Thanks James, appreciate that

Not for a bit, I'd imagine

It's a 1300 word news interview in which I did my best to describe her biography and world view.

Within the article, there is a significant focus on immigration and its attendant issues such as the ECHR, because yes I do think that is important.

It's a 1300 word, one hour interview in which I did my best to describe her biography and world view. Yes we discussed Brexit, but there simply wasn't room to go into a lot of detail on every angle. I think people learned something from it.

And the immigration stuff was just one smallish chunk of a wide ranging discussion, though it has obviously blown up massively since.

I'd have liked to go into more detail, both with her and in the piece. There was more material on culture, but I didn't have space for it.

Easy to call people negligent, but as you note the article shared her position with the world, plenty have pushed her for further detail since.

Go on I'll bite. Why was I negligent?

More detail would no doubt have been helpful. But honestly I thought running her quotes at length, in which she sets out her reasoning for the policy, was the priority in the space I had. And I think the debate that followed has vindicated this.

You were replying to my post. In the third person. It's unusual.

Hi Jonathan, I had read about the Tory policy in preparation for the interview, which is why I asked her about it. I didn't have space or time to explore it in great detail, because I had much ground to cover. Others have run with it, which is good

Your patronising and snarky tone seems unnecessary

Hi Jonathan, you can talk at me rather than in the third person! I haven't misrepresented her policies. Nor have I "sanewashed" them, whatever that means. Just presented them to the world concisely, as it was a shortish profile interview that covered lots of ground, not a detailed policy debate.

The standfirst is a bit frothy. But other than that I'm not sure what you mean by "the blithe way it has been promoted". We described Katie as a hardliner in the headline, which she is.

There has been a torrent of discussion about the interview, which again feels like a good thing.

I framed her view as a sombre and radical position, because it is, but I'm not sure it's my place as an interviewer to insert masses of my own opinion. People can - and have - made their own minds up.

Hi Ben, I certainly take responsibility ahead of my editors.

I asked Katie about something that is official Tory party policy. She expressed a view in support of that. Lots of people found that view abhorrent. I think the interview served its purpose, because now people know what Tory policy is.

Thanks D

Well, I'm biased because she's my friend. But this week I went back to reread her piece after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, it's excellent.

www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/o...

I've been commissioned and edited by her a few times. I would say that she's actually a pretty good commissioning editor.