our strategy begins and ends with our audience. That’s why we describe our approach, quite simply, as audience-first.”
Andy Smith, NUJ national executive member, in a statement: “We are extremely concerned by the news of the proposed job losses at Archant. The union has yet to meet Archant management formally to discuss the proposals, but the there is little in the reported statements from Jeff Henry, chief executive, or Matt Kelly, chief content officer,to indicate how moving to an ‘audience first’ approach can justify the loss of at least 17 jobs."