Media Quotes of the Week: Anger over decision to close Independent print titles to the best journalist at never finding Lord Lucan all over the world

Independent-owner Evgeny Lebedev's in a letter to staff: "At a time when our journalism is read and respected by more people in more places than ever before, we are embracing an exclusively digital future with independent.co.uk and its associated sites. We faced a choice: manage the continued decline of print, or convert the digital foundation we’ve built into a sustainable, profitable future...I can now confirm we are selling The Independent’s sister paper, i, to Johnston Press, subject to Johnston Press shareholder approval. In addition, we will cease to print The Independent and Independent on Sunday. The Independent’s last edition is expected to be on Saturday 26th March and the last Independent on Sunday is expected be on Sunday 20th March."

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, in a statement: "To close these historic titles overnight after a deal clinched behind closed doors, without any consultation or attempts to engage with staff, demonstrates the contempt the company has for its workforce. For Evgeny Lebedev to laud closures that will see staff lose their livelihoods as an ‘historic transition’ is an added indignity. The fact that our national newspapers can be shut down overnight with no scrutiny and no ability for their future to be secured through other means, underlines the moral bankruptcy of newspaper ownership in the UK. That needs to be urgently addressed."

Ian Katz ‏@iankatz1000 on Twitter: "Independent co-founder Stephen Glover predicts FT and Guardian likely to follow Indy and abandon print edition in next few years #newsnight."

Raymond Snoddy ‏@RaymondSnoddy on Twitter: "Alas fear I now understand sale of the i to Johnston Press - end of the road for The Independent as a paper publication - online oblivion?"

Daniel Finkelstein in The Times [£] on the prosecution of the Sun's Fergus Shanahan:"It isn’t clear even now, a year after his acquittal, whether the things that Fergus stark-staringly obviously didn’t do were actually illegal even if he had done them. So how on earth did it end with him in the dock, as he put it, 'like Don Corleone', and me watching? The answer is the same in his and Lord Bramall’s case. It happened because the police and prosecuting authorities were protecting themselves against public criticism. Phone hacking is in the news, we’d better prosecute a journalist. VIP sex abuse is in the news, we’d better get a celebrity or two in the dock. It was 'justice' for the purposes of spin and defensive briefing."

Dominic Ponsford in Press Gazette, following the judgment of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to reject a compensation claim by a Sun journalist whose phone records were illegally seized by police: "So if a journalist illegally listens to the voicemails of a celebrity they can expect dawn raids, years on bail, an Old Bailey trial and a stretch in Belmarsh. If a cop illegally accesses a journalists' mobile phone data to identify their confidential sources, driving a coach and horses through Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the punishment is nothing."

Man United manager Louis van Gaal meets the press, as reported by the Mirror: "You are creating stories. You haven't spoken with Ed Woodward or the Glazers and you are inventing the story. Then I have to answer that question. I don't answer this question and I shall repeat myself every week. I have to say that you are getting the sack tomorrow. What is your name? Then I can announce the name also. Look at your wife - maybe you have children, or a nephew or something like that."

Lucy Kellaway in the Financial Times in an open letter to Henry Gomez, head of marketing and communications at Hewlett Packard Enterprise: "You say the FT management should think about 'unacceptable biases' and its relationship with its advertisers. My piece was not biased and I fear you misunderstand our business model. It is my editors’ steadfast refusal to consider the impact of stories on advertisers that makes us the decent newspaper we are. It is why I want to go on working here. It is why the FT goes on paying me."

Jeremy Lewis in the Observer on the paper's former editor David Astor: "He also preferred employing writers rather than professional journalists, whom he referred to as 'plumbers', a proclivity that eventually brought him into conflict with the National Union of Journalists."

Croydon Advertiser reports: "A JUDGE has granted Croydon Advertiser chief reporter Gareth Davies permission for a judicial review of the police watchdog's decision to uphold the harassment warning issued to him for questioning a convicted criminal. After considering submissions from Mr Davies, backed by Advertiser publisher Local World, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Mr Justice Picken, of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, ruled the claim is arguable."

The Guardian reports: "The former cabinet minister Jack Straw, who has been tasked with considering how to tighten up the Freedom of Information Act, led two of the Whitehall departments most likely to reject public requests for information. Straw’s ministries never ranked higher than 15 out of 21 government departments in terms of releasing information in full, according to a Guardian analysis."

The late Mirror journalist Garth Gibbs, quoted by Roy Greenslade in the Guardian: "I regard not finding Lord Lucan as my most spectacular success in journalism. Of course, many of my colleagues have also been fairly successful in not finding Lord Lucan. But I have successfully not found him in more exotic spots than anybody else.”

When Garth died in 2011 an obit it Press Gazette included the same quote, which continued: "I spent three glorious weeks not finding him in Cape Town, magical days and nights not finding him in the Black Mountains of Wales, and wonderful and successful short breaks not finding him in Macau either, or in Hong Kong or even in Green Turtle Cay in the Bahamas where you can find anyone."

[£]=paywall

Media Quotes of the Week: From it's all over for hacking prosecutions to is battle to save FoI won?

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, in a statement: "The CPS has looked in great detail at the comprehensive files submitted to us by the police, both in relation to corporate liability at News Group Newspapers and against 10 individuals at Mirror Group Newspapers for alleged phone hacking. After a thorough analysis, we have decided there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction and therefore no further action will be taken in any of these cases. There has been considerable public concern about phone hacking and invasion of privacy. Over the past three years, we have brought 12 prosecutions and secured nine convictions for these serious offences. These decisions bring the CPS's involvement in current investigations into phone hacking to a close."

Roy Greenslade on his MediaGuardian blog on the DPP's decision: "Less surprising, however, will be the abandonment of Leveson 2, because that’s a political, as distinct from legal, decision. And we surely know that David Cameron’s government is not going to want to get on the wrong side of Rupert Murdoch all over again. All in all, the hacking saga is ending with a whimper rather than a bang. Then again, I guess it was always going to be the case."

The Times [£] in a leader: "It is right that the CPS has at last drawn a line under these investigations. They have been far from successful, securing nine convictions from 12 prosecutions under Operation Weeting, the investigation into hacking, but a mere two against journalists from 30 arrests under operations related to payments to police and public officials. Many have spent years in legal limbo after being arrested but not charged. The legal basis for further investigations, and the public appetite for them, has long since worn thin."

The Telegraph in a leader: "The Left saw an opportunity to settle old scores with newspapers they believed had long agitated against them. There was an element of snobbery in this: distaste for those who made their living reporting on celebrity and show business, but also a hope that isolated examples of wrongdoing could be used to make a case for control of an entire industry."

Piers Morgan ‏@piersmorgan on Twitter: "As I’ve said since the investigation began four years ago, I’ve never hacked a phone and nor have I ever told anybody to hack a phone."

Kelvin MacKenzie in the Sun: "Time after time juries came back with not guilty verdicts against Sun journalists accused of paying public figures.  Finally, the Lord Chief Justice ran up the white flag, saying they were only doing their jobs and weren’t guilty of anything. But if it hadn’t been for the deep pockets of News Corp, for the brilliance of the defence QCs and the sheer will of Rupert Murdoch, there could have been a very different outcome.  So I ask you never to forget this Labour conspiracy. This time it was Sun journalists, next time it could be YOU."

Jane Martinson in the Guardian: "Journalists, like everyone else, can still lie and cheat and do bad things. But after the phone-hacking scandal they will not be able to do so with impunity. News UK may return to throwing an enormous summer party next year, and the guest list is likely to include ministers, executives and chief constables. It will seem as though the British press has gone full circle; it is up to all of us to prove it has not."

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal in a ruling on RIPA being used to identify Sun journalists' sources: "The Metropolitan Police cannot be criticised for its decision to use the power granted under s 22 of RIPA in aid of the investigation into a serious criminal offence affecting public confidence in the police. The discovery of serious misconduct by a number of police officers in the DPG shows that it was entirely right to pursue the Operation Alice investigation very thoroughly. We have held that the use of the s 22 power in this investigation was indeed both necessary and proportionate in respect of three out of the four authorisations challenged, but are compelled to hold that the legal regime in place at the relevant time did not adequately safeguard the important public interest in the right of a journalist to protect the identity of his source."

Shaker Aamer and David Rose

David Rose in the Mail on Sunday on Shaker Aamer: "It is fitting that his interviews are appearing in this newspaper, for it was The Mail on Sunday that first drew the world’s attention to what was really going on at Guantanamo. Back in January 2002 – three weeks before Aamer arrived there – we published the first notorious photographs of detainees at the Camp X-ray, kneeling blindfolded and shackled in the dust, beneath a one-word headline: TORTURED. Since then, we have returned to Guantanamo time and again."

Owen Jones in the Guardian: "Such is the unrelenting nature of the media attack,  any balanced discussion on the Corbyn leadership risks being shut down. That the media can be so dominated by one opinion – and so aggressive about it – is a damning indictment of the so-called free press."

Jeremy Corbyn, in a speech to Lobby journalists: "I'm a member of the NUJ because I believe in freedom of speech, believe we should support journalists around the world and  believe it's our duty to ensure political debate is fair, open and just and not rely solely on personal attacks."

The Mail on Sunday:"The publisher of the Guardian newspaper is drawing up plans to axe jobs and slash spending as it heads for another annual loss of about £40million...The losses expected in the year to the end of March next year are due to heavy investment in digital media operations and a sharp fall in advertising income which has affected the title, said sources close to the company."

The Sun: "MINISTERS are getting cold feet over a controversial attempt to limit Freedom of Information requests after a bitter public backlash. A review into the transparency policy was launched in July in a bid to shield sensitive government conversations.  But the move has been met by a tidal wave of protest and senior ministers say they are 'decidedly unenthusiastic' about making changes. The Sun has discovered the Government has not submitted any evidence for the need for change to an independent commission doing a review."

[£]=paywall

Media Quotes of the Week: From save the Freedom of Information Act to Met Police press office handed over journalists' phone details

The Independent on government plans to review the Freedom of Information Act: "In the past 10 years, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FoI), the British public has become aware of many important facts of which we would otherwise have remained ignorant. We have learnt about cracks in the nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point B. We have learnt about police using Tasers against children, hospitals incinerating aborted foetuses, and aides to Michael Gove taking part in a ‘toxic’ email campaign. We have learnt about the killing of Afghan civilians by British troops, and about the bullying with which Sir Cyril Smith discouraged police from investigating his sexual abuse of children. Without FoI, we would never have known about the Prince of Wales’s lobbying of ministers, or about the scandal of MPs’ expenses."

Campaign for Freedom of Information director Maurice Frankel, in the Independent: "A new commission, set up by the Government to examine the case for restrictions to the Freedom of Information Act, indicates that the right to know is under major attack. The brief is to examine if sensitive information is properly protected, the Government’s 'safe space' to discuss policy is safeguarded and steps should be taken to reduce the Act’s 'burden' on public authorities. The case for strengthening the Act is not on the agenda."

The Times [£] in a leader: "Freedom of information is under attack. The truth is that there is no good time to weaken the FOI act and there is no good reason to. In the ten years of its existence it has become an essential bulwark of both government transparency and accountability."

David Higgerson on his blog on Government plans to review the Freedom of Information Act: "Politicians time and again carp on about wanting to be open and honest. Very few turn those words into actions. The only difference between this attack by the Tories and others before is that is so blatant. Make no mistake, this isn’t a tweak or a change, it’s an all out assault on the public’s right to know – and journalists everywhere need to fight back."

John Fallon, Pearson’s chief executive, announcing the sale of the FT Group to Japanese media company Nikkei Inc. for a gross consideration of £844 million in cash: “Pearson has been a proud proprietor of the FT for nearly 60 years. But we’ve reached an inflection point in media, driven by the explosive growth of mobile and social. In this new environment, the best way to ensure the FT’s journalistic and commercial success is for it to be part of a global, digital news company."

Steve Bird, FT NUJ chapel FoC: "The FT chapel will do whatever it takes to protect jobs, employee rights and independent, quality journalism. We were all very concerned at the speed at which the deal seems to have been made. The chapel is now considering putting together a charter setting out our principles on editorial independence and working practices."

BBC director general Tony Hall in The Times [£]: "Some blame the BBC for the challenges that other media face in adapting to the internet age — but that is a challenge faced by media around the world, including places that do not have a BBC or anything like it. But I do want to look at how the BBC can help. We are already working more closely with local newspapers to link to stories and are exploring what more we can do by sharing content or paying them for reporting."

Peter Preston in The Observer on the Sun: "There remains an instinctive twitch of the forelock, even when Rupert Murdoch mounts the charge (as he’s done, occasionally, over the years). Yet sometimes the occasional sight of the old Dirty Digger, lobbing mini-missiles on to today’s Palace lawn, is both useful and salutary. It isn’t a secret that the wreck we used to call the Duke of Windsor was a profound national embarrassment. It isn’t a secret that conflicting views of the Nazis split polite society, that Churchill was no universal hero in the 30s – nor that the Windsors were a family divided. But tabloid treatment, putting the boot in hard, at least blows evasions away."

The Sun in a leader: "These images have lain hidden for 82 years. We publish them today, knowing they do not reflect badly on our Queen, her late sister or mother in any way. They do, however, provide a fascinating insight into the warped prejudices of Edward VIII and his friends in that bleak, paranoid, tumultuous decade. The rest of the Royal archive from that period, of similarly immense interest to historians and the public, is still hidden. It should be released."

Jim Chisholm in the Guardian: "To the modern media consumer, news relates to real-time traffic problems, restaurant reviews for that weekend, and available sex within walking distance."

The Times [£]: "Police forces have seized data from the phones of journalists or their sources twice in the past three months in blatant breaches of new rules on snooping...Officers used the heavily criticised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to acquire call and text logs without seeking judicial approval as specified in a new code of conduct outlined to parliament in March. One case was a leak inquiry to find a reporter’s police source."

NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet in a statement: "Legislative changes on surveillance must include an independent and judicial process; journalists must receive an automatic and mandatory prior notification of requests to access their sources, materials and communications; and mechanisms need to be put in place so journalists and media organisations can challenge an application to access their sources with a robust right of appeal. There is no difference between the authorities asking for a journalists’ physical contacts book or footage and their telephone and communications records. The effect is exactly the same and the same legal safeguards must cover both."

Press Gazette reports: "The Investigatory Powers Tribunal heard that the Met Police press office provided the mobile telephone numbers of Sun journalists who had called in to check stories and ask for comments to investigating officers. Their phone records and telephone location data were then secretly accessed by police in order to identify confidential sources."

Kay Burley ‏@KayBurley on Twitter: "@metpoliceuk press office - shame on you".
£=paywall