Content deleted Content added
→External links: remove category (in subcat) |
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) Rescued 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 |
||
Line 28:
== Critical acclaim ==
In its most recent incarnation, the programme received a warm reception from critics, including ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s [[Gillian Reynolds]], who wrote, "Three cheers for whoever thought of rescuing ''What the Papers Say''. The old essay format, where the presenter writes a script linking illustrative extracts from the week's press, still bursts with life. All the presenters so far have kept it sharp and spiky, the extract readers are full of gusto, production and editing are first-rate. It's an espresso in a Horlicks world".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturecritics/gillianreynolds/7608201/Sorry-Nick-Clegg-you-dont-seem-so-charming-on-radio-review.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100423065001/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturecritics/gillianreynolds/7608201/Sorry-Nick-Clegg-you-dont-seem-so-charming-on-radio-review.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=23 April 2010 |title=Sorry Nick Clegg, you don't seem so charming on radio, review |work=The Telegraph|date=20 April 2010 |___location=London |first=Gillian |last=Reynolds}}</ref>
David Brockman wrote: "What is universally accepted is that Granada's What The Papers Say Awards, decided annually and first established in 1957, are among the most prestigious in the entire world of journalism".<ref>David Brockman, [http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/behindthescreens/what_the_papers.php What The Papers Say: 50 years]</ref>
| |||