Thursday, 16 August 2018

Media Quotes of the Week: From Boston Globe leads press fightback against Trump to tea for reporters but no sympathy for Boris Johnson

Brian Stelter on CNNMedia: "The Boston Globe has been contacting newspaper editorial boards and proposing a "coordinated response" to President Trump's escalating "enemy of the people" rhetoric. 'We propose to publish an editorial on August 16 on the dangers of the administration's assault on the press and ask others to commit to publishing their own editorials on the same date,' The Globe said in its pitch to fellow papers."
  • More than 300 newspapers backing the Globe's initiative include the New York Times, The Houston Chronicle and The Miami Herald, as well as smaller publications like The Oakridger,  The Griggs County Courier and Steele County Press.
The Guardian in a leader: "A free press must call out intimidation and incitement when it exists. And it must do what it can to preserve respect for the facts and for balanced judgment. In short, it must do its job. Mr Trump’s insults and incitements are a calculated danger to that, and to the respect, civility and dialogue that should exist between the press and its readers. The Guardian stands with the US press in its efforts to maintain the objectivity and the moral boundaries that this president – like so many others in much more dangerous parts of the world – is doing so much to destroy."

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein interviewed in the Guardian on Trump's attacks on the press: “We began to see a campaign against the media … that could have potentially, and still can, set in motion a chain of events which could quite easily lead to harm being inflicted on journalists just going about their work and potentially some self-censorship. And in that context, it’s getting very close to incitement to violence.”

BBC's director-general Tony Hall, as reported by BBC News, on the Cliff Richard privacy judgment: "The BBC has decided not to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal against that judgment - even though we are advised and believe that the judge erred in law in finding that broadcasters and journalists, when reporting on matters in the public interest, normally have no right to publish the name of a person who is the subject of a criminal investigation. That issue is a matter of very considerable general importance, as the prime minister herself recognised on the day of the judgment."

Dan Sabbagh in the Observer: "Geordie Greig has told staff not to expect an immediate change in political coverage when he takes the reins from Paul Dacre, who spent 26 years in charge, for fear of alienating readers and because the wider political situation is so uncertain. Instead the focus will be on ensuring that the country achieves the least damaging form of Brexit and developing a more nuanced editorial line by next spring, a shift in emphasis that will be welcomed in Downing Street, where Theresa May is battling to control a revolt from the right of her party."

Alan Rusbridger on Geordie Greig in the Observer: "The 57-year-old Greig – who is taklng a number of like-minded lieutenants with him – will need formidable dexterity to turn around the tanker of thunderous Mail opinion in the space of weeks without confusing or alienating his readers. But it is not hard to imagine him adopting a Keynesian pragmatism, with his new newspaper telling readers: 'When facts change I change my mind.' If so, the rotating of the editorial guard at the Mail could prove to be a hugely significant moment in British political life."

Sam Coates in The Times [£]: "When I started in political journalism 13 years ago I decided not to vote in elections, telling myself this was a principled choice based on my job as a political correspondent. This decision has got easier every year."

Gavin Esler in The New European: "Hold journalists to account, sure. But most journalists – even ones you dislike – seek to debunk disinformation and expose lies. Instead of bashing decent journalists for the contortions demanded by the impossible ‘balancing’ act some are supposed to perform, let us encourage a re-think. In the post-Trump post-Brexit world, how can we re-build trust unless we can point out lies when they occur? Broadcasters, especially, need to reflect a wide range of opinions. But confronting expert opinion and elected representatives on television with articulate know-nothing non-experts of dubious provenance financed by who-knows-what, is not ‘balance’. It is a disservice to our people, our country, and to facts, accuracy and fairness."

NUJ organiser Chris Morley in a statement on new job cuts announced by Newsquest: "These new redundancies at Bradford now also risk an unhealthy workplace with staff being worked into the ground. This is inexcusable when the parent company is enjoying a multi million pound windfall from the currency changes. It seems to me that either US bosses are demanding too much from their British workers or the UK managers are failing to stand up for their staff. Either way this is a shoddy deal for Newsquest employees and the communities they are trying to provide a professional news service for."

News Media Association in a statement after Thurrock Council said it would no longer answer questions from the Thurrock Independent newspaper: “This attempt to silence the local paper by refusing to answer any questions constitutes a direct attack on the fundamental principles of press freedom and the public right to know. Local newspapers perform a vital role scrutinising authority on behalf of the public and holding power to account. Any attempt to frustrate or thwart this function is an attack on democracy and must be resisted.”

NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet on morningstaronline on local newspapers: "We are now in a situation when some sort of state funding is required to help fix the industry’s broken business model and support public-interest journalism so that courts are covered, planning decisions are questioned, health trusts are scrutinised and journalism can flourish in the communities it serves. Such funding must not be used to prop up the three major publishers which over the decades have bled their titles dry to pay out excessive profits to executives and shareholders and have not invested in journalism. Instead it should be used to rescue titles that are under threat from closure, perhaps helping a local co-operative to take over the title, and to aid start-ups for collaborative ventures and projects producing innovative and investigative reporting."

Paul Caruana Galizia, the son of murdered Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, in The Times [£]: “Journalists are aware they may be killed in Malta and are not being offered protection, while the government is aggressively going after whistleblowers and anti-corruption activists.”

Lou Thomas @London_Lou on Twitter: "Journalists who accepted cups of tea and just laughed when Johnson* refused to comment: you are a disgrace to our profession and part of the reason reporters are barely as trusted as estate agents. You should be ashamed."

*Johnson, not Boris. He’s the subject of a story, not your friend. 


Thursday, 9 August 2018

Media Quotes of the Week: From I'm Mainstream Media and proud says Robert Peston to banning boozy lunches took the fun out of Fleet Street

Robert Peston @Peston on Twitter: "Pls give up trying to shame me by calling me MSM. It is pointless. I’ve worked for amazing MSM news organisations for decades. & some of you who use MSM as term of abuse wouldn’t recognize objective impartial journalism if it rolled over you in a monster truck. I am #MSMandProud"

Owen Joneson Twitter: "Periodic reminder that the British media, with some excellent exceptions, is absolute trash, which disproportionately attracts talentless people who use their ill-gotten platforms to bait Muslims, refugees, immigrants, benefit claimants, trans people and other minorities."

Will Bunch on "The growing insanity of Trump’s rallies poses a threat to the free press, which is essential for making democracy happen. Showing some editorial restraint — and not airing unedited and unfiltered falsehoods and hate speech — would hardly make the media an enemy of the American people. In fact, that would be an act of tremendous love — for the truth."

Bret Stephens in the New York Times about receiving a death threat phone call: "Donald Trump’s more sophisticated defenders have long since mastered the art of pretending that the only thing that matters with his presidency is what it does, not what he says. But not all of the president’s defenders are quite as sophisticated. Some of them didn’t get the memo about taking Trump seriously but not literally. A few hear the phrase “enemy of the people” and are prepared to take the words to their logical conclusion. Is my caller one of them? I can’t say. But what should be clear is this: We are approaching a day when blood on the newsroom floor will be blood on the president’s hands."

Donald Trump at his rally in Pennsylvania, as reported by Huff Post, pointing at journalists: “These horrible, horrendous people back there.. [news media] can make anything bad, because they are the fake, fake disgusting news...What ever happened to the free press? What ever happened to honest reporting? They don’t report it. They only make up stories.”
  • Donald Trump @realDonaldTrump on Twitter: "The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!"

Pete Vernon in the Columbia Journalism Review: "Given Trump’s consistent media-bashing, it’s not surprising that members of his administration would refrain from criticizing those who take the same line as the president. But as Trump and his allies in the media demonstrate their ability to foment public vitriol toward the press, perhaps it’s worth considering the reaction if the target were not a professional class like journalists, but rather a racial minority, or a group of immigrants. The mob behavior on display at these rallies is, at times, downright frightening."

Photographer Ricardo Vilanova on returning to Syria to face two of the captured "ISIS Beatles" who held him and other journalists hostage, as reported by Quentin Sommerville for BBC News: "The first thing I thought when I saw them was Gaddafi, or Saddam… Who were not able to face death .. they were exactly the same, they were able to torture and murder but when the moment arrived they handed themselves in order to survive. I think that´s despicable. I hope they spend the rest of their life in prison because dying is easy but spending the rest of your life in prison, especially in the same conditions they kept us hostage"

Mr Justice Mann quoted in The Times [£] on his Cliff Richard vs BBC privacy judgment: “It has been suggested that my judgment is remarkable in imposing a new blanket restraint on the reporting of the subject of a criminal investigations. That is an erroneous reading of my judgment. My judgment acknowledges that the reasonable expectation of privacy in the face of an investigation is a presumption or starting point that can give way to countervailing factors; the safety of the public is one example. The desirability of flushing out potential witnesses or more potential complainants is another, as the judgment itself acknowledges.”

Old Bell:Fleet Street
Colin Dunne in Press Gazette bemoaning the end of the pub lunch culture in Fleet Street: "It shouldn’t have worked, but it did. In between swifties and quickies and long lunches and early evenings, out of all this emerged some marvelous copy. The tabloids were full of fun and merriment and the readers loved them. Now they are full of spite and anger. That’s what egg-and-cress sandwiches do to a man."


Thursday, 2 August 2018

Media Quotes of the Week: From Sun gagged from naming flasher by Cliff privacy ruling to when journalists were working class troublemakers

The Sun reports"A TOP union official suspended over claims of flashing has used the Sir Cliff Richard privacy ruling to keep it secret. A whistleblower saw vile internet blog pictures of the person allegedly performing solo sex acts at work and on public transport. An internal investigation was launched but when The Sun made inquiries, the official hired expensive celebrity lawyers Carter Ruck in a bid to avoid being named. They argued that, as a judge last week ruled the BBC invaded Sir Cliff’s privacy by reporting a police raid at his home, the internal investigation was also private."

Society of Editors executive director Ian Murray  on the Cliff Richard privacy ruling: “Sir Justice Mann said that for anyone that was under an investigation it is now not legal under privacy laws to say that that individual is under investigation. You cannot name them. This has already had a deadening effect on the free press in England and Wales. I have spoken with editors and news editors who have said that they are not quite sure what to do now. It is not just naming someone but treading carefully about what the police are doing and whether the police are investigating somebody. If the police are raiding someone’s home for instance and it is reported to us can we now report that this is taking place? Is there a risk that we will actually be infringing someone’s privacy rights? At the very least this law needs to be clarified.”

The Times [£] in a leader on the Cliff Richard privacy ruling: "The ruling requires that the BBC pay substantial damages, amounting to £210,000, including an amount for damage to Sir Cliff’s reputation. This award goes far beyond that in any previous privacy case and will have a chilling effect on the media because it enables claims to be brought in privacy that have been traditionally brought under libel law. The BBC must also pay Sir Cliff’s costs, so far totalling £850,000. The judgment will have a predictable and damaging outcome: it will protect the wealthy and famous from scrutiny, and not only them. It is an incursion into the ability of journalists to report on matters of public interest, and specifically the actions of the police. If the media does not scrutinise the workings of the legal and policing system, then who will?"

CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta on Twitter: "Just a sample of the sad scene we faced at the Trump rally in Tampa. I’m very worried that the hostility whipped up by Trump and some in conservative media will result in somebody getting hurt. We should not treat our fellow Americans this way. The press is not the enemy."

Pic: Getty Images
New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger on his meeting with Donald Trump, as reported by the Washington Post: “I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous. I told him that although the phrase ‘fake news’ is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists ‘the enemy of the people.’ I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.”

Fox News president Jay Wallace in a statement after CNN White House reporter Kaitlan Collins (above) was banned from a White House event for asking "inappropriate questions": "We stand in strong solidarity with CNN for the right to full access for our journalists as part of a free and unfettered press."

Jon Sopel in the Observer on covering Trump: "It is the reporting job of a lifetime. There’s no way I could have imagined this four years ago. On air, I’ve talked about grabbing pussy, shithole countries, and being spanked with a rolled-up magazine. I want to do it a while yet, but it is exhausting as well as exhilarating. It’s both my privilege and my curse."

The Economist @TheEconomist on Twitter: "In Asia, a region with 4.5bn people, only two countries, Taiwan and Japan, are considered to have a free press #OpenFuture."

Peter Sands in InPublishing on grammatical errors in copy: "What is really needed is a return to a culture where mistakes are not tolerated. I teach young journalists – national and regional, online and print. Almost all boast a degree or post-grad in journalism. After red-penning dozens of wrong possessive apostrophes, missing hyphens, misspellings, incorrect pronouns and mismatched verbs and nouns, I ask if anyone has gone through their copy in detail before. The answer is usually ‘no’. They have spent three years studying a degree in journalism and still write ‘a 27 year old engineer was electrocuted but suffered only minor injuries’, ‘its not known what the Cabinet are discussing’ and ‘Mo Salah who's 32 goal season broke the record’. It takes time and determination to learn the basic tools of their trade. And if the message from the top is that it doesn’t really matter, why should they make the effort? If the newsdesk allows misspellings in headlines and text on the website and if journalists get no feedback on basic errors, they will, understandably, believe grammar is a low priority."

Troublemakers: Lemmon and Matthau in The Front Page
Kyle Pope in the Columbia Journalism Review: "For students of journalism history, from The Front Page to the Daily Bugle, the dismal journalism jobs picture is familiar. For decades in America, reporters were working-class troublemakers, the kind of people who would walk into a room (or, more often, a bar) and prompt everyone else in the place to groan. Then, beginning in the late 1980s, journalism became professionalized. Reporters snagged book deals. They started appearing on TV. Their salaries climbed. That sense of being an outsider faded away. In fact, it was insider cred that a lot of these people most craved. Before long, journalism became cool...Now we’ve come full circle. Terrible pay for reporters, a shortage of jobs, even a social stigma in some circles have filtered the business to the point that most of the journalists I meet—and especially the young people trying to get into the field—are here because they desperately want to be here, and can’t imagine themselves anywhere else."


Thursday, 26 July 2018

Media Quotes of the Week: From Trump's Orwellian attack on the press to newspaper cuts website comments because of hate-filled abuse

Donald Trump to Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City, reported by “Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening. Just stick with us, don’t believe the crap you see from these people [pointing at reporters], the fake news.”

From Time magazine: "For some, the quote immediately recalled a line from Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984: 'The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command'.”

VFW [Veterans of Foreign Wars] @VFWHQ on Twitter: "Today, we were disappointed to hear some of our members boo the press during President Trump's remarks. We rely on the media to spread the VFW message, and @CNN, @NBCNews, @ABC, @FoxNews, @CBSNews, & others on site today, were our invited guests. We were happy to have them there."

Donald Trump @realDonaldTrump on Twitter: "The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media."
  • Amy Siskind @Amy_Siskind on Twitter: "This is the 4th time in the last 5 weeks that Trump has called the media the “enemy of the people,” including the week 5 were murdered at the Capital Gazette."

The Guardian Media Group announcing in its annual results that digital revenues have overtaken print for the first time: "Following growth in digital reader revenues and a good competitive performance in digital advertising, digital now accounts for over 50% of GMG’s revenues. Digital revenue growth in 2017-18 exceeded declines in print revenues."

Pete Vernon in the Columbia Journalism Review after it was revealed editorial staff of the New York Daily News is to be cut by half: "If the cuts at the Daily News occur as forecast, New York will wake tomorrow with fewer journalists holding powerful interests to account. As the bite of Trump’s [newsprint] tariffs sinks in, the same story will play out in cities and towns across the country. The causes of this diminishment are manifold, but the absence of reporters from state houses, courtrooms, and school board meetings leaves all of us less informed."

Labour Party deputy leader Tom Watson @tom_watson on Twitter: "A short thread from sources inside Daily Mail: 1/ Paul Dacre is looking to put a consortium together to buy Daily Telegraph and install himself as Editor. 2/ Dacre, so angry at his ousting by Rothermeres, is leaving early at beginning of September and unlikely to take up editor-in-chief position."

Roy Greenslade in the Guardian on the Cliff Richard privacy ruling:"Note also the size of the award made to Richard. It is far greater than the previous highest award in a privacy action – the £60,000 granted to Max Mosley in 2008 when the now-defunct News of the World splashed his sexual antics over its front page and ran intimate video footage on its website. Indeed, it is greater than most awards for defamation, implying that privacy has replaced libel as the go-to legal tool to frustrate legitimate media inquiries. Should this judgment be allowed to stand, the likely effect is a chilling of press freedom."

The Financial Times in a leader: "The Financial Times and other media organisations often face pressure from lawyers acting on behalf of wealthy and powerful individuals to stop them being identified in stories about alleged wrongdoing. Privacy law will increasingly be added to libel in the arsenal of legal weapons to cloak misconduct in which the public has a legitimate interest. This ruling is likely to increase the barrage."

Alan Rusbridger in The Observer: "Many journalists will shake their heads at the implications. Does this mean that, in future, it’s OK to report on historical sexual abuse cases – but only if you don’t name the suspect before charging? Does this apply to globalised social media as well? Will readers of British newspapers be kept in the dark about allegations freely discussed online and around the rest of the world? That feels like the wisdom of Canute. But it is also true that, for a generation or more, too many British journalists operated as though privacy was an un-British concept that had to be resisted at all costs."

Jane Martinson in the Guardian"The 200-plus-page ruling by Mr Justice Mann makes for excruciating reading. No one who has worked in a newsroom will find the examples of swaggering bravado (the reporter talking of putting the police “over a barrel”) or humour (“did he sing Jailhouse Rock?”) surprising. But it gives the impression of a macho culture, where making sure rival news channel ITV did not get wind of the investigation first was key."

Allan McCulloch in a letter to The Times [£]: "Sir, Your editorial “Privacy on trial” (July 19) suggests that the judgment in the Cliff Richard case should not “herald a move towards anonymity and secrecy in the police”. I would suggest that the motivation of the BBC in reporting on the Cliff Richard house search was less to do with monitoring the police and more with “exposing” a celebrity. Perhaps the BBC, in targeting Sir Cliff, was attempting to make amends for its own lamentable failure to “expose” Stuart Hall and another of its employees, Jimmy Savile."

The Sunday Times [£] in a leader on a move to seek lifelong anonymity for a 14-year-old convicted on terrorism charges: "There are arguments on his side. Naming him could expose his family, who were unaware of his part in the plot, to reprisals. It could make the rehabilitation of the troubled teenager more difficult. It could even turn him into a cause célèbre and encourage copycats.
Against this, however, the public has a right to know. It had a right to know about Thomas Wyllie and Alex Bolland, the 15-year-olds named on Friday after being found guilty of plotting a Columbine-style massacre at their Yorkshire school at the age of 14. The judgment against the BBC in the Sir Cliff Richard privacy case will, if unchallenged, give all suspects the right to anonymity until charged. We suffer from too much secrecy, not too little. Anonymity should be used very sparingly."

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, speaking to author Tom Baldwin for his new book Ctrl Alt Delete: How Politics and the Media Crashed our Democracy, as quoted by The Observer: “I’ve tried to pull back and I’ve thought about coming off it all together. Partly, that’s because it’s uglier out there now; it’s like a playground where people want to shout each other down. I don’t read the comments people write about me – it’s not worth it.”

Bradford's Telegraph & Argus on why its switching off comments on its website: "We’re not against robust debate on issues of public interest – far from it. But sadly, an ever-more-vocal minority of our site’s visitors appear to be intent on abusing the ability to comment. They lurk beneath even the most innocuous of stories to grind out personal grudges, rail against the council or the T&A or – worse – pollute the comments section with hate-filled, racist, anti-Semitic or Islamophobic tirades."


Tuesday, 24 July 2018

Facing down Facebook: How the old media and investigative journalism humbled the new digital giants and held the Government to account

I've written an article for InPublishing about how investigative newspaper journalism is alive and well and has helped hold the new digital giants - and the Government - to account.  You can read it here.

Thursday, 19 July 2018

Media Quotes of the Week: From press anger at Cliff Richard privacy win over 'sensationalist' BBC to why some British newspapers like Trump

Mr Justice Mann in his judgment in the Cliff Richard vs BBC privacy case: "I have found that SYP [South Yorkshire Police] did not merely volunteer the material for its own purposes; it provided it because of a concern that if it did not do so there would be a prior publication by the BBC, a concern known to and probably fostered by the BBC’s reporter, Mr Dan Johnson. So far as the main claim in this case is concerned, I find that Sir Cliff had privacy rights in respect of the police investigation and that the BBC infringed those rights without a legal justification. It did so in a serious way and also in a somewhat sensationalist way. I have rejected the BBC’s case that it was justified in reporting as it did under its rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press."

Sun's Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn on Twitter: "Cliff Richard judgement is madness imho. V high profile celebrity - who has chased attention for 50 years - being investigated by police is always in the public interest. @BBCNews just doing its job."

Sunday Times' Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound on Twitter: "The Cliff Richard ruling is an atrocity for a free media. The police chose to put the issue in the public domain in this way. Will dramatically restrict the freedom to report and in sex cases could prevent other victims coming forward. Absurd."

The Times [£] in a leader: "The judge implied that, even if the tone of the BBC’s coverage had been more sober, the very act of publishing Sir Cliff’s name might have been a breach of his right to privacy that exposed the BBC to a claim for damages. If the courts began to adopt this approach more widely it would be a serious affront to public interest journalism. Identifying suspects in the media can be crucial to building a prosecution case as it can prompt other victims to come forward. The broadcaster Stuart Hall, for instance, might never have been brought to justice for multiple counts of sexual assault on underage girls unless he had been identified in the media, prompting ten women to come forward and give evidence. It is also fundamental to a democracy that the press is able to report on the activities of the police, endowed as they are with the coercive power of the state."

The Guardian in a leader: "As news organisations, it is our job to tell people what is going on. That is why journalists from the BBC to the Sun have mounted such an unusual display of unity in their horrified reaction to this ruling. The idea that the activities of the police could be placed off limits to reporters is anathema."

Society of Editors' s executive director Ian Murray in a statement: “The ruling to make it unlawful that anyone under investigation can be named is a major step and one that has worrying consequences for press freedom and the public’s right to know. While the judge, Mr Justice Mann, made it plain that the court felt the BBC’s coverage of the police raid on Sir Cliff’s home was sensational, and the BBC have admitted they have lessons to learn and have apologised to the star for the distress he has been through, to go as far as to make it unlawful that anyone under investigation can be named is extreme. Certainly, such a major change in the law should be debated in Parliament and not come into force following one case involving a high-profile celebrity."

BBC director of news and current affairs Fran Unsworth in a statement"On reflection there are things we would have done differently, however the judge has ruled that the very naming of Sir Cliff was unlawful...This impacts not just the BBC, but every media organisation.  This isn’t just about reporting on individuals. It means police investigations, and searches of people’s homes, could go unreported and unscrutinised. It will make it harder to scrutinise the conduct of the police and we fear it will undermine the wider principle of the public’s right to know. It will put decision-making in the hands of the police. We don’t believe this is compatible with liberty and press freedoms; something that has been at the heart of this country for generations. For all of these reasons, there is a significant principle at stake. That is why the BBC is looking at an appeal."

Ex-Sun editor David Yealland @davidyelland on Twitter: "Trump takes a wrecking ball to British Sovereignty and is cheered to the rafters by The Sun. Sad day. The man is a racist, sexist, cruel, awful, ignorant narcissist. I’m with the protestors."

Donald Trump asked about the Sun interview by BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg: “I didn’t criticise the prime minister. I have a lot of respect for the prime minister. Unfortunately, there was a story that was done which was generally fine but it didn’t put in what I said about the prime minister and I said tremendous things. Fortunately, we tend to record stories now so we have it for you if you'd like it. We record when we deal with reporters. It's called fake news.”

Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire on Twitter: "Hate The Sun if you like but outrageous of Trump to claim the reporting of what he said was “Fake News”. The paper reported his comments responsibly, as the recording proves."
Janine Gibson  @janinegibson on Twitter: "I’ve honestly not seen a press conference so fundamentally dishonest. He’s lied about an interview he did last night and a press conference he gave last year. Why should we believe anything at all? Turn the cameras off."

Trump, during his British press conference: "I don't take questions from CNN. Fake news. Let's go to John Roberts of Fox. A real network."

Pete Vernon in the Columbia Journalism Review: "Trump’s willingness to single out specific new organizations as “fake news,” and to refuse their questions on the world stage, demands action. This won’t be the last time the president attacks an outlet for the act of asking a question. By now, journalists should be prepared to respond."

David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch on Twitter: "Now it’s the British media’s turn to have no idea how to report Donald Trump. Every one of whose claims needs basic fact-checking before reporting. Otherwise we mislead the readers, listeners and viewers."

Piers Morgan in the Mail on Sunday on his exclusive interview with Trump: "As I’ve previously found to my cost, if you engage him too aggressively in one exchange over one issue, the plug can get pulled very swiftly. So my Trump interview strategy, honed over at least 35 interviews with him over the years, has been to ask as many questions about as many issues as possible to get a wide range of responses. I think that’s particularly important now he’s President, where his opinions are obviously so important. Trump-haters will always scream blue murder that an interviewer doesn’t spend every second of his allotted time clubbing him over the head with a large hammer. But I prefer to engage with Trump and listen to him in our interviews rather than berate and abuse him."

Kaius Niemi editor-in-chief of Finland's Helsingin Sanomat newspaper, which welcomed the summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with hundreds of billboards supporting the free press, as quoted by Press Gazette: “As we welcome the presidents to the summit in Finland, we want to remind them of the importance of free press. We want to show our support to those colleagues who have to fight in ever toughening circumstances on a daily basis both in the US and Russia. Our goal is to raise the topic of the freedom of the press around the world.”
  •  The billboards took headlines from Helsing Sanomat which included The headlines included “Trump calls media enemy of the people” and “Putin shuts down Russia’s largest news agency”. A large screen had the message: “Mr. President, welcome to the land of the free press”.

Roy Greenslade in the Guardian on how Trump has found favour in parts of the British press: "What counts in the UK is that Trump thumbs his nose at the EU, doesn’t see the point of Merkel and believes immigration to be the source of all troubles in advanced capitalist societies. The Donald is their new pin-up. He is a walking, talking tabloid leader writer. Short phrases. Pithy insults. A stranger to self-doubt. It’s not only about Brexit, of course. They see virtue in Trump’s belief that he, like them, affects to represent the common people through the application of pragmatic politics based on good, old-fashioned common sense."